Elizabeth Warren

[SHRED]

For me she represents what the Democratic Party could be, and in my opinion...must become.

REC if you agree.

[MADem]

1. I think she's wonderful. Best new Senator on the Hill, IMO. By far.

I would caution everyone against imbuing her with attitudes that people WANT her to possess, though. For example, she's not the Queen of Weed, she has said she does not favor legalization. Her foreign policy stances are still, in many instances, vague--she hasn't been required to stand-and-deliver on many specifics.

On the issues where she's made herself clear, I agree with most of her views. I supported her strongly in her Senate run and delivered a number of people to the polls to vote for her. I think she is a great asset to the Senate and the Banking Committee--it's nice to have someone on that committee that knows what the hell they are talking about.

Reference for those interested: http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm

[stevenleser]

9. Agreed. Nt

[MannyGoldstein]

14. Can you share some specific issues that she hasn't been clear about

I suspect that she's stated her views on a number of things that the press hasn't really picked up.

[MADem]

16. I provided a link. It details where she hasn't weighed in.

The print is small, but it's pretty easy to read.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. She's made statements on China and Syria, for example,

that they missed.

[MADem]

43. One comment is one comment, it's not enough--nor is it fair to her--to 'decide' what she

think that a 'policy attitude' can be derived from one or two statements.

She still has to fill in a few blank spots in her portfolio. That said, her particular skillset is Wall Street, and we have no ambiguities about her extraordinary talents in that regard.

[DocMac]

46. Well let's start with her.

[MADem]

47. Fine. Go on, then. Après vous. nt

[libodem]

2. I like what she says

And even better yet: does. She has is getting some traction with her action. Lots of people are just big dreamers, talkers, and smoke blowers, holding up mirrors.

She has actual substance.

[Whisp]

3. One reason I like her is because she is ferocious to the right people.

and how she just says it like it is, unshy and bold.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

4. Bringing thieving bankers to trial

is good enough for me. She's courageous and relentless. Hell yes, I agree!

[red dog 1]

21. "Bringing thieving bankers to trial is good enough for me"

Me too!

"Fed. judge criticizes lack of prosecution against Wall Street executives"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024036791/

[Jack Rabbit]

5. She takes stands on issues that appeal to me

I hope the banks aren't expecting a bailout next time.

[OldRedneck]

6. I'm a fan of Eliz. Warren . . . but . . .

I don't want to see her challenge Hillary Clinton in 2016 for three reasons.

1. She is a new senator who needs seasoning in Washington. I believe President Obama's main problem is that he became POTUS too soon. The best course for the Democratic Party would have been Hillary in 2008 and 2012 then Obama 2016 and 2020. He would have had 12 or so years' experience in the Senate that would have enabled him to avoid the ACA debacle. Ditto for Eliz. Warren . . . she needs time in the Senate to learn the ropes and develop the relationships that will make her a powerful president.

2. I don't want to see a Warren-Clinton fight -- Warren will lose, which will make her damaged goods when she starts her presidential run in 2020 or 2024 -- and such a fight would not do the Party any good.

3. I have not a clue about the Warren-Clinton relationship but it seems to me these two smart, powerful, ambitious ladies are smart enough to realize they need each other. President H. R. Clinton could certainly use the experience and support of Senator Warren. This relationship would set up Warren for her own presidential run.

Just my $0.02.

[Scuba]

8. Your $0.02 is overpriced.

[MADem]

10. Why? Don't hit and run--explain yourself.

What made that rather reasoned analysis "overpriced?" I thought it was a fine bargain, myself.

About the only thing I think is faulty in that lay-out is the fact that, because she ages well, people have this idea that EW is a fresh faced forty year old with all the time in the world. She's not a youngster--she's in her mid sixties.

Yes, people do live longer these days, but she'd be a senior citizen septuagenarian if she decided to run following eight years of HRC in the WH. And since she's said (yet again, just the other day, in fact) that she's not in the Presidential race, that's the soonest anyone would see her, assuming a two term winner this next round.

[7962]

19. Dont forget 8 yrs of Chelsea after Hillary!

Yes, i've actually heard a few folks say that.

[MADem]

42. That is unlikely in the extreme, and I wouldn't support it at all.

At least not at this juncture. And really, probably never.

IF (that's a big IF, right there) Chelsea Clinton ran for state legislature, then for the House, then for the Senate, and coughed up some great legislation that was far reaching and demonstrated a broad understanding of political issues, improved the human condition and made our nation better/stronger, AND she could debate and press her case forcefully, and show unique executive talents ... well...maybe.

But that's not going to happen. If it were going to happen she'd have gotten off her ass and run for something by now.

I think Jimmy Carter's kid has a hankering to play a serious role in the political process. Al Gore was a child of a politician, and he was a good one. The Bushes are three generations--four if you count Jeb's kid, "Jorge P"--of "not very good" politicians, by and large, because they support policies that fuck over the little guy.

I don't object to children getting into politics--I mean, come on, after all, it's the family business--but I don't think their path should be cleared so that they don't have to do any work. I think that, really, they need to be BETTER than the average politician, because they have to prove that they aren't having their way cleared for them. It's a tough row to hoe, and I don't think Chelsea will go near it. I think she has her sights on managing the Clinton foundation down the years....!

[blue14u]

38. HRC is a senior citizen

Last edited Sun Nov 17, 2013, 02:26 AM - Edit history (1)

now and will be 70 years old when 2016 gets here. So your point on age is

moot imo.

Why are we not supporting a Democrat on DU? Elizabeth is a Democrat..

HRC is not a Democrat.. she is a Centrist.. There is a big difference!

If DU won't support Bernie ,so some say, them why would they

support HRC, a Centrist?

It appears double standards are being applied here.

I support Democrats..

REAL Democrats..

[MADem]

41. Who is HLC? And the term would be "moot."

Last edited Sun Nov 17, 2013, 03:06 AM - Edit history (2)

EDIT in response to your EDIT: FWIW--you should acknowledge the fact that you edited your "HLC" to read "HRC" after I pointed it out. To not do so is a bit disingenuous. Anyone who clicks on your red edit link will see it, so you might as well be upfront and acknowledge the correction.

It's one thing to start your Presidential term in your sixties, and finish out your second term in your seventies.


It's quite a different thing to start your Presidential term in your seventies, and finish in your eighties.

And that isn't "moot" at all.

Last time I checked, Hillary Rodham Clinton--that would be "HRC" if we are abbreviating--is the best kind of Democrat. She's the kind that raised money to put Democratic and Progressive asses in seats in Congress. If you don't believe me, go on over to OPEN SECRETS and find out where the money she raised for her HILLPAC went.

She's given more money to Democrats than you can shake a stick at. So if you're going to wag your finger and say she's not a Democrat, you're going to need to do a little fund raising and support Democrats at least one one-millionth as well as she has done before I will ascribe any credibility whatsoever to your rantings.

Here, let me make it easy for you--have a look at this:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00363994&cycle=2002

And this:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00363994&cycle=2004

And this:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00363994&cycle=2006

And this:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00363994&cycle=2008

Bernie was the recipient of HILLPAC money--ain't that an inconvenient truth!

But hey...I should listen to you? I don't think so. You don't even know the woman's name, so why should I imagine you know anything more about her?

And let me edit one more time, because you misstated how old she'd be if she were elected in 2016. She will be sixty nine, not seventy, when she takes the oath.

[blue14u]

44. Ok, HRC and she is 66 years old.

Why is it ok for Hillary to be a senior but not Elizabeth? I still think

you are mincing words and nit picking me on a lack of spell check. I

apologize for my spelling and went back and edited my mistake.

Elizabeth does look a lot younger than old Hillary, and I believe EW could win in 2016..

As far as all HRC's fund raising, that's wonderful and I thank her. Still,

Elizabeth Warren is more a real Democrat. Fund raising does not equal

Democrat. Hillary is a centrist.

BTW, I don't need your links, but thanks anyway. Maybe someone else

will care to read them..

[MADem]

45. You can do the math as well as anyone else.

If Clinton runs for President in 2016, she will be 69 when she is elected.

Let's assume she does two four year terms. She'll be in her mid seventies (77) when she FINISHES her 2nd term.

So, if Warren is to follow her, in 2024, she would be starting out as a 74 year old, and finishing up, should she do two terms in office, at age 82.

I'm the first one to tell you that senior citizens are capable of a helluva lot more than many people credit them, but that's getting up there.


Further, the fact that you PROUDLY refuse to read the links does not recommend you, you know--it's nothing to boast about. No, no--don't give me INFORMATION!!! I don't neeeeeeeed no "information!!!' Facts? To hell with those!!!


You might try having a glance at them--you will learn something.

[blue14u]

50. The thing is I

am not interested in the age of HRC or Elizabeth,..BTW... Elizabeth is only 64 and looks

incredible..

I don't want Hillary as President in 2016..

I want Elizabeth Warren or another Democrat to run in 2016..

No more third way centrist is my point..

Elizabeth Warren 2016, not Hillary..

I wonder sometimes if people think what you are asking of Hillary at her age?

To run for President will take a ton of energy she may not be willing or able to give. My Mother is a politician now for thirty years. Our family wants her to retire and rest. She is old and tired all the time in her 70's.. Give Hillary a break...

We can find someone and throw our strength in #'s behind someone else and win. I truly believe that.. I will back Elizabeth though if she chooses to run 2016..The Clintons have done there public duty. Leave them alone, and let Hillary decide to relax and support Dem's if she wants to at her liking, not ours.

[MADem]

51. Well, gird your loins, because you aren't going to get your wish.

Warren said YET AGAIN--just the other day enroute to an event in Waltham--that she wasn't interested in running and she did. not. want. to. run.

How many times does she have to say no before people will start to believe her? Is six times insufficient? That's what she's up to, at least.

The Globe breaks it down: http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/11/11/six-factors-that-weigh-speculation-about-elizabeth-warren-and-run-for-presidency/qoL48WoLSh0OxhX3evIg2M/story.html

[blue14u]

52. I have not heard Hillary say she will run either.

A lot of candidates say that, then change there mind. We will see who shows up

to put there hat in the ring for 2016... We shall see.

Frankly, I believe 2014 is where we need to focus our energy right now
otherwise it may not matter much..

The SHUTDOWN is a jewel for us.. 2016 will come after 2014 and will show

Democrat's where we need to go with the party.

[MADem]

54. Apparently you're unfamiliar with the whole concept of a "roll out?"

The letter from the Senate women -- and the "accidental" leak of said letter ("accidental" makes it "news" you see--everyone who signed that letter, and the recipient, were likely aware of the "accidental leak" before it happened) generated a few news stories, and a bit of political buzz. This was followed up by Chuck Schumer's endorsement, which created more buzz.

And I guess you missed this?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-hillary-clinton-los-angeles-20131104,0,3822697.story

http://jennifergranholm.com/houston-first-stop-for-granholm-ready-for-hillary-fundraisers-in-texas/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ready-for-hillary-campaign-off-and-running-even-if-candidate-isnt-yet/2013/11/07/84f1658a-47cc-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html

The SuperPAC has already fired up and is running on all cylinders:

https://www.readyforhillary.com/

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/ready-for-hillary-super-pac-95099.html

This doesn't happen without coordination on some level.



She's running. I'd bet my bank account, such as it is, on it.

[cascadiance]

69. Mr. "I consistently want H-1B outsourcing in legislation over the years" Chuck Shumer?

He just LOVES that ability for his 1% constituents to outsource and diminish the average American tech worker, and has helped put in that plank in the immigration bill too. Videos show HRC supporting this form of taking away of lowering job availability and salaries for American tech workers as well with her support of H-1B visas as well.

Schumer's endorsement only firms up my mind that she's a part of the DLC cancerous tumor wing of the Democratic Party. Shumer's endorsement works in reverse for me. A Schumer endorsement of Warren would be more of concern to me than his of HRC's.

I would contend that you could interpret Warren's signing of the letter as others like Warren saying "be a part of the political process" which every one who's a potential candidate and voice for a part of the Democratic Party (and American public's) constituency should do. That's opposite of the Republican strategy of let's limit certain parts of the populace's right to vote, and the ability for certain people to become candidates (that Citizen's United and other similar "rules" try to encourage in their people's efforts to push non-democratic solutions). Much like teams or prominent athletes encourage teams and individuals beset by injuries or other problems to continue to try and be a part of the sport they are in and to fix those problems and get healthy to compete, as they value "beating the best" in their spirit of competition. Not quite the same as politics, but I would argue the spirit of inclusion to help provide value for the product is the same as it should be in political primaries too.

Despite Granholm's being recently on Current Television, she still has DLC roots and supporting HRC heavily in her 2008 primary battles, so it doesn't really surprise me at this point her endorsing HRC. Granholm's better than most DLC, but still DLC and still too corporate friendly for my tastes.

Granholm did serve as a good reason to keep us from amending the constitution to allow naturalized citizens to run for president back in the day when Arnold was being liked as a presidential candidate by the GOP, and she stood to benefit from such legislation to run for president herself then. Something the GOP quickly has forgotten since "furiner" Obama got in office "unconstitutionally" in their minds.

It's too early to *give* the nomination to HRC, and too early to write off Warren as a potential candidate. Let's encourage a wide range of choices in the 2016 primary which a vey troubled America NEEDS now instead of trying to work so much in advance to take that choice away from Americans by dismissing anyone that might competed with the "anointed one".

[MADem]

75. You're changing the subject. The reason he was chosen to provide an endorsement

isn't because of that, it's because he was the NY delegation leader and her "senior" when she was in the Senate.

Granholm may be too corporate for YOUR tastes, but she is the darling of the rank-and-file Democratic voters. They would love to see her in a cabinet position.

No one is taking away your "choice." Stop whining. Playing the victim never cuts it. If you really think you can convince Elizabeth Warren to run, knock yourself out. However, when they have video of her laughing, mocking the question, and saying "No, no, no, no, no" and then, when asked "Are you sure?" she repeats it and adds another no or two, I am telling you, she's sure. When her aides make it very clear that she's not going there, she's sure. Here's what you aren't grasping: she has written herself out of the process--decisively. No does mean no, and stop acting like it doesn't when it is said a half dozen times inside of two months.

I think it is amusing in the extreme that my very smart senator is touted as an independent leader, yet these very same people (who have never seen her on the campaign trail) are --without stopping to take a breath--at the very same time treating her like an addled, confused, naive and helpless idiot who doesn't know her own mind when it comes to running for this particular office. She knows her own mind. You need to respect her decision.

Frankly, we need to win in 2016. The most formidable candidate is HRC. I don't see any others who can muster the enthusiasm or the GOTV that she can. I don't know any that have the 50 State roots that she has. She's got the experience, the organization and the fund raising capability, and she is formidable because she has worked for an entire lifetime to be so.

EW, aside from lacking the experience and the network, does not have the desire. Without that, nothing's happening. You can yell at me all day, disparage those like Granholm who have come out for HRC, and all that doesn't change the essential bottom line--and that bottom line is NO means NO.

[cascadiance]

87. I'm sorry but many tech workers like myself will NOT support those that want to TAKE AWAY their jobs

... and lower their salaries. I'm sorry, but many in the Democratic Party are not that stupid. And there are many independent voters in the high tech sector that feel the same way, if the Dems allow "leaders" like Schumer and Clinton to get their way and outsource away their jobs.

People are taking away my choice if they intimidate anyone who might challenge the "anointed" ones by the DLC parts of the party to even run in the primaries, which is PRECISELY what many that support Clinton are trying to do here on DU now to intimidate candidates like Warren from entering the race. The DLC has done this constantly over the years with many other progressive candidates in downstream races too, and through their control of the DCCC has kept other candidates from getting funding, etc., limiting our choices of who represents us. The Seattle City Council race shows an example of what eventually happens when the party keeps newer voices from representing newer concerns that affect their constituency from being part of the race. In this case, a socialist instead of a Republican got elected. The Dems down the road could become a Whig party too, if they continue this policy of trying to intimidate both the public and other potential candidates from contesting those selected by the corporatists who have gamed the system to control the party. Koch is laughing on the way to the bank that he used to fund the DLC with earlier.

It is not just the Democratic Party that needs to win in 2016. It is the American public (the 99%!) that needs to win then! And if we allow the 1% to control what the two major parties run as candidates, nobody wins, and everyone will lose more if enough people break out to vote for a third party, and without instant runoff voting, that gives the presidency to someone like Cruz of the Republicans without a majority of voter support. We need to MAKE SURE that the Democratic Party has a good primary then to help allow for ALL voices to be heard and hopefully the best representative of a majority of its members to be nominated. That isn't helped by trying to say only one candidate should be paid attention to now.

I actually like Granholm as well, but that doesn't take away that she has the Koch funded DLC in her roots, which likely affects the political circles she pushes too.

I would submit you do NOT KNOW what Elizabeth Warren thinks any more than the rest of us do or don't. She may not want to run. She may feel a lot of intimidation to have her say the things she does, even if she does entertain the possibility of running personally. The most we as the public can do is to show our sentiments and collectively get others to show that we agree with the battles she's been fighting and that we feel we need someone like her to have that sort of leadership at a national level.

You just cite experience, fund raising capability, organization, and a desire to have "worked for a lifetime" to be president. How many Republicans can cite the EXACT SAME REASONS for their running. That is just describing politicians in general. What are your PERSONAL reasons why you feel that she is best qualified? What issue stances and personal accomplishments do you think separates HRC from other candidates like Elizabeth Warren why those who have in the past called themselves Democrats and present Democrats or those who might consider being one if they moved away from their current corporatist and bankster serving agendda would support. If you want to make the case that she's the candidate we should all jump on board with and ignore others, then it is THAT case you need to make to the rest of us. Because on issues like H-1B visas, war in Iran, free trade agreements such as NAFTA and the TPP, many of us simply aren't buying it!

[MADem]

95. Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but that's not going to make

Elizabeth Warren run for the Presidency.

It just isn't.

Listen to her when she talks. If you think she means what she says, then just listen to her.

No means no.

And I personally have no interest in a President who feels "intimidated." Say what you want about HRC, she doesn't get intimidated. And frankly, IMO, neither does EW--I find it astounding that you chastise me for "not knowing what she thinks" when all I'm doing is listening to the words that are coming out of her mouth. I do speak English, you know, and my powers of comprehension are pretty good, so I've been told.

EW has no trouble expressing herself. She has said no. And it ain't a 'waffly' kind of "I have no plans" no. It's a real no.

And if you don't like HRC, there's always Chris Christie--but I don't think he'll do anything for you.

I think you might be imbuing the Senator with views she doesn't possess, either:

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/congress/11587/votingrecord#tabset-3

Career Record
Usually supports higher immigration, population growth, foreign labor.

...Importing Specific Foreign Workers
Senator Warren has taken no action to reduce the importation of specific foreign workers.

She signed that letter urging HRC to run, after all. I should think they have a few points of agreement.

[cascadiance]

100. if "No means no" then Hillary or Obama wouldn't run...

Times changes, and people CHANGE THEIR MINDS, no matter how many who DON'T WANT THEM TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS might want!

Yes, if the corporatists get their way, I'll only be able to choose from the corporatist pol like Christie (which you imply that our ONLY OTHER CHOICE would be Christie the way that someone who doesn't want a democratic choice in the primary would seem to feel is their "reality&quot nominated by the Republicans or the Democrats. And just because I don't like Clinton's corporatist stances on many issues doesn't mean I like Republican's or ANY reason! They side with the corporatists AND have crappy social issue stances.

I've heard Bernie Sanders EMPHASIZE in the past he was not looking to run for president. But times change, and it sounds like he opened the door to that possibility just this last week while speaking on Thom Hartmann's show. If enough people support Warren, and she doesn't feel like she's up against a brick wall when she has a lot of people who have her back and support her, that could change everything. And you aren't human if you feel there's proof that you can read EW's mind to KNOW what she will do! If you're saying that she's the only politician to trust saying that she means "no" for now and forever, then I'd submit that you are saying she's the only politician we can fully trust what they say in this regard. Why then don't you support her and try to change her mind to encourage her to run then?

America is about to tell the PTB that they DON'T WANT to accept corporatist agenda being rammed down their throat any longer! No matter how much the corporatists try to manipulate parties and the media to do convince us otherwise! We are in a time of change, and sometimes even if the parade may be late or being delayed by outside forces, those leaders like EW will realize that they are best suited to get in front of it and lead it. One of our best politicians, FDR was lead by what he perceived to be popular sentiment in changing the way he did things over the time of his administration. That is the way politicians SHOULD do things!

And I'll bet that one of the bipartisan issues that Hillary supports along with many Republican is to reject instant runoff voting, since it is a big threat to the corporatist controls of both parties continuing to rule.

Supporting H-1B is NOT supporting *immigration* and does NOT belong in an immigration bill. Temporary guest workers under H-1B do not become here to become citizens. Therefore they are NOT *immigrating*. They are only here to make more money they could at home where the cost of living is a 10th of what it is here, and to help the 1% pay lower salaries! If they wanted real immigration reform, then people like good friends of mine wouldn't have had to wait many years, sometimes decades to get citizenship, even if their spouse and a brother's spouse is a citizen here. That is being discouraged to help the corporatists build more of a case to support H-1B programs which lowers salaries, reduces the ability of the tech force to organize and unionize, and helps ultimately educate foreign work forces to be better than hours when these temp workers move back to India and other places instead of *immigrating* here!

Warren is focused on the right priorities. Making those behind the corporate buyout of our government and corruption of it be made accountable. You have to start there or you can't solve other issues that deal with the aftereffects of corporate corruption of our government by these criminals. I think she's smart not getting distracted with that now. Just because she hasn't said anything about it yet doesn't mean that she's supporting H-1B. Obama won because he avoided talking about many of these issues too, and Hillary was more explicit about toeing the corporate line. People

[MADem]

103. Find me six examples of HRC saying NO. No-no-no-no.

I do not want to run. I have no interest in running. Relax--I'm not running....and then maybe I'll believe you. You can't, because she wisely stayed apolitical while she was serving as SECSTATE. She simply refused to entertain any discussion of the topic.

You can't use a cabinet job (and cabinet transportation, security, and expenses for local police, etc.) as a launching pad for your next campaign--it violates a number of campaign finance laws.

Cherry picking "I have no PLANS to run" from a 2006 or earlier interview (while her staff murmured "Dont count her out&quot , and an attempt to play gotcha on a sitting cabinet official by a Today Show hack just isn't the same thing.

Of course, we can be obtuse and pretend that it is, but it ain't.

"Enough people" aren't going to support Warren--she's not to everyone's taste. Don't shoot the messenger. EW's message works in MA--it doesn't work in TX, OK, FL and other states we need to win.

You can bet about what you think HRC might support or not support all you want (you're certainly exercising that perogative with EW, I notice). You can even go to a town hall and ask her, if she campaigns near you. But that has nothing to do with perception of her as a candidate, so rail away, it makes no difference.

I certainly hope that, since you take such stock in what my senator has to say, that when EW comes out in support for HRC, that you'll listen to her and cast your vote for the one who can win.


And maybe you'll believe what she said just this past week:

[Beacool]

53. Let them have their dream.

This whole thing has become as tiresome as the Christie for president push by the media. Let's say that Hillary chooses not to run, 2016 will be hard enough to keep the presidency in Democratic hands. So they think that a person who so far has been in an elected office for 9 months is going to save the party? That's as crazy as the Freepers who keep saying that Cruz, Paul or Palin should be their nominee.

[MADem]

55. I paid close attention to Warren's race, and did my (little) bit to help get her elected.

It wasn't a cakewalk. In fact, it was brutal, nasty, vicious and mean.

I guess people think that the strength of Warren's ideas will overcome some of that "dirty politics" that Scott Brown pulled?

HRC has been through the mill and she's come out the other side--anything they try to throw at her, she can say "Already asked and answered." The media doesn't recycle--they do love fresh meat, though. And the crap that Brown threw at Warren hasn't been seen at the national level. It would be distracting, and derailing, and cause problems. Also, she had a little trouble at the first debate, and Brown was a lousy debater. I think that a very skilled debater could give her trouble.

But all that--and her inexperience on the national stage as well as blanks in her resume-- aside, EW has stayed away from NH, she turned down an invite to Harkin's Steak Fry (that's mandatory for candidates), and she has said NO (in fact, once she said No-no-no-no-no x 2) more than half a dozen times. I think she's a very smart person, and I don't think that "No means Yes" is a smart strategy, so I'm gonna go with "No means No" when it comes to EW's prospects for 2016~!

[Beacool]

66. As I thought in 2008, I think that experience matters.

And I don't think that I was wrong in thinking that way then or now. What the Left doesn't get is that the average voter would see Warren as extreme as Cruz. I don't see either one winning a general election. Obama and Hillary were always middle of the road, their differences were not that great. Middle of the road is where most people are at, and those are the candidates who win presidential elections.

[cascadiance]

70. Yes, you are right that experience does matter, which IS why Elizabeth Warren is best qualified!

Watch this video of a speech she gave in Berkeley in 2007 before the 2008 crash.

I think it shows immense experience and knowledge of studying the plight of the middle class that I would contend hardly any other politician DOES NOT HAVE!!!!

She in fact laid out the facts then that really predicted the collapse of 2008 when the economy she described exploded and the middle class she speaks for here suffered for it.

In 2016, we really NEED a president who has as much understanding of the destruction of America's middle class, and has worked over the years to fight for it. I would argue that Warren knows more and has done more than just about any other potential candidate does. The plight of the the middle class will be THE issue in 2016 that candidates will need to address then, no matter how much the corporate media will try to limit discussion on it then (and will fail to do so then).

When you have a newer generation that's entering the voting populace that likes socialism more than capitalism that has lead to a big change in recent elections like Deblasio for mayor in NY on the east coast, and socialist Kshama Sawant being the first socialist to get elected to replace a Democratic incumbent city council member in Seattle on the west coast just in the last few days, there is a big groundswell of newer movements. The Occupy movement isn't as "dead" as some try to make it out to be. It's finding new ways to win, like Sawant as a Northwest Occupy leader did in the election vote counting this week in Seattle.

DLCer (or now Third Wayers since the DLC has been taken down since it had been exposed as earlier being funded and directed by the Koch Brothers and their tools) need to understand that more Americans are rejecting their corporatist agenda, and will find those that work against their agenda in the coming elections.

[Beacool]

72. She's an economist.

She's not really a politician, and other than blasting Wall Street, what makes you think that she could handle the vast array of demands that are placed on a president?

NYC is not a reflection of the country. Heck, it's not even a reflection of the state as a whole, although DeBlasio is no socialist. Furthermore, he was Hillary's campaign manager during her first run for the Senate. A week before the election she headlined a fundraiser for him. Who do you think that he would support?

[cascadiance]

78. Why do so many want term limits now? They DON'T LIKE the wrong kind of POLITICAL experience!!

... and that is a BIPARTISAN sentiment, not just of the so-called "far left" that non-corporatist issues and people keep getting dismissed as.

And I speak as one that does not want term limits, but I understand the sentiment that favors them.

I want an experienced politician that will provide us with the reform that corporatists of both parties have blocked us from doing for so many years with corrupt legislation and pruning of who can get in to office these days. But that "experienced" politician (if you only count political experience as "experience&quot doesn't exist for those that represent the newer generation and those that have been left out of the process *intentionally* over the years by the controlling corporatist elements that have provided the rules that have lead to this messed up economy we live in now.

I therefore would submit that given that vacuum, we need to expand what we define as needed "experience" for those we want to run and win office these days, and I think I share that opinion with those that support term limits amongst others. We need Elizabeth Warren's of the world to provide that combination of political experience AS WELL as experience that our current politicians don't have in areas that we need policy changes to speak for those that aren't necessarily in the 1% elite.

DeBlasio isn't a socialist any more than Obama is. But his message in the campaign echoed with the voting public in contradiction to the "annointed" choices that the corporatist party elements wanted. And of course you conveniently avoided commenting on how a socialist (and she COMPLETELY defines herself as one!) like Sawant would win in Seattle over an "experienced" Democratic incumbent on their city council. The voting public really didn't have a choice that spoke for them more than what DeBlasio offered. That also reflects the problem with American politics when you have the only ones that are allowed to contend with the annointed corporatist selections to be ones that are "tainted" like Anthony Weiner was. I respect that DeBlasio gave their voters the chance to speak out against the stop and frisk policy that so many voters there saw as a need to fix. Not being a NYC resident, I don't want to speak for him more than they might here, but it does seem obvious that the so-called "obvious" choices that some would make HRC to be aren't as "obvious" as they used to be. We need to use this as an opportunity to allow the Democratic Party constituents to speak up and be heard by many new voices, some of which we might select to run in 2014 and 2016.

[MADem]

80. Who are these "so many" of which you speak?

I don't want my senators or rep to have to deal with term limits--I'll keep re-electing them for as long as they're willing to run.

[cascadiance]

84. I think that a lot on the right want these in place...

... as reflected by this web page here amongst others...

http://termlimits.org/

As I said, I DO NOT support term limits either. And many in the Democratic Party don't either. But we DO support changing the guard in Washington that is so damn corrupt now, that includes BOTH parties (including the DLC part of the Democratic Party). We want to get rid of barriers that prevent us from getting those choices that those in both parties want to keep us from getting. And the uninformed Republican base feels that same frustration with corruption, but unlike Dems channel it in to wanting just to get rid of experienced politicians in Washington in general (which the corporatists will gladly replace with more lobbyist corrupted newbies), not getting rid of those parts of society that make the "experienced" pols corrupt. We want to empower the democratic institutions that throws the bums out and replaces them with those that work for US! Pols like Elizabeth Warren, whether they are politically "experienced" or not! If we ignore them for their "inexperience" now, when can we ever get newer ideas and leadership for them in Washington?

[MADem]

86. The thing is, though, who writes the bills that become law?

Who votes on those bills?

Picture us, as Senators or Representatives...are we gonna vote ourselves out of a job?

Hell no--we'll guffaw like crazy in the cloak room, and then table that piece of shit legislation forever!

Or...we'll get one of our buddies who is either in a safe district or who is retiring to attach a Poison Pen chunk of crap to the bill--so we can say "Well, while we think that term limits are a good idea, we just could not vote for that legislation, owing to that portion of the bill that advocated feeding disabled children to the wolves in the national parks to save Medicaid money..."

[cascadiance]

88. I'm not saying that either GOP or Democratic Politicians want term limits!

It is the Republicans (and the 1%ers who are NOT politicians that don't want to have to deal with them as much, AND who would then control the "experience" of Washington with the lobbyists still being there) that want to get rid of term limits.

I'm not saying that this is a divisive issue on the hill. Term limits is one that members of both parties in office want to avoid, since they are dependent on it not being in place to continue their jobs (unless they've already been given promises for a "revolving door" job by a lobbyist already).

But it is the Republicans in general (the non-politician voters out there that are continually dumb enough to continue to vote for Republicans) that swallow the 1% corporatist elements efforts to steer them towards using term limits as a solution to "get rid of that nasty government that Rush hates" that we should be looking at. It is that sense of frustration (even by some in the middle and some Democrats that have been looking at term limits as a solution) that will not be happy and be reinforced with their stances on term limits if they see the DLC continue to control what the Democratic Party provides as its choices for the Democrats to vote on for nomination). That will keep them from voting for a candidate like Clinton, but might have some of them vote for someone like Warren who they might see as an outsider wanting changes away from that corporate corruption, even if they themselves aren't "far left" as so many that try to dismiss Warren as the only voters she can appeal to.

[MADem]

93. Chris Christie can run as an "outsider" too.

He's not part of Washington. In fact, let's play the game and pretend that EW is the Dem candidate, and Christie is her opponent--he can run on

1. I have executive experience as the head of one of the most densely populated and complex states in the nation;

2. I am not part of that "gridlock" problem on the Hill.

Keep pounding those two issues, and he can do a lot of damage.

Those don't work with HRC because she was part of the executive branch of government as SECSTATE (and she has foreign policy experience that Christie doesn't), and she had a strong reputation for sponsoring bipartisan legislation during her time in the Senate.

Continuing to play the "DLC" card is pure ignorance. I'm sorry, but it is. The "DLC" is no more. They died in 2008 and the corpse was dragged away in 2011. Their records were purchased and are in a few boxes in a back room at the Clinton Library. There is no "DLC" anymore. The Democratic party leader is a guy named Obama. The person running the day-to-day vision of the party is Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Obama's team beat the DLC; he won.

We are in a post-DLC era (and it is an era that is starting to focus on WOMEN as the future in terms of political leadership, to a very large extent--they do seem to do a better job at it and get better results), and probably the best thing a few dogs with bones on that subject could do is just get off that lame old "DLC" mule, it won't carry the argument or the day.

[MADem]

77. I don't need old movies. I watched her campaign in MA.

I delivered voters to the polls for her. I pushed back against the "Indian Princess" and other smears against her, here.

And speaking of videos, here's one for you:

Go relax--I am NOT running for President.

--Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

No means NO.

[cascadiance]

83. Even Bernie Sanders is now "reconsidering" running for president after saying "no"...

... countless times when asked that same question on Thom Hartmann's show when he's a guest on friday shows of his.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024039611

Many politicians INCLUDING your Hillary have said "no" to this question in the past when they aren't ready to make such commitments. Why should Warren be any different? You are just making this claim as part of this partisan effort to stop any possible campaign in its tracks. Understand that many of us are NOT going to accept that the game is over when it hasn't started yet. This pointless rattling of sabres on whether she's running or not (party divisiveness) doesn't help but contribute to animosity that many in the Hillary camp are also claiming as reasons we should not have a Warren candidacy when they are the ones that are spurring this discussion point that is making for this animosity more than anything else at this point. We should be focusing on issues that many of us supporting Warren (and we feel Warren as well feels personally) are being avoided by the corporate press and the current political establishment. That is where we should be talking, not on the nonsense of whether someone is running for office in 2016, when it is now still 2013. Even if Warren doesn't get the nomination in the end, if we have succeeded in putting these avoided issues on the table and hopefully influencing the party and the eventual candidate to support good positions on them, we'll have won.

We might start talking about Warren a lot and how she addresses issues we want to get a campaign effort started, but I see no reason to dismiss Hillary Clinton and her supporters from starting a campaign on the issues they believe she should speak for them for as well. That is the political process that should be celebrated. These other games are not and should be avoided.

[MADem]

89. That video I offered is pretty damned close to a Sherman statement.

If Clinton gets hit by a bus, she might consider it.

But that's the ONLY circumstance that would put EW in the mix.

And if that happened, all I can say is, say hello to President Chris Christie. He's a better debater and he has very good campaign trail instincts--I don't think he'd let the RNC run his campaign, and if the far right went too far off the rails, he'd publicly disavow specific conducts, and garner crossover support as a consequence. He'd keep the wingnut votes while calling them out. He is a real danger, and anyone who dismisses him is whistling in the dark.

The ONLY Dem strong enough to wipe the floor with him--and make him look like the bully he is--is HRC.

And if Bernie ran, it would be a "vanity" campaign. He's too old, he's too far to the left, most Americans have no frigging clue who he is (Golly gee, is that Admiral Stockdale? I thought he was dead?) and he'd be a Nader--a turd in the punch. Personally, I can't see him doing anything quite so stupid--it's a lot of work, and all he'd do is piss off the people (like Hillary Clinton--who gave him MONEY for his Senate run) and he would GUARANTEE that he'd be challenged by a Democratic candidate with Big Promises and Big Money (paybacks are a mutha) and if a compelling Jim Jeffords-type Republican decided to jump in, the vote on the left could be split and a Republican could end up repping VT in the Senate again.

Bernie--unless he's planning on retiring from the Senate (because that would be the end result) at the end of his term in 2018, was running his mouth.

As for HRC, a PAC has been working for some time, it's called "Ready for Hillary." It has raised a bundle already--and most of the donations are from small donors, the five, ten, twenty five dollar crowd.

Warren's STAFF is saying "She's not running." If she were even entertaining a run, they'd be coy. And if she were even entertaining a run, there would be a PAC fired up and visible, vocal and organized support from senior people in the party, and there's none of that.

There's none of that.... because she isn't running.

You can't force people to do things they don't want to do. Maybe EW doesn't want her first marriage dragged through the mud, maybe she doesn't want to re-endure some of the shit flung at her by Scott Brown, maybe she wants to protect members of her family...or maybe, just maybe, working as a chief executive is not her area of interest--who knows why she doesn't want the job? All we know is that she has said, clearly, that she doesn't want the job, isn't interested, no-no-no-no-no, etc. This is something she doesn't want to do--and I don't understand why people don't believe her.

I suspect half of the "Ewwww--Warren for President!" noise is coming from rightwingers in the media, who love to raise hell and play that divide and conquer game. Ask yourself the question, in all sincerity: Who benefits from a Warren candidacy? It's not the Democratic Party as a whole. It's the left wing of the Democratic Party, who will have a candidate to cheer on (until she disappoints them with a stance they find troubling--and she will do that, they all do--look at how far "darling of the left" Obama has fallen; he gets so much shit on this board I sometimes think the place has been hacked by those Freeper nuts), and the Republican Party, who know they can beat her with a triangulating candidate like Christie.

[cascadiance]

91. Again you give NO issue reasons to support Hillary Clinton, just RATIONALIZED numbers...

that the corporatist media have been feeding us that try to rationalize that Clinton is the only one that has a chance to beat a Republican, which many could rationalize with many other numbers is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE at this point!

Again, maybe I have to start a separate thread on this. If those of us want to jump on board with HRC early. Give us reasons other than "the inevitable" or "she's the only one that can", in terms of solid policies and issue stances on NON-social issues that corporate interests care about, but most of the rest of us don't support the corporate positions on. If you can show that she will be a fighter against what corporate America wants to throw down our throats, then that would be a thread worth talking rationally in and might actually help persuade some of those you and others are trying to do through intimidation now, which WILL NOT WORK THESE DAYS!

[MADem]

97. You didn't once ASK for any "reasons." Don't move the goalposts and expect me to be cowed.

I hardly think any half-aware Democrat needs an introduction to SECSTATE Clinton--are you telling me, with a straight face, that you are unfamiliar with her stances on the issues? Didn't you watch the 08 Presidential debates? Didn't you follow her activities as a Senator? As a SECSTATE?

If you are unfamiliar with her stances (and those would be the 'reasons' to vote for her), it's YOU that needs to do a little reading on the topic, and after you've done that, you might tell us how you've survived the last two decades in that cave you were living in!

The bottom line is this: You either support the bulk of her views, or you don't. I like her stances on most issues, and I think she has experience, sagacity, intelligence, grit, verve, and she's the only Democrat on offer who can kick the living shit out of any Republican that runs.

No one is trying to "intimidate" you. Go vote for Bozo the Clown for all I care. Toss that vote to the wind--do what you want with it. It's yours to waste.

Just don't give me half-baked arguments, and get irritated when I don't buy them. You make assumptions about Elizabeth Warren that are based more on wishes than fact. She is a cipher in many ways. AFAIAC, that's not important, because I like her as a senator, I like her economic world view, and her attitude towards Wall Street. I want her to continue to do what she is doing in the Senate, where she can make a difference. I don't want her having to take a crash course on who the President of Benin is, or the details of US national defense policy--all subjects that Clinton has excelled at in the graduate school known as "Cabinet University."

HRC has a record to run on. Warren has a specific area of expertise that is needed in the US Congress. To me, there's no contest who is the better candidate for the Presidency. YMMV, but don't cry that you're being "intimidated" because I don't agree with you. Come up with reasons yourself why you support EW--and that's a tough nut, there, because EW has a very sparse record (her views on immigration, as I pointed out in a link in another post, might not be to your liking--but she hasn't had to throw down on that, so she can be vague and get away with it).

We don't need another "fresh face." We need a capable, experienced, ass-kicker for a candidate. One who has been vetted and who is familiar, who is strong, forthright, outspoken, and tested. One with no mysteries left to explore or exploit (e.g., without Googling, name EW's husband--the 2nd one, not the first one-- and tell us what he does for a living--bet you can't do it).

IMO, that candidate is HRC.

[MADem]

79. Bingo.

The right regards Cruz as a sweet guy with a loving father, a family man, an immigrant who is a "bootstraps" kind of guy.

Anyone looking at that turd with an unjaundiced eye knows that he's a liar, a bullshit artist, a self-aggrandizer, and a dumb-ass cretin. And that polarizing message comes through loud and clear...when I heard a 90 year old scream at the tee vee "Go back to Canada, you asshole!" at the height of the shutdown, the depths of his ability to excite the partisan sense in the average Blue MA voter was established decisively in my mind!

And middle of the road may be unsatisfactory to many here on this board, but I'd prefer a middle of the roader who lets OUR people in the room when it is time to make decisions, rather than one who will lock us out and laugh at us, a la BushCo.

[Beacool]

81. I like to read opinions of all sorts.

One quick peek at Free Republic, Hot Air, etc. proves that they are just as delusional. They keep proclaiming that Cruz, Paul and Palin are "real" conservatives. They hope that one of them runs for president. They think that Christie and Jeb are Rinos and far too moderate. It's exactly the reverse of what one reads here and just as ludicrous.

[MADem]

98. Yep. We are the ten percent!

They say only ten percent of the population gives a shit about politics on every given day, and we have to push like hell to get even fifty percent of the voting public to turn out and vote.

Neither site is representative of the larger public, but the conversations--if a bit strident at times--are often interesting, despite the "wishful thinking" and fact-free elements that occasionally insinuate themselves into the discussions!

You have a stronger stomach than me--any time I follow a link to some of those wingnut sites, I am appalled at the stupidity. Those folks really are thick as two bricks! I have to wonder how they can be trusted with hot liquids to have coffee in the morning! Gaaah!

[Beacool]

99. I see those sites (particularly Free Republic) as mirror images of this one.

It's the extremists of both parties.

[MADem]

101. I think we've got a few more "reasonable" folks than they do.

I think Dems, as a bunch, are better informed and have a better grasp of issues. They are also, by and large though certainly with some exceptions, more pragmatic.

Yeah, we have a few that are just dolts, but I sometimes wonder if some of those are Deep Trolls, here to shitstir and be so deliberately clueless as to create a parody of what a Democratic voter is. You know we're a target when there is a "conservative" website (which I learned of, here, to both hilarity and horror) that does nothing but HATE on us--that's their purpose and their sick little goal! They call us silly names, waste their time analyzing and mocking threads that are not to their liking, and gloat when they can slide a troll in under the radar. Now sure, I've seen some people over here laugh about going to that Freepy place and jerking a chain or two, but I am entirely unaware of a site--if one exists--that does nothing but dissect conversations over there and target individual members. I mean, that kind of conduct is "Balance of The Mind is Severely Disturbed" territory.

Also, this site, despite carping, complaining, and flat-out whining by people who think we ought to champion, say, the Communist Party candidate, doesn't impose the same level of purity tests that some of those other sites demand. The Tea Partiers don't want to hear from moderate Republicans, and didn't the head of that Freepy site go ballistic on people who supported RMoney? Here we don't just have Democrats, we also have Socialists, Greens, anarchists, communists, as well as more than a few Paulbots flying under the radar and playing the "too clever by half" game. Then there's the people who aren't even American voters, but who have an interest in US politics and they come from all over the world; Canada, UK, Australia, etc. They tend to be excessively critical of Americans as a group, on a good day, often missing the beam in their own eye, too.

You go into core Dem sites, like Blue Mass Group and some of the state-centric communities, and you don't get that level of diversity or flake--those guys won't tolerate it. Then again, they are more focused on actual RESULTS--getting candidates the money they need, engaging in street level campaigning, working to get people to show up--for meetings, rallies, and at the polling booth. This place, by contrast, is more of a news and "chew the fat" type site. There's some activism, but the ratio of activism to just conversational yakking doesn't compare to some of the more focused groups. A look at how moribund many of the state groups are here will prove that point.

It's very big tent we are under, here....the pity is, though, some of these folks don't understand that if they are in the tent, a polite guest needs to try a little harder to piss out of the tent, rather than piss on the doggone floor!

[Beacool]

104. That was very well said.

"This place, by contrast, is more of a news and "chew the fat" type site." Yep, that's what it is.

There's a lot of pissing going on here, the problem is everybody is getting splashed.

[MADem]

106. Ha! Ain't that the truth! nt

[7962]

60. Hillary also said she wouldnt run in 08, as do almost EVERYBODY when asked

Remember, she just wanted to concentrate on being a good senator. Saying "no" doesnt mean anything anymore.
I never could understand why they give that answer. Just like, when they ARE running, and are asked about the VP slot. Almost all will say they have no interest in being VP, they're focused on winning the primary, etc.
I wish for ONCE a candidate would just say "Of course I would be honored to be considered for it, but right now I think I'm the best choice for pres and I'm working to make tat happen". Or something to that effect.

All that being said, I agree with you and dont think she will do it. She knows that she is still an unknown to a large majority of voters who dont follow politics.

[MADem]

85. Go back and see how HRC phrased her non-denials, again.

She didn't say "No no no no no" or "No, I don't want to run" or "No I am not interested" or "Go relax--I'm not running" -- HRC said "I have no plans to run"--and she was saying that way earlier than 08, because in 08 she was on the campaign trail.

In fact, Hillary announced that she was running nearly two years before the 2008 elections, in January, 2007. And she never said she wasn't interested, didn't want the job, or "ruled out running." Even when they tried to trap her, her denials were always parsed. She always said she had NO PLANS to run--and that's a distinction and a difference.

The reason that no one admits they will take the VP slot is because if they do say that, people will perceive that they've given up on the brass ring. JFK was one of the first Presidents in the television age to roll out that kind of "I have no interest in being VP and won't take it if offered" response when he was a Senator angling for the nomination against formidable players like LBJ. He meant it, though--he wasn't going to play 2nd fiddle at his stage of life. It played well for him, and it has become the paradigm for candidates to pretend they have that same sort of determination, even if they don't. It demonstrates a sense of fierce resolve and suggests "leadership." And, as we know, it paid off for JFK (not without help from other resources, certainly).

People like Bill Richardson and Joe Biden, who could draw crowds, get applause, create enthusiasm--but not ever translate that into "top slot" votes--were, in effect, running for VP without overtly saying so. Everyone knew it, particularly when they were taking a very small piece of the pie in primary contests, yet staying in the race nonetheless. All the while they made non-denial remarks like "I'm not running for VP--I'm running for President," when asked if they'd take the slot. Everyone knew to read between the lines and see what they really meant.

I don't think we'll ever have real straight talk in politics--it's always gonna be a reading-the-tea-leaves exercise, I suspect, at least in terms of candidates who want to keep their options open. If they say "Hell, no" though, they mean it.

[7962]

94. True; so what do you think of what she said about '16? She has said "no" this time.

This was from before the '12 elections.

>>>In an interview with NBC’s “Today” show, Clinton squelched the latest boomlet for her presidential ambitions, emphatically answering “No, no,” when interviewer Savannah Guthrie asked her whether she would ever run again for president.<<<

Now, I dont believe her, and I think she will run, but imagine if she didnt. I think the primaries would be wild. Who would be favorite? Biden? No way he'd make it, IMO. Too gaffe-prone and he's in his 70s. Maybe Warren would reconsider if HRC didnt, but I dont see her staying out. I think her only negative is her age, which shouldnt matter, but will be a bigger issue for a woman to overcome.

[MADem]

96. Let's see the video link to that, in full context.

Also, she was a sitting cabinet official when she made that comment. Most people would regard it as somewhat unethical for a sitting Secretary of State to jump into "campaign mode" while being interviewed about their work in that office. An unelected cabinet official, appearing on a morning television show (and no doubt taking advantage of government air and surface transportation to make it to the studio--assuming that is where the interview occurred, though I can't tell without a video link), would have to be an idiot to start campaigning for their boss's job on the government's dime, even more so when the boss's own VP hasn't stepped back from consideration--and HRC is no idiot.

I'd bet the contents of my wallet, such as they are, that Warren won't run. And I'm not a gambler.

[TekGryphon]

13. Agreed on all accounts, and I'll add one more.

I like Senator Warren.
I'd like President Warren.
I'd LOVE Attorney General Warren.

Imagine having Elizabeth Warren in position to decide who gets investigated and prosecuted. A whole lot less pot growers getting their doors kicked in, and a whole lot of Wall Street executives getting theirs kicked in.

[PoliticAverse]

26. I somehow doubt a president Clinton would appoint Warren as AG but that would be interesting. n/t

[MADem]

48. I like Chair of the Federal Reserve Warren. nt

[jtuck004]

25. I agree. I think Hillary should put ALL her support behind a Warren presidential run.

end of challenge.

[L0oniX]

28. Warren doesn't need 3rd way centrist support.

Corporate Dems won't vote for Warren anyway.

[jtuck004]

29. And that might be the most enlightening thing that could happen.

Talk about a consciousness raising...


But, yeah.

[Whisp]

32. I would prefer that the Clintons have nothing to do to or for Warren.

The best thing they could do, if they were really interested in a strong Democratic party, is stay away, and shut up.

[jtuck004]

35. Yeah, I agree, but if you want all their Reagan Democrat buddies to vote,

you will need their blessing. Else they will vote the other side again, I suspect.

Which might be the best thing anyway. Get out of this perpetual servitude and just make it straightforward fascism. Easier to contrast and fight, might wake people up, or at least be more honest as a nation.

[Enthusiast]

59. You are so wrong. Is "seasoning" a new word for

bought off like the rest of those corporatist assholes that are ruining the nation?

[rhett o rick]

62. I call your 2 cents and raise you 2. 1. The middle class cant wait for Sen Warren

to become "seasoned". Eight more years of Clinton or Christie will devastate the middle class, probably beyond repair. Our back is against the wall.

2. I dont like the idea that we shouldnt fight for what we believe is right because we might lose. Clinton and or Christie will have the full strength of Citizens United behind them and will most likely prevail over the grassroots left, but we must fight. Dry powder doesnt do you any good once the war is over. Also, fighting Clinton will make her stronger and show the country that Clinton isnt the heir apparent.

3. This argument doesnt pass the logic test. If Sen Warren can work with Clinton, then something would have to be terribly wrong. They represent two opposite sides of this class war.

[bvar22]

67. Nailed It.

My feelings exactly.
I was composing your post in my head when I scrolled across it.
Thanks for saving me the work!

"I dont like the idea that we shouldnt fight for what we believe is right because we might lose."

That could be the epitaph for the Obama Administration.

"We didn't fight for a Public Option because Lieberman said he was going to vote against it, so we just gave up."
I mean.......WTF.

I do NOT know of a single legitimate reason for NOT fighting for the Right Thing.
I only know of focus group excuses and rationalizations for capitulation and deception.

[rhett o rick]

73. "We didn't fight for a Public Option because Lieberman said he was going to vote against it, so we

just gave up." Some try to excuse that bullcrap by calling it being "pragmatic". I call it cowardice.

[bvar22]

76. I call it Kabuki Theater carefully scripted...

to get exactly what they wanted all along WITH Plausible Deniability.

Lieberman didn't have anything to lose, so he took one for TeamDLC
by playing Judas in the Kabuki,
for which he was well rewarded by the Dem "Centrist" Leadership.


Meanwhile, the cover story becomes the "New Reality" that Carl Rove spoke of:

Lieberman was this BIG SUPER Bully
who single handedly beat up the President
and ruined Health Care for EVERYBODY.
It was HORRIBLE.
There was nothing we could DOOOOOOO.

[rhett o rick]

90. I am afraid I agree with you 100%. It's all Kabuki Theater.

For act two we will pretend we are upset about the filibuster and do the dance.

[cascadiance]

92. Feinstein proved the kabuki theater agenda when 2013 started and fillibuster rule changes in the mix

... then with the progressives trying to get the Democratic Party to support Merkely, Harkin, and Udall in the fillibuster reform that would challenge those who wanted to do a filibuster to do a talking filibuster in order to stop a vote instead of the crap we have in place now. Both Feinstein (and unfortunately even Barbara Boxer) were identified as part of the small group of senators that stood in the way of this happening. And this was the exact same time that Feinstein was trying show she had support for the grass roots Democratic Party more populist stance on an issue with the firearms control bill she was trying to get passed in the Senate but that got filibustered and stopped then. Had she REALLY been an honest politician that wanted to see that passed, and not just present a Kabuki theater presentation of her support for firearms control that she engaged in, then she would have not stood in the way of the filibuster changes. Unfortunately, there is too much of what is going on in Washington now that follows this script, much of which the public doesn't get to hear about!

[Whisp]

111. Beware.

Even if our fantasy of Warren being President comes true, it's not going to be easy to further change things. She can pick up where the President left off, but the road is still long and hard.

Let us remember that, instead of giving her impossible expectations even before she officially runs like so many did for President Obama.

The system needs a lot of correcting and it's not possible to just hit the 'Easy Button'. I expect moaners and whiners just as Obama had when Warren can't teleport us all to perfection after 100 days.

[bradactor63]

107. I doubt Warren will run

I really doubt she will run. I would like to see her or Bernie Sanders run or someone else. Yes, if Hillary runs, I will support her. I knew she would beat McCain in 2008 if it were not for Obama who I support wholeheartedly now. Just would like to see someone else besides a Clinton or a Bush run and win

[gopiscrap]

108. welcome to DU

[Arkana]

109. Can we add a 4?

4. I'm a MA resident and I am SICK TO DEATH OF SPECIAL ELECTIONS.

[airplaneman]

7. One of the few remaining FDR Democrats around. n/t.

[DissidentVoice]

12. And for that very reason...

...I see the party establishment trying to quell her candidacy in favour of someone "centrist."

[libdem4life]

24. I see the Republicans cheering for the Democrats to nominate/neutralize/disengage her

and to just forget these other tacky matters. Take a vote of those she's got under her magnifying glass? 100% yeas.

[DissidentVoice]

36. I like her

Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of what I've heard of her...but it's going to take nothing short of a miracle for her to beat the entrenched party machine.

[libdem4life]

37. Just watched her again. She is a teacher/professor/economist/intellectual just incidently a woman

She doesn't want to beat a machine, or be on the Cheerleading Squad or the Star of the Girl's Basketball Team or get excoriated by the Press and the Republicans with asinine lies and allegations...just for the hell of it.

She's the brainy one. She studied while the rest were out messing around. She's the Principal you bring the problem kids to set them straight. She corrects your homework...and I see a bunch of red marks on their papers.

But she has a clear road ahead for wherever she chooses, no doubt.

[blue14u]

39. I see that too!!

Looks like the centrist are running scared. Any mention of a REAL Democratic

running and all the nay sayers show up...

Democrats want a Democratic for President!!!

[Paper Roses]

11. K&R n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Head of the Federal Reserve?

That would be a hoot.

[7962]

20. Now there's an idea!

Maybe then we'd get some real answers about 'easing".

[PoliticAverse]

27. Unlikely as she lacks the experience and economics background. n/t

[wilsonbooks]

31. Are you joking?

Elizabeth Ann Warren[1] (née Herring; born June 22, 1949[2]) is an American academic and politician who is the senior United States Senator from Massachusetts and a member of the Democratic Party. She was previously a Harvard Law School professor specializing in bankruptcy law. Warren is an active consumer protection advocate whose work led to the conception and establishment of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She has written a number of academic and popular works, and is a frequent subject of media interviews regarding the American economy and personal finance.
In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, Warren served as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). She later served as Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under President Barack Obama. In the late 2000s she was recognized by publications such as the National Law Journal and the Time 100 as an increasingly influential public policy figure.

[PoliticAverse]

49. No. I'm aware of her background and I stand by my opionion that such an appointment is unlikely. n/t

[cascadiance]

71. Berkeley doesn't have SCHOLARS like Warren speak if they are "inexperienced"...

Please stop the BS!!! Look at my post #70 in this thread. You can at least try to bend the facts instead of outright LYING about her background.

I predict that "experience" will be a constant meme the DLC/Third Wayers will constantly be using against a newer generation of politicians that is starting to rise with the growing demographics that support more progressive policies from the younger newer voters of the Occupy movement, growing minority voter demographics, and more PO'd American middle class workers that are losing their wealth and jobs in the current environment that are looking for NEW voices to represent them. Experience will be the constant "weapon" used against newer pols like Warren that are just now breaking through the DLC walls that have kept good progressive pols out of many offices over the years.

Many Republicans and independents who are demanding term limits are feeling a similar frustration with "experienced" people running government, when that experience is a result of 20-30 years of growing corruption that started heavily in the Reagan years. This isn't about newer "far left" candidates not having experience. It is everything to do with the old guard that have achieved their position through corruption to try and hold on to office. I'm not for term limits as it empowers the lobbyists more than hopefully good experienced politicians. But we need to empower the voter to make sure we get the GOOD politicians to win office to get elected and build that experience and therefore also help build an infrastructure that rejects bribery instead of embracing it like both parties currently do.

[PoliticAverse]

105. My 'lacks the experience' comment was about the possibility of her being nonimated as Fed Chair

which I see as unlikely as she doesn't have any central banking experience. Note that Warren's
first choice for Fed Chair was the highly-experienced Paul Volker and her second choice was
the experienced Janet Yellen.

[rhett o rick]

63. Dreamer! If Clinton or Christie win, they wont touch Sen Warren. Larry Summers would

become the Fed., probably if either Clinton or Christie win.

I think that when Clinton and Christie win the nominations, they should switch parties. It wont matter because the Koch Bro will be counting the votes.

[BlueJac]

18. I am all about that!

[red dog 1]

22. K&R

[libdem4life]

23. Agreed. She's already crashing through an old Senate ceiling as a "newbie" speaking to the entire

Senate, but also delivered a pretty scathing "lecture" in front of the world on the MSM...replayed clips and all. Love the way she points that finger at them, leans forward and delivers it without a hitch. Bearing the news that many of them...R and D alike...not only did not want to hear, but aren't crazy about their constituents hearing either.

Just leave it to a woman ... get in and try to change things right away. Yep.

Now, we need more to help her. She's broken the ice, and it does tend to work that way. Other women were able to observe that she emerged not only fine, but even stronger.

[tavalon]

30. I know that the highest accolade we can offer is to say we want her as President

I want her to replace the lion of the Senate and she's doing a stellar job.

[winter is coming]

33. +1, but I want someone of her mindset in the White House. n/t

[tavalon]

34. Absolutely

I don't think the political atmosphere will allow for that just yet. I guess it has to get a bit worse, I don't know.

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. Any elected official who says: "I've looked at the data and it shows..."

... is okay in my book.

She doesn't talk in politician-ese because she isn't a lawyer.

[libdem4life]

102. She was a Harvard Law School Professor.

[UCmeNdc]

56. Agree!

[Divernan]

57. Warren is on fire & will make a much more dynamic candidate than H.Clinton.

Elizabeth Warren is the natural person to succeed President Obama. She is a real liberal, a woman of high principle, and she comes with no baggage. She is not conniving. She does not feel entitled to be President. She is not part of any dynasty. She is genuine. Warren may not be perfect, but no one is.
Interesting observation of Hillary Clinton in today's International New York Times:

"A friend of mine who went to a public event of hers last week was blown away by how not blown away he was. Amid all of the Hillary hullabaloo, he’d forgotten that she’s no dynamo on the stump. Many Democrats overlook this, but not the ones whispering sweet encouragements in Elizabeth Warren’s ear. Part of what they see in Warren — and part of what they believe could make her a spoiler — is a sizzle that doesn’t come as naturally to Hillary. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/opinion/sunday/bruni-more-fun-with-bill-hill.html?hpw&rref=opinion&_r=0

[TBF]

58. Primary talk aside I really like how she's challenging the status quo -

But I think right now we have to be focused on 2014. Let's not put our cart ahead of the horse.

After that I'll be interested in seeing who is running.

[Indyfan53]

61. If we nominate her,

Could Ed Markey or someone just as progressive take her committee seat?

If not, I'd like for her to stay where she is.

[rhett o rick]

64. I agree.

[SHRED]

65. I, for one, am sick of the Clinton's DLC BULLSHIT!!

NAFTA (losing our national sovereignty), Telcom Act (consolidation of media ownership), Financial Services Modernization Act (the green light given to Wall St to steal from us), etc...

And we find out Hillary is pro-fracking:
http://junkscience.com/2013/10/07/surprise-hillary-clinton-tells-ny-audience-fracking-is-good-news/

Fucking RW Dems.

[woo me with science]

68. Hear, hear!

[The Wizard]

74. The crooked banks will

pay whatever it takes to ruin her. The real solution is public horse whipping of the most corrupt bankers and the Koch brothers.

[INdemo]

82. Cant you just hear the corporate media a few months before the Iowa caucus

or even now if it looks certain to become a reality how the media will trounce on her..There are Democrats or Republican lites that will say she is a radical or that she is a Socialist and all that bullshsst. She truly represents the kind of leader we need in the White House because she has shown this in the Senate because she has stepped on some corporate Democrats toes that have tried unsuccessfully to silence her.

[Norrin Radd]

110. kr