General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf Hillary is a corporatist Third Way DLC Dem, why does Elizabeth Warren think she's terrific?
<...>
I think Hillary Clinton is terrific, she said. We've got to stay focused on these issues right now.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/204014-warren-i-think-hillary-clinton-is-terrific
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)meme that these two strong women don't support each other.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)That attempts to use Warren to attack Hillary and Obama are Republican tactics designed to divide Dems in 2014 and 2016.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)ain't playing.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Is that what you really mean?
That's the loudest message I get from your posts in this thread.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)hootinholler
(26,449 posts)She was the poster child of the DLC when they were existent. Now the same group of people are presenting themselves as the third way, but I'm not sure how big a part Ms. Clinton has in that.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)bullshit from Rove and company.
I'm disappointed. I worked for Hillary when she employed David Brock's partner.....with no apologies. You've seriously missed the mark.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Nothing to do with this.
Hillary has been prominently featured as a leader of the DLC on the DLC website for years. That's why I call her the poster child.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)then I am sorry.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)The FACT is that Hillary is DLC leadership. She has been for a long time. I haven't proof, but I think she and Bill helped found it.
So who are you calling a ratfucker? It sounds like you are calling Liz Warren that.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)whether it's about Vince Foster or Mena Airport..it matters.
Read up.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)That has nothing to do with Hillary being a DLC leader.
She is.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)A term Clinton herself coined and was derided for saying?
Vincent Foster, Arkansas Project, Whitewater, Lewinsky? FBI files, Madison Guaranty, Rose Law Firm? The first impeachment of a President in over 130 years?
Are you kidding me?
Of course the DLC would prominently feature her, she made them relevant.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Since I'm supposed to have connected that bullshit and her being the leadership of the DLC, perhaps you can explain in a lucid manner just exactly what one has to do with the other? I fail to see the connection. She seems quite proud of her involvement with the DLC.
Maybe you can also explain how pointing out the fact Hillary is a proud leader of the DLC is ratfucking? I seem to have missed that part too.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)What other choice did she have? You are essentially condemning her for success.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Granted, she was a good SoS. I don't condemn her for her success, I disagree with her accomplishments. Granted that they are generally better than any republican's goals would have been. I contend she has the wrong goals, they benefit the 1%. Therefore at this point in the election cycle, of course I'm going to continue to do all I can to drag the party back to the people. I thought that DU was a haven for people who want to do just that.
Right now of the politicians of Presidential mettle there are two who consistently stand with my current core values. There are more that mostly do. And those that will if it costs them nothing.
BTW, saying that her lengthy participation in the DLC is irrelevant is like saying Rand Paul being libertarian is irrelevant.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)...
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)Rand Paul, as a male, has many options.
Clinton, as a female in the 80s, had it a lot harder. I don't see her going so far without the right connections.
Hell, Warren got lucky, Obama literally pushed her into the CFPB to bolster her political ambitions (her book settles this issue once and for all, she did not want that position).
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)joshcryer
(62,269 posts)Or do you argue she had the same options as her male counterparts?
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)I don't see that leopard changing spots.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)So not sure if this is a fair characterization.
Robert Byrd is perhaps the largest shift in ideology in political history, going from a Klansman to getting a 100% rating from the NAACP.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)And he was part of it?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)there was an entire system of winger welfare for writers (of which, Glenn Greenwald later came to take advantage of.)
Media Matters didn't happen because he woke up one day and decided to do it----it happened because the fuckers on the right decided they didn't like the results of a free and fair election and they wanted the President's head. Hillary Clinton not only survived that, she's the only one left standing.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)What did you expect her to do? Allow herself to be marginalized and go full hippie (she was a hippie)?
I mean, it's pretty messed up the shit she has had to deal with and the forces that were against her. And they still exist. To this day.
But she'll succeed.
You should read "Bill and Hillary: The Politics of the Personal."
Cal33
(7,018 posts)So let's just give our reasons for preferring one candidate over another -- and allow the others
to give theirs, without any rancor. And even try to see things from the others' points of views
and compare them with your own for the one you prefer.
MADem
(135,425 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)I've always thought EW might not approve of it, either.
CTyankee
(63,901 posts)he said that liberals didn't realize how much of a neo-con Hillary is and just wait til they do, yadda, yadda...
So this is a Republican "talking point" now...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Hillary idealogically, they this Warren supporter will be looking elsewhere for someone who represents them.
Why on earth would you think that people would have any problem withdrawing support from someone they have supported due to their position on the issues, once they change that position???? What a strange assumption to make.
Warren is a Dem. I will wait to see if she has joined Hillary in her support for Bush' foreign policies, and in her support for Wall St. If she has, then I have no more interest in her as a representative of the people who have supported her up to now.
Not everyone is a blind follower of a 'leader'. I hope no one thought this was going to change any minds about Hillary.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)They get along fine, but some here will insist that it's all "politics". They don't seem to realize how insulting that is to both women. They are women of similar age and have a lot in common, why wouldn't they get along?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Hillary Clinton is our last, best hope to nominate an electable Democrat, and as it is today, Elizabeth Warren acknowledges this.
Elizabeth Warren is a good Democrat.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)fbc
(1,668 posts)Terrific:
1) of great size, amount, or intensity.
2) causing terror.
That's perfect word usage by Warren.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)It's "happy hour" and the drinking game commences!
Bottoms up!
MADem
(135,425 posts)that some fellers like to mock, for reasons that escape me...
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)I mock not!
I wish Elizabeth Warren would put her hat in the ring. I wish she were the Democratic nominee. I wish she became President.
It is only with resignation that I accept that today she has no reason or expectation to do any of this.
Sen. Warren says Hillary is terrific. She is a good Democrat just like me.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I wasn't accusing you of mocking, not at all. Please disabuse yourself of that notion!
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)But you know, "A kicked dog howls loudest!"
I can be snarky, sarcastic and mocking.
I'm a Democrat.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I'll join that club, I'm one of those oft-criticized Democrats too!
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)It's Hillary Clinton or Republicans Forever. (Just like in 2008.)
If you think this is an argument on her behalf, then for the sake of her and her funders, I sure hope you're not part of her election machine, as your blind repetition of the talking points might suggest.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Perhaps Ms. Warren is incorrect in her assessment of Hillary Clinton.
Alternatively she could be grading Clinton on what she's trying to accomplish, rather than on what she should be trying to accomplish. As far as Washington Democratic Politicians go it's not like Clinton's policies stand out. She's pretty middle of the road, within the democratic spectrum. That doesn't mean she's not a corporatist, it just means that nearly everybody else she's measured against in Washington is a corporatist. If you set that as the standard, than Clinton looks pretty good. And she has, in my opinion, done more good than bad.
Now the other question is whether we want to continue electing middle of the road, pro-wall street politicians. I don't. Hillary Clinton, whatever her other worthy qualities, is a middle of the road, pro-wall street politician. So, with all due respect, I'll be supporting someone else in the primary.
Bryant
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Feel good for voting for the perfect dem, and loose by doing so...
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Obviously if Hillary wins the nomination I'll support her.
Bryant
onehandle
(51,122 posts)What do we really know about this so-called 'Elizabeth Warren' anyway?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)And her economic stances were even iffy until she decided to go full-on anti-weath-inequality.
No one's one-dimensional, and as much as I agree with EW's current economic stances, she's not some 'super-liberal'.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)I'm not buying that.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)She was born in Oklahoma after all. Most people start out with the political party of their parents.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)People change their minds.
I'm not going to turn someone away just because they've had an epiphany.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I generally like EW. I just don't worship her or anything, even if I consider her one of the better Senators in general.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Arkana
(24,347 posts)and Hillary was a Goldwater Girl.
Opinions change. People change. Look at Bob Byrd, for chrissakes.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Even the ones who temporarily align with my own views
merrily
(45,251 posts)until you catch onto that scam?
Alan Harper: From now on, I am going to be totally honest with women.
Walden Schmidt: Until they catch onto that scam.
Alan Harper: Right. Then it's back to Alan Harper, astronaut
(Scene from Two and a Half Men)
Even if you don't pick a side, attempts at even-handedness will only make people certain that you did pick a side--that side being the one they bitterly resent.
j/k.
Maybe.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I'm on my side, 100% of the time I just happen to realize that being on my side means helping others, because life only gets better when we work together, and you never know when you're going to be the one who needs the help. So it's best to have the highest possible 'base' for everyone, rather than finding ways to simply let a few lucky individuals hoover up everything in site while everything sucks for most everyone else.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I am not gushing unconditionally over any politician, either.
But, all that is way heavier than I intended to get.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)She's talked about before.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Being a Republican after the 90s is the true test of humanity.
And I was making a joke up there.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)will get to the bottom of Elizabeth Warren's ethnicity ANY DAY NOW.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...which she DIDN'T answer btw, that's a fairly generic, and calculated response...
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)her support to anyone in the primaries right now. I think some are reading way too much into her statement. Warren has said she's not running and promised voters she will remain a senator for her full term.She doesn't strike me as the type to mince words.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)1. Elizabeth Warren is a liar;
2. Elizabeth Warren is stupid;
3. Hillary really is terrific.
I'm going with 3 myself. Anyone else?
IDemo
(16,926 posts)See #9
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Does Elizabeth Warren think that Hillary Clinton is terrific?
IDemo
(16,926 posts)Given everything we have heard from Warren over the past couple of years, versus Hillary's appeasement of the Goldman Sachs crowd, I'm sure she's being a good politician and supporting the obvious nominee in 2016.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)That knocks her down a bit in my estimation.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)and considers rallying behind her to be the most pragmatic approach and supporting her would likely strengthen her own position to advance her own issues. This is not an unusual approach. In fact it is the norm - whatever the political persuasion. But for those who are not legitimately jockeying for influence to suggest Hillary is not a third way "corporatist" or DLC type New Democrat requires ignoring all the facts and her entire political history and background and is dishonest to the point of being downright loony.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)She didn't say she'd be a terrific President though...
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Like telling someone who looks terrible that that look just fine, or (to go to the sexist stereotype reply) 'No, that dress doesn't make you look fat'. Sometimes telling the truth does you absolutely no good, and can in fact only hurt you.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)sometimes there is nothing between the lines...
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)one person's opinion of another person.
EW might very well consider HRC 'terrific'. That's her prerogative.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)all this "between the line reading" because those that engage in it (with respect to President Obama) have been so accurate to date!
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)You should know better. You've been around long enough to know how politics works.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)populist vote around Clinton, Warren goes from being a little bit out in the wilderness, to holding a populist agenda-setting influence over the White House. It's how the sausage is made. Just like we'll ultimately hold our nose to the third way tendencies, and vote Clinton if she becomes the Democratic candidate. She might love Mrs. Clinton, she may just find her acceptable, but Elizabeth Warren has a pragmatic streak, and knows how to work within the political realm.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Or perhaps the fact that on most social issues, Hillary is actually on the 'right side'.
If Warren truly is planning not to run, she has little incentive to trash any Democratic candidate.
merrily
(45,251 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)are by what Warren says about Hillary. That was the thread parent, to whom I thought my post was addressed. Hillary has her own track record in public life. It's also pretty obvious that a Democratic Senator is not going to say anything but good things about the person we've been told for almost two years now will be the Democratic nominee, if she cares to run.
Given those two things, I am at a loss why you think I should ask Warren why the OP is written as it is. Not sure why you thought my reply to the thread parent about the OP had anything to do with Warren living in your head or vice versa, either.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)We've got to stay focused on these issues right now. Not talk about Hillary Clinton.
I am a woman. I don't believe Warren and Clinton are working against each other, nor do I think Warren is devoting much, if any, time to Clinton.
And Warren can say Terrific! all day long - it will not make anyone like Hillary any more than they do right now.
Warren saying Terrific! does not mean she approves of corporatist Third Way policies; it is a throw-away compliment, one that is used to mean pretty much anything. It is not an approval rating of everything Hillary stands for.
For instance, Warren is openly against the TPP. Hillary helped write it and wants it to be inflicted.
Warren saying Terrific!!! does not mean she now supports the TPP.
Politics.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)Third Way Corporatist. That is, IMO, completely illogical and bogus.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I Do NOT think she is this "Third Way" crap at all...
IN fact On The Issues puts Hillary as a Liberal Populist.....I guess Elizabeth Warren knows and thinks that is "terrific" and so do I!
DJ13
(23,671 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but she sure is venerated around here.....
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Has Hillary?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Bill Clinton was in office?
(Oh and Hillary didn't HAVE to change.....she was already a Democrat)
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Gotta eat, ya know.......
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)mmonk
(52,589 posts)Hillary was a former head of the DLC I think.
nothing Warren or anyone else says can change the fact that Hillary is what she is.
merrily
(45,251 posts)The first two full time employees of the DLC were From and Will Marshall, who went on to found the Progressive Policy Institute (aka, "the place for pragmatic liberals", LOL The website actually used to say that. I don't think it does anymore.).
From was supposedly the head. However, there was certainly always a group of Conservadems in Congress, though Hillary and Bill were obviously not then among them.
Whether From approached the founding members or they hired him, or it was more organic, we'll probably never know for certain. In any event, officially, it was supposedly From's brainchild and his baby.
Hillary was a founding member (only female, that I know of), along with Bill, Lieberman, Gore and some others); and she was the member who traveled with From to spread the DLC message to people like Blair.
These sources confirm my statements and, obviously, give more information. They are an interesting read, especially for Democrats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall
Of course, the DLC per se is all but gone, having donated its papers to Clinton's Presidential Library. But, Progressive Policy Institute, Third Way and a bunch of other think tanks live on and proliferate like Hydra's heads. At this point, the DLC philosophy has more names than a check forger.
While some of them are described as liberal, we know the reality. Worst, IMO, is No Labels, which is the closest admission of a uniparty that I know of. It was supposedly the brainchild of a Bushite, but is full of "pragmatic" Dems, including many who were in the Clinton administration. Reminds me of Bubba hiring Morris to help set policy.
Hillary's ties with The Fellowship trouble me as well.
The pros are obvious. Very smart, very experienced, two for the price of one (allegedly), with Bill aso being one of the smartest people on the planet and experienced too, very loyal, first female President, something for which I think the nation is ready--and Democratic women are more than ready, so a real GOTV plus, etc.
Senator Warren also has pros and cons for me. Having it seen crushes on politicians and the deception that resuts, I find them very dangerous.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)It doesn't matter to me what Elizabeth Warren or anybody else thinks, i have a mind of my own.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Obama said very similar things, even while running against Hillary.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Or, did you have another point?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)So of course it's not a big deal that she praises her.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Blinded by love, I guess.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)So I guess I'm in good company.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)apparently!
LMAO!!!
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)They're both Democrats, no?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and if SHE thinks Hillary Clinton is terrific....some here might think "that's not a big deal"....
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Anyone that's been following politics for more than two minutes would realize pols say shit like about each other all of the time. It doesn't mean a damn thing.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)She was signatory to a letter encouraging Hillary Clinton to run!
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Obama already has the Second Coming locked up on the DU..
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)built to that President......When they are going to be naming buildings and post offices after you for years to come and statues to honor you.....you are pretty damn important figure in history. I don't see a problem with following a LEADER we elected by majority vote 2 elections in a row....AND who got us the biggest change in Healthcare in this country since Johnson.......I don't have a problem with that.....why do you?
(by the way....some of us were much more realistic and didn't EXPECT a savior)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)By your standard Ronald Reagan is the most important politician in US history, it's a wonder everything in the country isn't named for him by now.
Your misconception is that I dislike Obama personally, I don't at all. My comment was light hearted like many of mine are, I just can't take this crap seriously any more and haven't for a while.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1480985
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I think we are all Democrats here....at least I thought so....
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)That was your argument.
Regan has so many things named for him it's beyond pathetic.
Even National Airport in DC was named after Reagan.
Not everyone who criticizes things Obama does dislikes him personally. I can't say I even disliked Reagan personally although I disagreed with about 95% of what he did and said.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and he is STILL venerated by a large portion of the population.....on DU not so much
This is Democratic Underground....to US he is pure evil. How do you think those same guys feel about Pres. Barack Obama (hint they HATE him) that should be your first clue right there.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Assuming Hillary does run.
Hekate
(90,634 posts)Wouldn't want people thinking Senator Warren is an intelligent get-things-done politician in addition to being a brilliant professor we happen to agree with, would we?
Or conversely, wouldn't want people to reconsider their hatred at all things Hillary, either.
Senator Warren may simply be deflecting 2016 shiny-thing distractions by pointing to the issues that face us right this minute in 2014, like holding on to the Senate and gaining some seats in the House.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)"playing politics" is perfectly acceptable if EW does it.
Others....not so much.
Enjoying the contortionist sideshow over here.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I am so proud to be part of a party with these two women leading. And yes, EW is now a leading figure in our party and I know her role, whether Presidential or not, will have a very significant impact.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)history. Also, Warren was a Republican until sometime in the 90's. I'd have qualms about either of them as candidate. I was never a Republican, nor were my parents nor grandparents.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)You haven't figured out how they work yet?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)agbdf
(200 posts)Hillary has spent her entire adult life as a champion for social Justice and our Democratic values. Her liberal credentials are well established and, in addition to becoming our first woman President, she is also going to be one of our greatest.
If you think HRC is not going to win our party's nomination for President in 2016 and go on to trounce whichever Republican she faces, you are not living in reality.
There is no candidate for 2016, in either party, who is more beloved by the American people than Hillary.
Perhaps the Greens will put up someone you like better but, President Hillary Clinton is a done deal!
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... as they've been trained to do for the last 25 years.
On the left she has a nice clutch of diehard supporters and a whole bunch of people who simply don't like political dynasties and/or see her as way too cozy with Goldman Sachs, the XL Pipeline and WalMart. They would only vote for her as another "lesser of two evils" choice. Not very inspiring.
agbdf
(200 posts)The only way I would not support Hillary is if President Obama was legally able to seek a third term.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Please, Hillary may be many things, but kindly name something where she is actually to the left of Obama. Do not get me wrong,if she survives that primary, I will vote for her, but only because Lucifer himself is not as far to the right as the GOP.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)2016 candidate Clinton will be left of 2008 candidate Obama.
This is already known because Obama has "evolved" on issues and Clinton has already come out in support of gay marriage. That means objectively she will be left of Obama. She will also emphasize women's rights, which Obama couldn't really pull off anyway. She will be advocating for things like equal pay.
Of course, some liberals who dislike her and the Clinton dynasty will claim she's a shrill liar about the things she'll talk about.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Like sniper fire?
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)She exaggerated the one time, and pow, she was accused of making shit up. She also admitted the mistake the same day if I recall correctly.
She'll be so damn scrutinized it's going to be interesting watching it.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)the statement offered goes right up there with Hillary saying she would not run in 2008, and of course, whatever the meaning of "is" still is. You did nto talk about "candidate", you talked about her as if she was to the left, while we have plenty of evidence she would not be, unless of course, she finally does a 180 on her mid east policy, and calls to put back Glass-Steagall. Granted, she has ever chance to do just that, but she is not.
I like the way you used the term "dynasty", at least you are honest about that being what you want, however, the reason some of us call her a shrill liar is because she LIES. Her gender does not make anything she says truth or lies,the facts do.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)The Blaire diaries show a Clinton who actually dislikes dishonesty. I think her faux pas in the 2008 primaries were just Clinton not knowing how to handle the image that the media focused on, as opposed to policy, it was all about image.
John Stewart hit on it last night with his Daily Show segment. Romney cries, it shows he's a very strong, very powerful man. Clinton cries it shows she's weak, can't control her emotions, puts her in a questionable place.
You can bet as this thing goes forward the media is going to crucify her.
krawhitham
(4,643 posts)When asked "and do you think Hillary would make a good president" she avoided answering and instead stated I think Hillary Clinton is terrific, We've got to stay focused on these issues right now.
Maybe she is terrific at being a corporatist Third Way DLC Dem
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)a letter urging Hillary Clinton to run for president.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)If Hillary is a corporatist Third Way DLC Dem, would you vote for her if she got the nomination?
Would her stand on, say, the TPP, be wrong enough to want anyone to see the Republican win? Would you sit on your ass and let the country slide further down the teabag road just because she's not "progressive" enough?
None of us will ever see our "perfect" candidate, so just how bad does a Democrat have to be to cede the White House to a Republican?
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)women. Sen. Warren then changes the subject telling us we need to focus on 2014 right now. That is how I read this.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)and obviously not wanting to expand on her answer, since she quickly changed the subject to what it should be at this point in time.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)this is gonna get interesting
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)I even was alerted on when I called Hillary the DLC poster child.
Since her photo was featured so prominently on their web site, she should be proud of that.
djean111
(14,255 posts)abhor the Third Way. Warren is just being a polite politician, she is not espousing Hilliary's policies in toto.
Crowing about "Terrific!" or the signing of some supportive letter is not going to accomplish anything useful.
And there is nothing about "Terrific!" that makes Hillary any less of a Third Way Corporatist - in fact, I believe Hillary would describe herself as such. Warren saying anything at all doesn't change Hillary's stripes. Insulting to opine otherwise, really.
I think the Third Way/DNC would do better to just settle on hey, Hillary is better than an official Republican, and let it go at that.
Less tiresome, less irritating.
I am looking forward with a sort of fascinated horror at the coming spin for the TPP and Keystone.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)I have no reason to believe Hillary isn't the Third Way DLC corporatist she has always been, and I will no more vote for a Third Way DLC corporatist than I would vote for a Republican.
If she gets the the Democratic nomination, I'll vote third party like I did in 2012.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)What's Warren expected to say, "I think Hillary Clinton is a piece of garbage"?
Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)were being "satirical".
aikoaiko
(34,165 posts)I'm thinking a Vince Foster reference is a good indication that would be member was trolling.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I was giving the benefit of a doubt and asking for clarification. Anyone who meant that seriously is an idiot or a troll.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,731 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I don't to doubt that Warren's admiration of Clinton may be anything but genuine, but she is also smart enough to know that any public disagreement is going to be counter-productive in every way imaginable.
Realistically, busting the chops of the party's anointed contender is by definition a "career ending/limiting move".
I take her failure to criticize HRC's obvious pro-corporate sympathies as prima facia evidence that she has no intention of running for the nomination. If she was planning a run, then her first move would be to point out her opponent's collusions with the enemy and fire up the base to rally to her battle standard.
Also, if one is to look at things from a more Machiavellian lens, by keeping her mouth shut she sets herself up as an attractive VP choice, which would allow Clinton to appeal to the liberal wing of the party. It would allow the Dems to field a second historical ticket, and one up Obama by having two women in the White House. That is a juggernaut that would galvanize three key demographics: Women, youth and liberals.
A fight between Warren and Clinton is in no one's best interest in the Democratic party, and I say that as a person with no great love for the Clinton's and their pro-corporate, center-right policies.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)It's really easy to do. If she thinks Hillary goes about things the wrong way or against her (Elizabeth's) belief system, she could refuse to comment about her and use one of about a hundred different excuses (I haven't been following her very closely is usually a good one). Or she could have specifically commented on the things about her that she likes.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)if you didn't dislike her so much Senator Warren would not like her so much.
msongs
(67,394 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)how are we to know when the literal response to a question is the real answer to the question ... or when to dig deeper and read between the lines?
Is there a rule book I can refer to?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)There is a lot of hair splitting and interpretation based on personal views going on here.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)I agree with Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
IMO, all the Clinton bashers do is keep focus off the issues that are important to all people, not just Ds.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)"Reformed" Republicans can only go so far.
They can never plumb the depths of their thinking. They never really get the whole picture.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)It's PR, nothing more.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But only Elizabeth Warren would make a good president.
Hillary may be terrific, but Warren is the right person to be elected president in 2016.
elleng
(130,861 posts)'Diplomacy' is important.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)prommie
(12 posts)co-founder, never forget, co-founder.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Who gives a shit?
Autumn
(45,046 posts)Hillary is a terrific person. So is Elizabeth. Two very admirable women who are wonderful role models. I am not fond of corporatist third way DLC Dem's myself but I think some of them are pretty terrific people.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)joshcryer
(62,269 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)At many things.
Just none of those things involve stopping the frightful plummet of the 99%.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)of pitting Dems against one another.
She's an excellent Senator and definitely not a ratfucker.
Excelsior!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Party unity plus politics. There's your answer. Nuance--use it or lose it.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,232 posts)Obnoxious_One
(97 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 22, 2014, 09:04 PM - Edit history (1)
She's so gracious and diplomatic.
otherone
(973 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)The article was too short and vague to determine for me to come up with any real answer.
Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)All of the politicians engage in it. Trying to find a consistent thread is impossible.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)You would think someone who has over 20,000 posts on a political forum, would have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the basics of politics.
I guess not.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)She genuinely thinks Hillary is terrific.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Diplomacy.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)libodem
(19,288 posts)For Democrats to be accused of "Eating their own".
And on the whole Hillary is terrific. There is a lot of good about her. I'd take her hands down over any Republican alive or dead except maybe Lincoln.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)nominee.
It would be really bad form, and she'd have egg on her face after Hillary is officially chosen at primary time.
treestar
(82,383 posts)joshcryer
(62,269 posts)Check out That's My Congress.
roody
(10,849 posts)Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)iandhr
(6,852 posts)Purists can't be reasoned with. There the same people who could tell the difference between Bush and Gore.
People here call the ACA a sellout and a step in the wrong direction. The fact that 8,000,000 people have care now doesn't matter to those people.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024752961
It doesn't cross their minds that someone like Elizabeth Warren can be attorney general which would scare Wall Street s***less.
They can't see that in McCutcheon v FEC every justice appointed by a Democrat voted the right way and that when a vacancy comes up on SCOUTS Hillary would make a could choice.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Hillary is not a corporatist Third-Wayer? That's the question at hand.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)Has anyone here ever consider that? If you did you are smarter than I am. The thought just occurred to me today. She will have WAY for influence that way. If she became President her influence would end sooner.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Regardless of what her real opinion may be??
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)So it makes sense that she would.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)She was and wore it proudly.
Marr
(20,317 posts)2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)It would not be wise to say anything negative. She knows this.
Marr
(20,317 posts)She has a long history with the DLC. Are you really asserting that isn't the case?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Someone in her party (Elizabeth Warren, who so far has been on record against the DLC program) was polite in speaking about her, therefore any criticism makes you into a hypocrite!
Raksha
(7,167 posts)I used to think Hillary was terrific too, but that was quite some time ago.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Some of you are projecting your dislike of Hillary onto Warren and can't accept facts. Both women are of similar age and background. There's something sexist about thinking that these two ladies would get in a political cat fight. It's not going to happen.
And Warren is correct, Hillary IS terrific. I find it amusing how those who trash her endlessly haven't even met her, let alone gotten to know her.
I'm glad that I live in the real world and not some parallel DU universe. In RL these two mature women are not at war with each other.
djean111
(14,255 posts)that Warren and Clinton do not get along.
I don't really care if they do, but they most probably do get along.
I just do not like Clinton's policies, and I like what I see of Warren's policies.
Clinton loves the TPP, Warren says if we all saw what was in it, we would be angry. Stuff like that.
Nothing else is remotely interesting or important. Politics is not a social event. At least not for me.
Warren and Clinton could be BFFs, and I still would not like Clinton's policies.
And I don't understand why meeting her would or should make any difference whatsoever - the idea that it would, is ridiculous.
Policies, not personalities, please.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Many are parsing Warren's words. I have enough respect for the lady to take her at her word. I don't know why some here want to ascribe motives to her that are all in their minds. That was my point. It has nothing to do with either one's take on the issues.
djean111
(14,255 posts)to today's issues!" (paraphrased) - what Warren meant was she does not think Hillary is a Corporatist Third Wayer, so no one else should, either. Especially us recalcitrant Warren admirers who do not like Hillary's policies.
The only parsing I saw was from those who were pushing the meme that the "Terrific" meant Hillary could not possibly be a Corporatist Third Wayer, because Warren would never have said "Terrific!" if she was. That lonely little "Terrific!" was given a ridiculous amount of weight.
If I Google Hillary and terrific, I see that Donald Trump thinks Hillary is terrific, too.
Which leads me to the conclusion that nowadays Terrific! is just a meaningless adjective, especially when someone is trying to talk about issues and someone else feels the need to ask them how they feel about Hillary.
I have to believe those sorts of OPs are just begging for replies. And if anyone thinks OPs like that change even one mind, they need to go back to Politics'R'Us camp. The neener-neener stuff does not work the way folks think it does.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)It is completely irrelevant to anything anyone should think.
How did Clinton vote and how does Warren vote? What do either of them advocate as policy and how believable are they? These might be interesting questions. (In Clinton's case, not very, since she has proven herself to be neoliberal generally with a standard imperialist foreign policy.)
By contrast, we have here the question: What did Warren or Clinton tell a reporter about the other, and what does it mean? These are the concerns of gossip-sheet readers. About as important as whatever argument George Clooney may have had with some casino owner while they were drunk.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 25, 2014, 01:22 PM - Edit history (1)
with a "cat fight".
People can like each other personally-- even think someone is "terrific"-- and still disagree politically. When you add the fact that we're talking about politicians from the same party, this argument that 'Warren described Hillary Clinton as 'terrific', therefore she's not a corporatist, DLC Dem', is just stupefyingly dumb.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Warren is not playing that game and neither is Hillary (she praised her this week while visiting Boston).
Marr
(20,317 posts)Warren called her "terrific". That's just dumb.
vi5
(13,305 posts)That someone I like and respect, respects a person who I don't personally want as president!! That's insane!
I realize the order of the day on this place is lock step uber alles, but this whole notion of "OMG WARREN LIKES HILLARY SO YOU HAVE TO LIKE HER TOO!!!!!" is childish at best. Which actually makes sense given the high degree of childlike idol worship to labels that so many people have around here.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Smart, smart lady.