What Warren's Backers Think About Her Meeting With Hillary Clinton

[RiverLover]

As a Warren backer, I can verify this is true~

What Warren's Backers Think About Her Meeting With Hillary Clinton
2/17/2015

For Warren's most vocal supporters, the self-appointed army raging for economic populism, the tête-à-tête was extremely encouraging.

On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that Senator Elizabeth Warren and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had met for a private meeting in December at Whitehaven, the Clintons' home in Washington, D.C. A Democratic source described the meeting as “cordial and productive.” Little else was revealed.

Some might have interpreted the report as a sign that Clinton was taking Warren under her wing. But for Warren's most vocal supporters, the self-appointed army raging for economic populism, the tête-à-tête meant just about the opposite. Ilya Sheyman, the executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action, which with Democracy for America launched the project Run Warren Run, sounded emboldened. "It's more evidence that Sen. Warren and progressives are driving the conversation within the Democratic Party,” he said, through a spokesman. “That's why we're eager for Elizabeth Warren to run for President, and any candidate would do well to speak to the issues she's led on -- like tackling income inequality, student debt, and taking on the big banks."

Erica Sagrans, who works as campaign manager for another pro-Warren endeavor, Ready for Warren, used the occasion to stress Warren's momentum. "Secretary Clinton's meeting with Senator Warren indicates that she is among a growing number of Democratic leaders who admire Warren's willingness to stand up to the big banks and special interests," Sagrans said, before jumping to the punchline. "This is why we’re calling on Warren to run for president in 2016."

...For pro-Warren groups, the cream rises. Tuesday morning, John Catsimatidis, a top Clinton donor, told Bloomberg TV that one of his staff members, an Iowa native, spoke recently with a friend who is the Democratic chairman of Iowa. He said, in Catsmatidis’s summation, “If the election was held today, [our] lady friend from Massachusetts would beat Hillary.”

For much of the 2008 Democratic presidential primary season, Clinton seemed sure to be the name on the ticket, but Barack Obama, little-known not long before, swooped in with unlikely rhetoric of luminous bipartisanship, and won. As the 2016 election approaches, Clinton again is the presumptive frontrunner, but she knows better than to think herself immune to a new, populist voice....

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-17/what-warren-s-backers-think-about-her-meeting-with-hillary-clinton

So there, Third Way Manny!

hmmf!

[MohRokTah]

1. .

I wonder when the Warren supporters are going to finally accept reality.

She isn't going to run. She's said so time after time after time.

[RiverLover]

3. Fact is, she is not a candidate, until she is.

We're an optimistic group, we'll know one way or the other for certain once the primaries are in full swing. We hope she changes her mind!

[djean111]

4. One thing is for sure (IMO and all that) - the same ENTHUSIASM will not be transferred to Hillary.

I believe the underlying sentiment of Warren supporters is NO more corporate third way TPP-loving candidates.
So - here's hoping, if not Warren - someone else less of a Wall Street darling comes into view. There will not be any sort of groundswell for skipping the primaries and coronation, that's for sure. No matter how much money that saves. As if Hillary is worried about money.

[TheKentuckian]

5. Who cares? Keep creating the vacuum and someone will fill it.

[Doctor_J]

11. .

I wonder when the Hillarites are going to accept that their candidate's platform of drilling, keystone, TPP, and corporate health insurance mandates is bad for the country and the party?

[Fumesucker]

2. "(Obama's) unlikely rhetoric of luminous bipartisanship"

Somehow I don't think that was the rhetoric most Obama voters really really wanted to hear..

[fredamae]

6. Sorry, at this juncture

for many--Anything HRC "says" now cannot be backed by her own record over the decades.
It's no longer "blind trust" for Dems...because there are Simply too many damned "corp dems" in the mix and way too little time to Prove sincere and Real change of heart and policies - when one has a solid corporate friendly record that has already stood the test of time since before some of you were born.

Been "campaigned promised" all I'm gonna be.
No more promises of hope for change---for this voter and her family----Show "Us the Money" this time....the days of political "auto trust" just because you Say you're a "Democrat" and will work For the working class...are Over.

[OKNancy]

7. what record? Her record has been pretty damn good

Do you actually know how she voted in the Senate or what positive and progressive bills she introduced.
She sponsored four minimum wage raise bills. She is pro-union. Her votes and support from unions is a fact.
Not to mention voting against Alito and Roberts.

These are pro-Hillary links, but they have not been proven false:
http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-fighting-for-americas-workers/

http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-a-fighter-for-equal-pay/

http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-less-minimum-more-wage/

[Jackpine Radical]

10. Every one of those links is about issues that Wall St. doesn't care much about.

They want someone who will fight regulation. They want someone who will not seriously affect the rising disparity between the rich and the poor. And I can assure you that a raise in the minimum wage, while helpful, is not the sort of measure that will make a significant difference in the "Piketty Gap." Wall Street is liberal on the social issues just like Hill, and happy to ignore small issues like the Minimum Wage as long as they are left free to play their great gambling game game with privatized gains and socialized losses. Sure, there are a lot of issues on which Hill is better than the Republicans, but at most she would end up swabbing the deck of the Ship of State and painting the superstructure, but I fear she would do nothing to steer the ship away from the looming iceberg.

[heaven05]

9. well

tell me who, in this type of corporate political system, is going to gain the 'POWER' to rein in the money influence(s) of the bankers and corporations and, for the first time, make this a true democracy representing 'the people' who have been given real choice and advantage in guiding and reforming this political system. This has ALWAYS been a system run by MONEY and the power that those big bucks buy in people like our SC and Congress, who by the way care about us in no way, shape or form, none.

[Jackpine Radical]

12. The game is a little different now, I think.

The rules may be the same in the short run, but the stakes have changed. When the stakes change, game behavior sometimes changes--including the possibility of kicking over the game board.

Between resource depletion, destruction of the atmosphere and seas, climate change, and the like, the parasites on top are about to kill off the host "organism," which happens to be the biosphere that we all depend on for life.

There have been times in the past when people have resorted to extraordinary means to accomplish political and social change. Gandhi, of course, but watch what happens in the Mediterranean countries (Greece now, probably Spain next, then maybe Italy) stand up to the IMF and the Germans.

These are most certainly interesting times.

[fredamae]

13. Who? Us. Perhaps we might

consider controlling the Influence of "big money"..by literally Ignoring them...It is we who watch all that Big Money in Politics Produces---it is We that allow ourselves to be influenced by the big bucks and it is we who Give them said ROI....by electing those they put on the Corporate Media Cat Walk.

By breaking Our old habits of the now never-ending campaign season...We could rethink how we regard and respond to what big money buys.

Yes, we would also have to vet, research, accept the bad along with the good in the public records of our preferred candidates and evaluate our own personal experiences that result from their votes and their own political influences....
In other words...it's time to start watching the candidates themselves, instead of the highly controlled, well scripted voices of the corporate media and corporate candidates...those "talking heads" ARE the 1% also...start hearing what the candidates don't say because that is As important as what they Do say, we must also begin asking them the hard questions and yes, that means we also have to call our own out from time to time and be willing to push for an answer as they attempt to shift the conversation/topic away.
We are the power that can take on the "POWERFUL"...we Can gt money Out of Politics when WE collectively decide to ignore it all.

No, I'm not a "dreamer"....It would work...the only thing standing in the way, collectively...Is "us"....

[world wide wally]

8. Hopefully, Hilary is smart enough to know when to shut up and listen sometimes.