Warren attributes her success to specific conditions available while she was growing up, but that are no longer available to working families in the U.S. -- for example, a minimum wage that was also a living wage.
What should Democrats take away from Warren's visit to Kentucky? And what does it tell Hillary Clinton? It demonstrates Bill's old-fashioned triangulation -- the means by which the Democratic Party moved itself toward the corporate right -- has passed its sell-by date, even in Bill's native South.
Elizabeth Warren and John McCain aren't often on the same side of a debate in Washington. But the freshman Democratic senator and the veteran Republican lawmaker do agree that banking should be simpler and safer.
According to the prevailing story, debt is caused by lavish and irresponsible spending by poor and middle-class families. But like much "conventional wisdom," an increasing amount of evidence belies this point.
If a ticket of two women offers economic revival and transformational change based on financial justice championed by Pope Francis, the most popular figure on the world stage, support from women would be stratospheric and many men would join them.
The level of U.S. political rancor has reached an intensity not seen since the '60s with its battles over civil rights and the Vietnam War. On the one hand, we have Republicans advocating a new Iraq war and more tax breaks for the rich. On the other hand, we have Democrats saying no to war and standing up for working families.
The labor movement will need to transform itself to meet the changing circumstances the twenty-first century. Its future will depend on the imagination and accessibility of its current leaders, as well as its ability to develop the leaders of the future.
Iraq is self-destructing. This led the Wall Street Journal to call for a few airstrikes and some American paratroopers to fix the problem, because we all know how well that turned out the last time, right?
Many Democratic women believe Clinton deserves the 2016 nomination because she was a graceful loser in 2008 and a good soldier thereafter. Nonetheless, having Clinton and Warren debate Democratic principles would be good for the party. However, the most serious problem with a Clinton-Warren battle is not gender or ideology. It's money. Many Democrats believe that having Clinton as their presidential candidate would ensure that Dems would receive millions in Wall Street donations, and enough campaign funds in general, to triumph over any likely Republican candidate.
Elizabeth Warren, not Clinton, has taken on Wall Street, picked fights with prominent Republicans, and eloquently voiced the concerns of American around the country.
The GI Bill and Pell Grants were among the best investments our country ever made economically. This country would be far better off if we made college easily affordable for everyone who wants to go.
We already knew this debt was harming the economy by undercutting young graduates' ability to buy homes and cars, hampering consumer demand in two key sectors of the economy.
The rationale for lending federal money out at low interest to banks is that it provides a lot of capital to the banking system, meaning there is more money out there to boost the economy. There really is no good reason not to make the same investment in students.
Statistics don't reveal the faces behind the numbers. While trillions were lost in housing values the human cost, measured in lost dreams, dislocation, divorce, depression, suicide, addiction, is incalculable.
If we soak the "1 percent" but do nothing to win them over to the cause of making our country more equitable, can that victory really last? I don't think so.
Put simply, Warren represents the strongest counterweight to the influence of moneyed interests over our political process.