Is this the point, in the continuing political conversation here at the Financial Times, where we can safely declare Mr. Luce a feminist? It’s as burning a question as any that could be asked, or can we surmise as regular readers, that this is an example of the Luce Method? That method in most instances is a kind of political ventriloquism i.e. presenting various thoughts in his essay that add questionable value. But Mr. Luce surprises, he has taken the trouble to master a great deal of information, that deviates from that Luce Method, and is impressive. Should we take that information as a signal that he supports a legislative program that would lift the burdens of over half the American population? If so that is welcome news!
Mr. Luce ignores the major players that might impede Ms. Clinton’s political ambitions: the New Deal Democrat and very appealing Senator Warren, whose personal history has much more appeal, indeed resonance, with voters than Clinton’s. Allied to her confrontational style when questioning bankers in Senate hearings: a major political push on Ms. Clinton from the Progressive, Left Wing of the Party. And, on a personal level, Senator Warren’s Feminism appears as more organic and less confrontational than Ms. Clinton’s, because style matters! She has what Ms. Clinton utterly lacks, an abundance of personal charm, even a plain spoken charisma.
The possible Republican candidates that look like the usual No-Nothings and Neo-Cons, old and new. On that note, even the Economic Wunderkind Rep. Paul Ryan, as rising star of the Party, has seemed to become lost amongst the new faces of 2014. What ever became of those much ballyhooed Budget Proposals? And what about Ms. Clinton’s shopworn Neo-Liberalism: free markets for a free people or some such preposterous locution. Recall the Free Trade Agreement as indicative of a small portion of that wretched Neo-Liberalism?