Many Democrats prefer Clinton over Warren for president because the Clinton name is already

[Cal33]

Last edited Wed Aug 7, 2013, 02:52 PM - Edit history (4)

well-known. It's true that this will be a great help in winning the election, but I think
more should be looked at than name-recognition alone. We should also consider the
candidates' philosophies of governance. Just read the message in this thread describing
what Warren is like at work in the senate. She doesn't take any nonsense from anyone
and doesn't allow herself to be bullied by anybody. [If Obama only had something of this
quality !!]. Furthermore, she is anything but shy about standing up for what she wants to
get done for the American people. Right now she is working on (1) Student Loans.
(2) Breaking Up the Big Banks (and here she's got Republican Sen. John McCain, no less,
on her side).

She started off in the Senate seven months ago as a star figure and is more well-known
than many of her senior colleagues who have already served several terms. This is a
delicate situation and will continue to remain so for some time to come, but she seems
to be handling it well thus far. There are more of them who admire and are in awe of
her than those who disapprove. The GOP senators, of course, detest her. Their fear of
her is plainly showing!

For those of us Democrats who think that Hillary Clinton is a far better-known person,
well, it's true at the moment. But there are 3+ years to go before November, 2016, and
Warren, at the rate she is moving, will have accomplished far more in bringing to the
American people's awareness the severe problems that are facing our nation. She will
introduce legislation to correct them, and she will not hesitate to publicize it -- loud and
clear-- when the GOP senators will do their best to block them. She is not shy about
placing blame on where the blame is due. After all, it is the truth. And, like Harry
Truman, she is not afraid of telling the truth.

Like many other Democrats, I think of Hillary Clinton as a middle-of-the-roader. Should
she decide to run and win, we'll be having more of the same as what we've been having
from Obama, so far. Should Clinton win in the primaries, I'd vote for her over any
Republican. However, in the long run I don't think there can be any real change with a
middle-of-the-road philosophy, and win against the Republicans as things now stand.
Just look at Obama. He gives in perhaps 75% and receives 25% whenever he is
bargaining with the GOP. For the health of Democracy in our country, this is like dying
a slow death. It's only a question of time -- unless we change. I hope I am wrong,
but it doesn't look like Obama is going to change suddenly in the 3+ years that are left.

Elizabeth Warren is a Progressive, Liberal DOER. And we need a Progressive, Liberal
DOER right now to shake up the masses of people who simply don't know what's going
on in our country, and in the world at large.

We need NEW BLOOD, and Elizabeth Warren is that NEW BLOOD we have been hoping
and praying for, ever since GW Bush became president in January. 2001.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/312397-elizabeth-warren-ruffling-feathers-early-in-clubby-senate

[hedgehog]

1. We shouldn't forget, the Republicans are ready to dust off all the

attacks they didn't get to use in 2008.

They are ready and waiting for Hillary Clinton.

If she is the candidate, will the election be about us, or about her?

[Metric System]

40. The Mass. election got pretty nasty. Warren or any Dem nominee would be subjected to a barrage of

attacks.

[winter is coming]

98. The Republicans will dig up or make up dirt about whomever we run.

I'm not interested in Hillary, but I don't see "Republicans will smear her" as much of a ding against her.

[Cal33]

143. This is nothing new. making up dirt against a Democratic challener is something that they've always

done. Dirt and lies are the trademark of the GOP. And what enables them to continue doing
so, is that Democrats rarely answer back adequately, and with evidence that they are lying.
Democrats have been unwitting enablers all along.

What would be new is if some Democratic challenger would begin to answer the GOP'S lies,
point by point, and with proof that the GOP is deliberately lying.

This would be a backlash. The GOP might begin to learn that it doesn't pay for them to lie
anymore.

[roguevalley]

116. I want the names bush and clinton to go away. This isn't a monarchy and I'm sick of them.

It may not be 'just' but its true. I am sick of hearing them and seeing them recycle through the government. ENOUGH!

There are plenty of good people, many women who will do the job very well.

[choie]

127. AMEN!! n/t

[Faux pas]

132. Left On!

The bush/clinton clans are too interwoven and too much alike. Hell No to Hillary in any year.

[left is right]

151. I agree that is m objection to HRC

Funny though, I cold probably voter for her in the primary if she was just HR This is about the primary only, I will vote for the Democratic candidate whomever s/he may be

[snappyturtle]

178. Thank you. nt

[LaydeeBug]

164. Oh, well THAT'S a *reason* for ya...the Republicans don't like her. You haters are a SCREAM

They will be ready and waiting with FRESH scandals and FRESH characters to assassinate REGARDLESS of who the nominee is. It's the same old, same old with Hillary...

This is just silly.

And telling

[Safetykitten]

2. Warren gets all my support.

[Scuba]

3. This is not a hard choice for anyone who holds to traditional Democratic values.

[treestar]

4. How is Warren going to accomplish anything real with a Republican House?

The Senate passed an immigration bill but the idea is of course dying in the House.

Why do people insist on 2016 when 2014 is nearer?

Again it's the idea with the right President, all will be done. Not if the Rs hold Congress.

[Cal33]

23. Of course 2014 is nearer, and winning the House in 2014 is a must, if Democrats will be

able to get anything done. But, have you noticed that the present-day Democratic
leadership does not do too much about letting our none-too-interested masses know
who is responsible for blocking and filibustering all the bills that are for the benefit
of the American people?

Dems. should be should be shouting this out loud and clear on the roof tops, but
they don't!!

Republicans, on the other hand, are shouting out their propaganda and sheer lies
on the roof tops, and many people believe that the Democratic leadership is
responsible, as an example, for the economic mess our nation is in. The GOP
leadership has long known that consistent lying to the people pays!!! And the
Democrats' weak and inadequate replies are actually helping the Republicans'
lies become more successful !!

You can be sure that if Elizabeth Warren were president, she would see to it that
the GOP's misdeeds will be called out every time they happen -- loud, long and
clear! This is an important way of reaching the many lethargic people and getting
them to vote those pathological liars out of office.

Legislators like Sen. Sanders and Rep. Grayson are almost rarities nowadays. We
need more of them in office. There seems to be something so very lackadaisical,
if not self-destructive, about the present-day Democratic leadership. We really do
need a huge, sweeping change to get anything done.

[treestar]

125. It doesn't matter if you would like the way she would "see to it"

better, if they don't vote for the bills! Just because you think (and could be wrong) that she would talk the same as a President than as Senator, that doesn't mean a single thing could get passed, and it could be polarizing.

Again, you seem to think that the right President can make the Congress a rubber stamp body. That's asking for a cult of personality type leadership.

It's trying to ignore the fact Obama could sign good legislation if anyone paid attention to 2014.

It's obsession with personality of who is the President.

[Cal33]

130. I do realize the necessity of having the backing of the Congress for the president to get things

done. I've referred several times in my posts to the journalistic exaggeration of describing
the president as "the most powerful man in the world," when he plainly isn't. Our
system of checks and balances were made to ensure that no one person, or even a group
of individuals, should get too much power.

It's also important for the Democrats to make sure that the American people know
each time that the GOP prevents a bill from being passed -- especially those bills involving
protection of the people from the predatory habits of the corporations.

Do you realize that most of the Republican masses really believe that Democrats are responsible
for the economic mess that our nation is in? They've swallowed every lie of their masters - hook
line and sinker!

I have to say this, Democrats in general can't be bothered to reply very much to Republican lies.
Republicans, I am sure, must be very appreciative of this. It makes things so much easier for
them to keep the Republican masses misinformed! And Democrats have to take part of the blame
for the great success of the GOP'S propaganda and campaign of lies, and keep their masses of
followers ignorant and under their control.

We must point it out - loud, long and clear - each time they lie, and tell the truth.

Another thing. Electronic voting machines have been around since 2000. I'm willing to bet
they will still be used in 2016. The same Democratic attitude prevails: most of us
can't be bothered to fight for abolishing the machines. We can no longer use "lack of time" as
an excuse.

And we suffer the results!! We reap what we have sown -- disaster at the polls!!
And even at the elections we've won, the actual margins are very likely much larger.

We are the enablers of the GOP to commit fraud at the polls. This is a form of self-destruct!

All of the above comes from the "I-don't-want-to-be-bothered" attitude, which seems to be
so prevalent among us Democrats. That's why the GOP is so often winning - even with their
lies, and we are so often losing - even with truth on our side!

We do have truth on our side, but we seldom use it -- even when lies concerning us are
being told! Sounds crazy, doesn't it? But can we deny that statement?

Come on, Democrats! Wake up, and let's get out of our sate of lethargy!

[Maedhros]

60. You are right.

Hillary would fit in nicely with a Republican House.

[AgingAmerican]

5. She would not make 'grand bargains'

That has been Obama's biggest failure, IMHO.

She has far, far better name recognition than Elisabeth Warren, though I believe Warren would be hands down a better president.

[grasswire]

6. Sending Warren into that cesspool now would be crazy.

I value her too much to think its a good idea.

And I am NO supporter of Hillary for POTUS.

I admire Warren very much. But I don't support nominating her for POTUS.

[Cal33]

52. Just doing her job now and for the next 3-1/2 years as senator might help to clean up the

cesspool somewhat. Warren is not the type to hesitate about letting the people know
every time the Republicans bring down one of her proposed bills meant to benefit the
American people. She will see to it that the American people KNOW that the Democratic
Party is on their side, and the Republicans are their enemies.

The GOP is still getting away with their propaganda and lies, partly because Democrats
don't say much one way or another, each time the GOP defeats one of their bills that's
for the benefit of all Americans. They don't even say much when the GOP puts the blame
on the Democrats for Congress being so inactive. AND TOO MANY BELIEVE THEM !!!
I see this as a self-destructive trait of many Democratic politicians. Why don't they
speak up loud and clear, and tell the people what the Republicans had just done with
the NO-saying and filibustering? Leave it to the news media? Well, well, well !!! 90%
OF the MSM is owned by the Republicans! Why are Dem. politicians taking all this
lying down, I'll never understand?

Elizabeth Warren is no doormat. She will manage to let the American know the truth,
each and every time -- at least where her own legislative proposals are concerned.

By the time 2016 comes around, I think more people will be knowing more of the truth.
And these will be changing the way they vote, accordingly. It might be just the right
time for someone like her to succeed in cleaning up the rest of the cesspool as president.
A difficult job to accomplish in 8 years, I admit. But if anyone can do the job, she can.

She is very much needed.

[KharmaTrain]

154. She's One Of 100...

...in a body that cherishes seniority and decorum. I admire Senator Warren but it's still too early to tell what kind of legislator she is or will be. While she's gotten some positive reviews in her limited committee appearances she has no real accomplishments...no passed legislation...nor was I expecting her to. She's still learning the ropes...how to navigate in that highly patrician world of the beltway and to find the points of least resistance. Senator Franken is also doing the same thing...spending a majority of his first term working quietly behind the scenes and trying to build up relationships and seniority that will make him a more effective Senator down the road as a similar tact will happen for Senator Warren. And I hope it happens...Patrick Lahey won't be around much longer and I see her moving into the leadership roles he's held for the better part of the last 30 years.

Being President is a thankless job and you'll always have at least 45% of the populace against you from the git-go and have to try to placate the other 55% in hopes of getting anything done. There's a big difference between campaigning where you can create all types of pie-in-the-sky scenarios as opposed to the ugly realities of governing. EVERY Democratic President in my too many years on this rock has been castigated by critics on the left of being "sell outs" or worse cause they are constricted by having to work with a system based on checks and balances...not one party rule.

As long as the rushpublicans control the House...especially with a large number of teabaggers...the harder it is to have anything done no matter who is President. All the tough talk won't get a single payer health care bill or busting banks or closing Gitmo or any dream you may have won't happen without a solid and Progressive Democratic majority in both houses to support a President Warren or whomever. The future success is based on building from the bottom up...not dreaming for changes from the top down. It ain't gonna happen...

[Cal33]

157. Much of what you say is true. Well, I hope she will rev up something that Democrats are really

slow about: Make consistent loud noise and let the whole world know about it every time
the GOP blocks or filibusters legislation that Democrats are trying to pass for the benefit
of the people.

There are millions among the masses who believe the Republican lies that Democrats are
responsible for the economic disaster we're in today! Lies repeated loud and long enough
do come to be accepted as the truth - and by too many people.

Dems. have to learn to make a lot of noise about the truth - if they want the truth to be a
accepted. Dems. apparently don't know this yet. Maybe some just can't be bothered.

[madokie]

7. I'd vote for Warren

She'd be the best possible person to run that would make things happen in a good way for us.

[immoderate]

17. She would have my vote.

--imm

[cali]

8. and I'd bet almost anything that she won't run. c'mon, use some analytic skills here.

[L0oniX]

13. ...and here comes the "If you don't select her then you will have a repuke for POTUS".

Not from you of course but I can already see the texts.

[Jackpine Radical]

80. Hey, you--

Get offa my cloud

[davidpdx]

122. I've been saying for 9 months now neither Clinton nor Biden will run

I think this is about the 100th time I've said it.

[Cal33]

123. I hope Warren will.

[JimDandy]

144. I second your hope! n/t

[closeupready]

9. And the Clinton name is associated with the IWR, NAFTA,

welfare deform, outsourcing of jobs to India, the Third Way, etc.

As someone upthread stated, the choice is not a difficult one for those who hold traditional Democratic values.

[gcomeau]

10. The bottom line...

...is that many prefer Clinton over Warren because they prefer a Democratic President over a Republican one. Run Warren this early and we're going to end up with a Republican president.

[KamaAina]

31. Because first-term Senators have no chance whatsoever of being elected President

oh, wait a minute...

[pscot]

35. And of course Rand Paul and Ted Cruz

are household names. Dog forbid we should run a real Democrat against either of them.

[alp227]

47. Cruz was born in canada.

He can't run.

[think]

64. Hallelujah....

[djean111]

104. His mother is American born.

That makes him a natural-born citizen at birth.
So, yeah, he can run, sadly.

[alp227]

106. REALLY?

Hmm. This CRS report from 2011 breaks down the "natural born" clause and foreign-born citizens at length in pages 14-24.

If true it shows a double standard between Cruz and Obama with the right wing birther conspiracy types.

[djean111]

108. Of course there is a double standard, silly!

But yes, we shall see what Whirly Hates has to say about Cruz.

[Cal33]

109. If so, how come the GOP fruit-cakes were making such a stink about Obama? His

mother was also a natural-born American citizen, so Obama was a natural-born
US citizen, even if he should have been born in Kenya. It wouldn't even have
been necessary for him to show that he was born in Hawaii.

[djean111]

110. "natural born" is open to interpretation.

Has not been tested in court.
The GOP, of course, has a double standard.
One of the reasons they wanted so very badly to show Obama was born in Kenya is that, evidently, the American citizen needs to have 14 years residency in the US, five of which to be after age 14, and his mom was 18. Or something like that.
I think Cruz qualifies the way McCain did - but Congress passed a special rule for McCain, and I am sure they would do so for Cruz.

[Cal33]

114. How about all the

State Department career employees working in US embassies and consulates overseas?
Many of them have their children born in foreign countries. Are these children ineligible
to become future presidents? This is like being penalized for having worked for the US
Government overseas.

[karynnj]

113. Not in the context of the Presidency - Obama's mom was born in Kansas - If what you said was true

it would not matter where she had Obama ------ instead it was important that it was Hawaii.

[Metric System]

41. I like Elizabeth Warren, but she's no Barack Obama. Come on.

[KamaAina]

42. That's why I like her!

[Enthusiast]

119. That is right....nt

[gcomeau]

48. I was not referring simply to...

...her being a"first term Senator".

Her overall level of political experience/resume is extremely shallow relative to where Obama was, pretending that the only thing involved is time spent in the US Senate is childish and naive. That one term is her ONLY elected office she has ever held for cripes sake.

[Cal33]

58. You forget, she also worked a few years for Obama. She's had an

insider's view of what to do and what not to do!!

[Cal33]

38. I feel quite certain that in two years' time, Warren will have made a good name for

herself as a legislator. I see that she is already on the way. She's got what it takes.
I am just expressing my own views and hopes right now. She hasn't said a word
about running in 2016.

[gcomeau]

49. I do as well...

...but nowhere near enough to convince half the country she's ready for the Presidency.

[Cal33]

61. Most Repubs. vote Republican, and most Dems. vote Democratic. She doesn't need

to convince half the country. 10% will be more than enough.

[L0oniX]

11. I will never vote for any Clinton! I have a feeling the over lords and fawners will select her.

Just what we need ...more worshippers ...with future expectations of Chelsea. This ain't some fucking idol TV show!

[Cal33]

30. Not even if it's a choice between a Clinton or a Republican?

[pscot]

37. That is not the case at present

[gcomeau]

50. Using the word "never"...

...means you are not limiting yourself to "the case at present".

[Cal33]

63. I hope it won't be the case in 2016, either.

[L0oniX]

134. If lefty Dems don't vote it will be the fault of who the DLC and centrists run in the primary.

Don't even act like we would be letting the repukes win. It will be the bad choice the centrists and DLC make that lets the repukes win irregardless of what the left progressives want. They threw us under the buss after they got our vote and it still burns.

[L0oniX]

95. A vote for Clinton is a vote for war IMO.

[Zorra]

12. A primary reason, (pun intended), why the polarization of wealth increases daily,

why we can't make any significant progressive changes, and why democracy in the US is an illusion.

"I've listened to preachers,
I've listened to fools
I've watched all the dropouts
Who make their own rules
One person conditioned to rule and control
The media sells it and you live the role"

[Maedhros]

62. If we're using musical analogies

this one fits as well:

[Zorra]

71. Why, what on earth do you mean?

Just kidding.

[millennialmax]

14. No person in this country deserves the office of President more than Sec. Clinton.

I look forward to touching that screen for her.

[cali]

18. deserves? deserves? yikes.

this is about who will best serve the people, not who fucking deserves the White House.

I won't vote for her. I think she'd be a terrible President.

[Cal33]

24. If it comes to a choice of Hillary or a Republican, I'd choose Hillary. Our democratic way of life

may be half dead, but at least, it will still be alive. A Republican president will try to kill
it altogether.

[cascadiance]

84. But there IS a primary before the general election. And OP and many of us haven't selected Hillary

We want a CHOICE and someone that isn't already "preselected" and "blessed" by the corporatist America types like the Koch funded DLC group that the Clintons started when Bill became president.

If it gets down to Hillary, or a Republican, it is pretty stupid to think that any of us would pick a Republican over Hillary. But the big question is whether we can do better than Hillary. We've been given artificial choices to prop up the corporate empire like last election where we basically were pushed by corporate America in to the following choices:

1) a woman who when pressed had more moderate or corporate serving choices. Corporate America wanted us to pick her because she was a woman. Not for her positions on issues. They cared about her serving THEM.
2) a man of color who when pressed had more moderate or corporate serving choices. Corporate America wanted us to pick him because he was African American. Not for his positions on issues. They cared about him serving THEM.
3) a man who espoused more progressive positions in the open than the first two choices, but one that they knew had a "secret" that allowed them to pull the plug on him at any time, which they did after the primary season established "the leaders" as these three, but right before the big Tuesday in primary season before any other candidate could enter the mix.



Every one else was pushed down the visibility list. If the plug was pulled on person three in this list, a candidate like Dennis Kucinich might have gotten the voters concerned about issues that candidate three got, and stay as a valid alternative choice the more the first two candidates avoided taking any real progressive stances as the primary season went on.

We need to establish a choice of a REAL progressive candidate that can stay in the race through the whole primary season that lets us as voters pick them on their positions on issues, not their "notoriety", or their "identity". If we don't, we'll fall into the same trap and have another do nothing president if we have a Democrat, or a Republican bent on destroying the government and democratic rule.

[Raksha]

117. Very well said!

I will NOT vote for another corporatist "Third Way" Democrat, either in the primary or the election. And I have no reason to believe Hillary is anything else.

[bvar22]

26. Oh, I've GOT to hear more of this.

Please explain WHY Hillary deserves to be President.

Please take your time.

[millennialmax]

29. If you need me to explain, it's probably not going to change your mind anyway. eom

[bvar22]

43. Its that sense of royal "entitlement" that turns my stomach.

*

[4Q2u2]

32. Graham is that you?

You seem like you are 4 her big time.

[millennialmax]

33. I don't understand what Lindsay Graham has to do with any of this.

Pretty sure that he is not a Clinton supporter.

[RevStPatrick]

34. 80/20

[Spirochete]

59. What if she doesn't run, Graham?

er... I mean max.

[totodeinhere]

74. The presidency is not subject to any entitlement. What's more important is her stand on the issues,

not some notion that because she has been around the block a few times she is entitled to it. I don't know who it will be but I suspect that she will have a major credible primary opponent on her left, whether it's Warren or Dean or someone else who may not be on our radar at this time. Then it will be up to the party to decide.

[progressoid]

15. But Hillary might get the McCain vote!

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/314641-mccain-voting-between-rand-paul-and-hillary-clinton-would-be-tough-choice

[MineralMan]

16. Has Elizabeth Warren indicated that she's even thinking

about running for President?

[Cal33]

25. Not that I am aware of. But there's nothing wrong with hoping. :)

[MineralMan]

27. That's what I thought. It's too early, I think,

to start touting Presidential candidates for 2016. We still have a mid-term election to get through, and it's a very important one, too. After the 2014 election, people will announce and run for President. When that happens, I'll be right in there. Until then, I'm working on this:

GOTV 2014!

[MADem]

161. It doesn't stop her fan club from wishing and hoping.

We in MA would prefer that she finish her term and maybe stand for another. We've had far too many senators in recent years.

[MineralMan]

163. I agree. She is doing a wonderful job in the Senate, and

is making waves. Similarly, Dennis Kucinich did a great job as a congressional representative. Neither, however, is a very likely candidate for President, and even less likely to be elected to that office.

I imagine that Elizabeth Warren will declare her non-candidacy sometime shortly after the 2014 election. I'm not sure whether Hillary will run or not. She may well opt out of a presidential run, for many reasons.

Frankly, I expect 2016 to be pretty much a free-for-all for both parties. Lots of primary candidates and who knows in the general election. For myself, as always, my priority is legislators, and in legislators for elections where I can actively campaign. The presidential election is something I can have little to do with, so I mainly participate with my vote for whomever is selected at the Democratic convention. Beyond that, my opinion of who should run is meaningless.

[wilsonbooks]

19. I'm all in.

No more DLC, time for a Democrat with Democratic values.

[Cal33]

28. No more DLC, but the Democratic Establishment is still around, under a

different name perhaps, or even no name at all. But they're still around.

[MannyGoldstein]

20. Got my vote

[leftynyc]

21. I would enthusiastically vote

for either Ms. Clinton or Ms. Warren.

[forestpath]

22. K&R. Clinton in 2016 would be Bush's fifth term. ENOUGH.

[rocktivity]

36. Having a well-known name didn't help Hillary beat someone as well known

as Obama...


rocktivity

[meegbear]

39. I'll take either one ...

but if I had to choose, I'd pick Clinton and it's because Warren can and will do some financial ass-kicking in Congress. And for the greedy reason that I don't wanna lose her as my senator.

[Cal33]

68. Can't say I blame you. :)

[DinahMoeHum]

44. Can we PLEASE concentrate on the 2013 and 2014 elections right now?????

One step at a time, folks.

An Elizabeth Warren as POTUS will NOT mean shit if the 'Pukes control BOTH houses of Congress. We CANNOT allow THAT to happen, no matter what. Our priorities should be with this year and next year. Worry about 2016 after November 2014.

Second, we haven't even heard yet from either one if they have decided to throw their hat in ther ring for POTUS.

One other thing: if Hillary Clinton should win the nomination, there will be NO repeat of Ted Kennedy/Jimmy Carter 1980 in the persons of Elizabeth Warren/Hillary Clinton in 2016. Bank on this - Clinton and Warren are too smart to hurt the Democrats by this, and the Democratic Party simply will not allow it. When push comes to shove, both women will fully support the Democratic nominee, whoever he/she is.

Vote Progressive in the primary, vote Democratic in the general election.

[Cal33]

69. What you say is very true. I'm just expressing my views.

[Vattel]

45. I don't know Warren's views on civil liberties and war and executive power and border enforcement

real well. I don't like Clinton's conservative views on any of those issues, though.

[Cal33]

72. From what she is already doing, we can see that Warren is a Progressive. However, she

may have different views from yours and mine in certain specific areas.
2016 is still far away enough. We can vote the way we choose. We don't
even know if she will run. But, from what I have seen of her thus far......
I'm very positively for her, if she were to run.

[Wait Wut]

46. Many Democrats are waiting to see...

...who is actually running. Hopefully, it will be someone electable so we can keep the White House.

Until then, I'm focusing on local, state elections. Not just in AZ, but nationwide.

[Cal33]

73. Excellent way of looking at things.

[FreeBC]

51. Can anyone convince me Hillary won't be a corporate shill?

I actually really like Hillary Clinton as a person. But I don't like her politics and I don't believe she will fight against corporations and banks for average Americans.

Convince me I'm wrong and I'll vote for her if she wins the nomination. But I'm not voting for another lesser of two evils candidate.

[Crow73]

57. Seeing these as the same....

Nope I got nothing...

[Cal33]

77. I'll always vote for the lesser of two evils, because in that case, not to vote

would be a vote for the greater evil. It's not such a pleasant choice, I agree.
But this is reality.

[GlashFordan]

53. The Clinton presidency was the last

Prosperous period in US history. It will probably never be matched again.

[mick063]

65. Thanks for propping up Newt.

There is nothing instantaneous about policy as time must be given for the effect to be realized.

"Too big to fail" happened in 2008 and credit must be given where it is properly due.

[GlashFordan]

89. I'll give credit to bigdog

Yes, he wasn't a progressive but it was a great time to be alive in America. High interest rates were the only down side but even they were dropping by the late 90's

[totodeinhere]

76. Actually the gap between the 1% and everyone else accelerated during Clinton's

two terms, then when Bush got in it accelerated even more. That trend was helped along by Clinton's support for NAFTA and so-called welfare reform.

[Cal33]

83. Because of the export of jobs, Clinton's prosperity could only have been temporary. I'm

willing to bet that if there had been no 2-term limit, and Clinton were still
president today, he'd probably have changed his policies when he saw what was
happening to the economy. I have a great deal of respect for his intelligence.

[ceonupe]

128. Why his and her biggest money backers

Benefit the most from off shoring.

The Clinton's are super close with the India tech companies that outsource service and data processing jobs heck those owners supported Hillary heavily in 2008 primaries.


Clinton's business buddies all benefited from his politics and benefited in a very big way.

Stop lying to yourself. From being the yes man for drug and gun running out of his airports when he was gov to her being on the board of Walmart when they switch to overseas made items as primary vendors to Clinton's support for the many trade bills and china most favorite nation status.

Clinton's polices of bush1, bush2, regan or Obama were the worse for the middle class. Just because the negatives of those policies did not fully get seen until after he was out of office and the scam economy crashed. (.com bust in end of last century or banking scandals that came to ahead last decade all started under Clinton policies) Major bank deregulation also happend under Clinton.

Let's be honest here Clinton's are big business and have always been. They are far from progressive.

[Howler]

54. I don't know One Friend

That is a Democrat that will vote for Clinton. Not One!! Myself included.
We all voted for Obama in 2008 Which at the time we thought was a better choice. Not so much.
Now Warren,...We could get fully behind.
But if the democratic ticket is establishment Third way crap They are going to lose and lose BIG here!
People have had enough of being completely sold out and the same ole same ole ain't gonna cut it anymore.
Most of my friends are college professors/Students At U.D. and Wright state here in Dayton Ohio.

[mick063]

67. Yes

I talk to many and they will be watching closely at who Iowa and New Hampshire delivers to us.

[Howler]

78. EXACTLY Mick063

If the democrats continue on this corporate right leaning road They will LOSE!!!
You have to remember While Ohio has its Right wing it also has a healthy left wing the same left wing who keeps Sherrod Brown in office and kept sending Kucinich back has well has john Glen and Howard Metzembaum has well as Tony Hall.
If it hadn't been for Blackwell in the 04 election Ohio would have gone for Kerry! Well it actually did go for Kerry has investigative reporting has shown.
The sad fact is The Democratic party has left its people and took up with the 1%.
And If it continues The Democratic party can no longer count on a lot of liberals supporting them.
We have a third party Socialist ticket that is picking up more votes every election year. Just sayin.

[Maedhros]

55. The only Clinton I want as President

is George Clinton.

[AtomicKitten]

97. +1

because he's got the funk

[mick063]

56. I donate, pound the street, hit the phone bank, go to work for Warren. (or one very similar to her)

I openly dissent with Hillary, even in the general election.

I will vote on track record, not the (D). Sorry loyalists.

My mind cannot be changed.

[okieinpain]

66. haha... I would only vote for warren if she were the dem nom

of course that would me that I had no other choice but to vote for her, but I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in. lol.

[warrprayer]

70. tough call.

I love Elizabeth, but I want to keep the White House out of republican hands. Perhaps Warren in important cabinet position would be better...

[totodeinhere]

79. The GOP is so fucked up right now that I suspect that any credible Democrat,

Clinton, Warren, or someone else would win going away. Control of Congress and state governments is another matter however and that's why we should be concentrating on those races right now.

[LWolf]

75. I prefer neither.

Not Clinton, because I don't need to continue the dynasty of Democratic neo-liberals.

Not Warren, because I need people like her in Congress.

I prefer a left/liberal governor.

[mick063]

85. That is a compromise I can live with

But the proof is in the history, not the talk.

What legislation did they sign? What legislation did they veto?

Words don't cut it any more.

[LWolf]

92. That's right.

I rate any politician on record, not speech.

[Cal33]

88. If a liberal governor will be the next Democratic nominee for president, I'd vote for him/her.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

81. That's what Diebold says.

(or whatever re-named company is now doing what Diebold did).

[Cal33]

90. I suppose there will still be many electronic voting machines around come 2016. We

Democratic voters are either too lazy or too indifferent to work hard to have
them changed. Is this another sign of a sub-conscious wish to self-destruct?
We certainly can't use the excuse that we didn't have enough time!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

93. I agree that electronic voting machines will still be around. I disagree that we are either too lazy

or too indifferent.

When a bank is robbed, the tellers and nearby customers should not be blamed.

[Cal33]

100. But the politicians in power, who could make changes and don't, should be.

[demosincebirth]

82. We need a Tough ol' Broad. I'll take Clinton any day over Warren. Her time will come

[Cal33]

91. Even if Warren should be fighting for the American people, and Clinton for the corporations?

[demosincebirth]

115. If you say so. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

86. Warren looks good to me. Clinton is a No Sale.

My nose has exceeded its "Not as bad" limit.

[Hula Popper]

87. Elizabeth Warren

is the only allowed politician in my e-mail. I'm in with Warren! Clinton's did enough damage.

[liberal_at_heart]

94. I will not vote for Hillary.

[DCBob]

96. If I could be convinced Warren would win I'm all for it.

I have my doubts. In some parts of the country that are more moderate/conservative she would have a tougher time than Hillary. But who knows.. once she gets on the big stage things can happen quickly.

[Cal33]

99. Yes, she has been in office only 7 months and she is already tackling big problems like

Student Loans and Breaking up Big Banks. Who knows how far she will go
in 3-1/2 more years? I think she is already on the big stage. According to the
link in the OP, some of her senior colleagues admire and are in awe of her.

She looks like someone who is sick and tired of the present stalemated Senate,
and she wants to get things done. When the GOP filibusters, she isn't the type
who hesitates to let the world know who is preventing the American people from
having a better quality of life. More and more people will get to know who their
real enemies are, and how they have been lied to.

I think she will get more Republicans to become Independents or even switch
over to Democrats.

[DCBob]

101. Perhaps.. but she needs to make some noise and get in the news.

Get some exposure and see how voters react.

[liberal_at_heart]

102. the media is owned by the rich and they have already decided that Hillary will be the nominee.

[DCBob]

103. Funny RW talk radio says the media has selected Hillary also but for a different reason.

its because she soooooooo "liberal".

I think media is the media and will follow any story/candidate that draws eyeballs and makes them money regardless of who that candidate is.

[liberal_at_heart]

105. I doubt that. The media is not interested in Warren going after bankers, but they are interested in

things like justifying why drones and NSA spying are necessary. I hear there was a terror alert on the news today. I heard about on DU because I have not watched the news today so you see I do no know what I should or should not be afraid of or outraged about today.

[Cal33]

107. Yes, she should get some exposure and see how voters react. I also think this is

a little early right now. I just got her blog on Google which began when she
was running for the senate. Her last message was dated 7/26/13. She is
active there.

http://elizabethwarren.com/blog

I'd wait awhile before I'll try contacting her people to find out if she would be
interested in running for the presidency.

Would you happen to know of any link where I can be sure that her people
would be reading my mail?

[hughee99]

111. Come on, EVERYONE knows the person with the best name recognition 3 years away from

an election is the one that's going to win. That's why McCain won in 2008 and Poppy won in 1992.

[Cal33]

112. But this case is slightly different. Hillary' news-making years are over. Elizabeth's are

just beginning. And she has already made a highly impressive one. Most of her
senior colleagues in the Senate admire, and some of them are even in awe of, her.
She may be a junior senator, but she started off as one with star quality. She began
by tackling big problems: Student Loan, and Breaking Up the Big Banks. I also read
that she somehow managed to get Sen. John McCain on her side to break up the Big
Banks.

As another correspondent has pointed out, Elizabeth should be making more noise, so
that more people will be hearing about the good she is doing for ALL Americans. More
Republicans will be leaving their Party and become Independents, or ever Democrats,
if she does this on a steady basis.

Hillary, I believe, is a middle-of-the-roader. She'll probably be listening too much to
the corporations and not enough to the American middle-class. She will be repeating
the same old thing that Obama is doing. And this country needs drastic changes, if we
are to survive as a nation. Fence sitters are of no help today. We need a Progressive/
Liberal Doer. Elizabeth has already shown that she is a Progressive/Liberal Doer.
She is the new blood that we've been hoping for ever since GW Bush stole the presidency
in January, 2001

[hughee99]

118. Being from MA, you don't have to tell me about Warren, I'm on board.

Since the two people I mentioned had far better name recognition 3 years out and still lost, I didn't add the sarcasm tag. Hell, Clinton had much better name recognition at the start of the 2008 over Obama and didn't even win the Democratic primary. Name recognition this far out means something, but it's certainly NOT the overwhelmingly deciding factor.

[cascadiance]

140. And for those in Massachusetts worried about losing another senator...

... what better state to help another great progressive politician get a good start where they can make a difference?!

We need a lot more like Ms. Warren in our congress that we can look to as leaders in the coming generations. We need a progressive president and need to add ANOTHER good progressive in the Senate. Don't fear losing Warren. Find another that can fill her shoes so that she feels comfortable leaving her mission to that person to start a bigger and very necessary mission of leading this country that sorely needs someone like her leading it.

[Cal33]

148. I agree with you 100%. There are many who are like Eliz. Warren around. All we have

to do is to look for and advertise for them. In the meantime, there is one Eliz. Warren
here right now, and she is very well known. It would be foolish of us not to at least ask
her to make even better use of herself. The decision, of course, is for her to make. But
there is nothing wrong with asking.

You have brought up an excellent point about Clinton's having played a big role in
causing the degeneration of the quality of American journalism to its present point of
degradation. I never knew this until you pointed it out. Would you mind my writing
another post in which I will quote the last paragraph in your reply #141? I think this
information is too important to let it go to waste. The more people know about it, the
better. And thanks.

[cascadiance]

149. I think definitely point out the problems with them passing the Telecomm Act...

One word of caution though... I think take care in making it sound like it was them consciously helping the breakdown of our media landscape. I think at the time it was probably something that, even though those who wanted a lot of the pieces of the telecomm act wanted the media landscape to be changed to what it is today, to many then it seemed like a good way of helping our media landscape grow, and perhaps was similar to NAFTA, etc. passing and being supported by both Bush and Clinton, though Perot had greater wisdom to see what would really happen from it down the road.

At the time the telecomm act passed, there were far more like myself and Senator Leahy at the time that were more adamant about the problems of the unconstitutional Communications Decency Act part of that bill being included and passed than the rest of the bill at the time. That issue and the Clipper chip (google that one) at the time drew civil liberties concerns in a similar way that Snowden gives us today with what he's released about the NSA.

Bottom line is that it is hard to say whether Clinton was actually complicit with the goals of those who wanted to break down the media that happened after that bill passed. But the poor judgement they used in effect throwing out many of the years of laws, FCC governance, etc. that protected the media from monopolization, and provided for rules to encourage a free press has me question whether Hillary would make many of the same mistakes in the future that Bill made then in allowing for business interests concerns to be looked at more than the larger issues of how our legal frameworks protect all of us and the delicate constitutional framework of things like a free press that our founders felt necessary for our democracy to work effectively.

I see that happening similarly recently with Hillary Clinton talking in favor of expansion of H-1B Visas, when she's echoing the talking points of Silicon Valley's corporate lobbyists that this is needed because of the false notion they push that we in America don't have an effectively educated enough workforce or one that is interested in high tech careers, when that is really NOT the case, and it is more that they want to be able to have a very educated but CHEAP labor force, that is not attainable or sustainable in the cost of living of our economy versus that of economies like India which are about a 10th in terms of costs that ours are. And for the younger generation now the cost of education in this area is daunting today, especially considering that India provides free education to many of its citizens through a bachelor's degree, even with the other advantages they have in terms of cost of living in their society.

The Clintons may or may not be complicit in establishing the goals of the corporatists. But they have certainly been active and effective enablers of the corporatists over the years in legislative areas like the above, and we need some leadership that is very conscious of the real issues and what the corporatists are pushing us in to.

[Cal33]

150. Many thanks. Will do.

[mattclearing]

120. Didn't we hear all of this six years ago?

Enough crazy talk. America isn't that into Hillary.

[B Calm]

121. Elizabeth Warren would be my first choice!

[treestar]

124. Is Warren even running?

Though it's really too soon to say who is running.

[Cal33]

126. Not that I'm aware of. But that doesn't matter. Remember when she was not

asked to head the Consumer's Financial Protection Agency, a project that
had been invented and developed by her, because of GOP resistance? It was
a huge disappointment. But then Warren's fans rallied and asked her to run
for the Senate. The numbers of fans asking her grew, and she made up her
mind to do so.

It's quite possible that the same thing might happen again, this time for the
presidency. Anyway, I hope so.

[Eddie Haskell]

129. Clinton is just another neocon puppet

They dangle two (left/right) out there every four years (about three years before the election), establish them as the front runners, and we buy it every time. If you want a continuation of our current war-on-terror policies and war with Iran, vote for one of the above.

[GoneFishin]

131. I won't vote for Hillary. Want my vote? Run a non-corporatist.

I won't cave in to the "tough shit, you have no place else to go" tactics.

If you have a problem with that then blame yourself for allowing yourself to be slowly, almost imperceptibly, incrementally manipulated into accepting the creep to the right.

You want a Democrat in the white house? Stop publicly announcing to the world that you will adore and support any candidate with a D after their name, and start demanding that policy makers work for the citizens and not the corporations.

[mick063]

135. The problem with extortion is that the ransom never goes away and always goes up.

Sorry. I'm going to extort the corporate wing now. Give us a true progressive or allow the GOP in to power. In either case, the failed ransom is GOP power. I have paid enough ransom. You have tapped me dry.

Who has more to lose?

Not me.

[Cal33]

137. What we can do is try to make sure a Progressive or Liberal wins in the

primaries.

Another thing we can do is to convince Elizabeth Warren to run. She
responded when pressure was building up asking her to run for the senate.
She might respond again if we ask her to run for POTUS.

[mick063]

139. I will work hard in this endeavor

A real soldier for the Democratic Party.

I'm not asking for much in return except a return to the ideology I have sympathized with for 40 years.

[Cal33]

145. Thanks for your intention to work hard to convince Eliz. Warren to run for the presidency. I

will do so, too. In the meantime, here is her email blog: http://elizabethwarren.com/blog

If you should have other blogs where messages to her are sure to be read by her staff,
please let me know. Thanks

[mick063]

146. I appreciate the link.

I will use it immediately

[Faux pas]

133. If name recognition and the 'familiar'

was what we cared about in 08 why is Obama our man in the WH? I'm tired of the name Clinton, thank you very much.

[aikoaiko]

136. I support candidates in primaries who I think are electable.

I don't much reason to think she is electable yet in a presidential election.

But there is still time.

[Sancho]

138. I would prefer Clinton to Warren...

Look at the difficulty that Obama has getting anything done. Hillary would be better internationally and more effective with congress. Warren would be good to run for an executive office in 2020.

[cascadiance]

141. I think internationally, many countries might be really looking forward more to someone like Warren

... being in charge to help guide America towards being a better world citizen, rather than the war monger that people seek asylum FROM instead of asylum TO after decades of both Corporatist Republican and Koch funded DLC Democratic Party leadership...

And Warren will have more recent accomplishments on the national stage politically as an active senator than Hillary Clinton who will be on the sideline for the next few years.

The fallout of our economy and other damages worldwide from the oligarchs around the world wielding very damaging leadership and having gone unpunished for so long I think will lead to many around the world WANTING someone like Warren in charge of the U.S. then!

Both Obama and Hillary have and will sacrifice too much on the big issues that corporate donors reward corporatists on. The Clintons and Obama have been shown to do this in the past, and will only do it again at a time when positions on issues should reflect more grass roots viewpoints rather than corporatist viewpoints that too many politicians in our country follow and don't get questioned on by a corporatist media that the Clintons were directly responsible for helping become corporatist and no longer a real "free press" when Bill Clinton signed in the f'd up Telecommunications Act that let the media become the mess it is now in another corporate lobby serving act.

[Cal33]

142. Reply to Cascadiance's post #141

I had never even thought about the point that the Clintons had taken active part in
helping the news media to come under corporate control, but now that you mention
it, yes, this does look like it's part and parcel of the same thing.

I am reminded of the campaign speeches of 2012, and the great part Clinton had played
in helping Obama win the election. Has all of this been pre-planned? Is all of this nothing
more than a game? Nothing more than keeping up the appearance of having a two-party
system? Nothing more than a sham?

The Clintons are from middle-class backgrounds. Have they given up and gone over to
the buttered side of the bread? George Soros also came from a middle-class background
and worked hard to become a multi-billionaire. He is still on the side of the underdog.

Often have I heard the claim that whether Republican or Democrat, they are both under
the control of Corporate America. I have always been reluctant about believing this, I
still am. I don't want to believe that our government has already been taken over by
sociopathic shysters, and that they are and have already been our rulers for some time.
I agree that these people do have enormous power and are making giant strides in
getting more, but they don't have control of the whole country yet. I 'd like to think that
we still have a chance of putting up resistance, and gaining back some of the ground
we've lost.

And what about Occupy Wall Street? They do remind me that we still have the numbers.
I also know that people with anti-social personalities make up 2 to 4% of the population.
96% are not sociopaths. We have the numbers, and we are not living in the Dark Age of
the 1500s. This is the 21st Century!

[hobbit709]

147. And the opposite is also true.

[MADem]

152. Elizabeth Warren is my senator and a damn good one.

Because Ted died and Kerry went on to SECSTATE, she has rocketed to the Senior Senator position in our state. Her new junior Senator partner has decades on the Hill in Congress, so they balance one another out.

But she isn't a progressive, Liberal DOER. She is a thoughtful moderate who thinks that the banks have gone nutso and need to be reined back to the point where they are serving their customers, not ripping them off. She is a former Reagan Republican, and she has ZERO foreign policy experience and she's just getting her feet wet in the Senate.

People see a new person who appeals to them, and they paint all their hearts' desires on that person. They always end up disappointed. Look at how some of the most ardent "Hope and Changers" have turned on Obama because he hasn't "done enough" to suit them. I can remember conversations during the Hillary-Barack primary, way back when, where people got positively vicious when it came to their candidate, to the point where harsh words were exchanged and people actually left DU over it. Hillary was a shill, Barack was a saint. Now some of the same people who were Obama's top cheerleaders are saying the President is a shill, because he hasn't fulfilled all their hearts' desires.

It's a bad idea to deify unproven candidates. Just because they're good at one thing doesn't mean they'll be good at other things. And because they are good at one thing, maybe it's a good idea to let them KEEP DOING that one thing that they're good at--someone needs to, certainly.

The article at your link is a very good read. It does provide a good view of the Senator and her relationships with her colleagues..

[Cal33]

155. Elizabeth Warren won over her Republican competitor for the position of Senator from Mass. mainly

because she had already become well-known for having created the post of Consumers'
Financial Protection Agency. The title of the agency is self-explanatory. She started it to
fight against the predatory habits of the Big Business corporations. Pres. Obama wanted
to make her head of the agency that was her own brain-child, but did not do so because of
Republican objection. This angered many Democrats, and they urged her to run for the
senate. And she did. It was the first and only time she had ever run for public office.

Some people are fast learners. According to the link in my OP, most of her senior colleagues
(some of whom have already served several terms) admire her. A few of them are even in
awe of her. Among the things she has done or are doing: She is fighting against the
incredible rate of 6.8% interest students will be paying in the future for borrowing money to
go to college. She has managed to gain the support of Republican Sen. McCain in her fight
to break up the Big Banks, who are responsible for the disastrous economic mess our nation
is in. All this within 7 months at her new job! She apparently is the type that hits the ground
running. And this shows she is not afraid to take on big problems where needed. She can be
tough.

She was a well-known figure before she became a senator, far more so than most of her
senior colleagues -- a delicate situation for a junior senator. Yet she is handling the situation
well thus far. Most of her colleagues admire and like her. Few disapprove. So, she knows
how to be tactful. Toughness and tact -- both important qualities for people in high political
positions.

Warren has already shown that she not only talks about change while campaigning. She was
already making change before she even became senator, when she conceived of the Consumers'
Financial Protection Agency. And as senator she is fighting for fairness regarding student loans.
and she is demanding honesty from business corporations. That's why they hate her so much.
She is well aware of how powerful banks and business corporations are, and she knows there is
no guarantee that she will win, but that doesn't prevent her from the fight. There are those who
have been senators for 20 years and have never even bothered to try.

Warren has intelligence, honesty, personal integrity, commitment and the dedication to try
to provide ALL Americans with the opportunity to strive for a better life. This necessarily
involves paying more attention to the middle-class and the poor, who are being screwed ever
since GW Bush, Jr. became president. This is what Progressives and Liberals are for. The
amount of work that needs to be done to accomplish anything in this area is enormously huge,
and she has already started to do something. To me, what she is doing is what a Progressive
would do. And she has shown that she is a doer.

Warren was born in Oklahoma, which is generally taken to be a Republican state. It's likely
that she grew up in a Republican family. Not many make changes from their family political
views. Hence she was a Republican in the earlier part of her life. But Republicanism changed
for the worse during certain times, like the Nixon and Reagan years. Perhaps having been a
Reagan Republican helped her begin to see from the inside what a sham Reagan really was.
That might have been the start of her eventually switching to the Democratic side altogether.

While I don't deify unproven candidates or anyone else (Warren isn't a candidate for president
that I know of), I think we already know a good deal about her qualities, what she stands for,
how she works...etc... As far as experience in politics is concerned, just look at the Clintons,
they have been in it all of their adult lives. Sometimes we need new fresh blood that is
untainted with old political baggage. Sometimes we need a complete break from the past, and
this is one of those times. I hope Warren will run for president in 2016.

Many of us have been hoping and looking for new blood for a long, long time. I think Elizabeth
Warren IS that new blood. If she should fail as president, it wouldn't be because she was afraid
or hadn't given her all. And I don't think she will fail to do a good job.

[MADem]

160. EW was heavily funded because nationally, it was a disgrace to have Scott Brown as the junior

Senator from Massachusetts. The guy is a MORON.

She was also a powerhouse for her financial talents and her Consumer work. Many of her colleagues admire her, and many are also irritated at her unwillingness to wait in line and honor the seniority system of the Senate.

She is a wonderful senator--just what we need. And she's just where we need her, IMO.

She is not a liberal, though. She is a moderate. I can guarantee you that she'd probably be treated worse than Obama has been by DU, should she run for the Presidency, and win--and neither is likely. See, she wouldn't be the fantasy that everyone dreams of.

If she ran against Christie, he would win in a walk (and good thing for him, since he can't run). While she has high positives amongst those who pay attention (the twenty percent or so who bother to vote in the off-years and who contribute and give a damn), she is still unknown to most Americans. Completely. Don't believe me? Go get a picture of her, stop every fifth person on a city street, and ask them who she is. You'll get plenty of "Duuuuuuh?"

You can hope for new blood, but I don't think you will get it with EW. No shooting the messenger.

[Cal33]

166. If trying to get students to pay 0.75% interest on their loans instead of 6.8% and breaking up

the big banks come under the term "moderate" in your definition of the word, that's fine with me.
I'm very happy with her being moderate.

I am very glad she's not afraid of bucking the senate seniority system. Someone like Sen. Feinstein
should have been retired long ago.

I agree with you that large numbers of the voting masses know little or nothing about the people
running for office. They vote according to the way their families have always voted. The Independents
are the ones who are more likely to make up their own minds. Only a relatively small percentage of
the rest choose carefully for whom they vote. If it weren't for the large numbers of ignorant people,
the Corporatists wouldn't have been so successful with their propaganda and lies in the first place.

The so-called "Republicans" in power today are not even Republicans. They're mainly made up of
Corporatists and the Neo-cons who joined the Republican Party some 40 or so years ago, climbed
their way up within the party, usurped the power of the old-timer Republican leaders, and were smart
enough to keep the Republican name, so as not to lose the Republican masses who are not even aware
that a coup had taken place within their party. They still think they are "voting Republican." Still later
these were joined by the Libertarians, and lately also by the Tea Partiers. Yes, these 4 groups would
love to make life miserable for any president who is not one of their own.

By "new blood" I mean someone who is not pre-approved by the Democratic Establishment. I think
the Democratic Establishment has already out-lived its usefulness. They are becoming more and
more like the Corporatists who influence them with money.

Have you read or heard that many foreign nations think of our USA as the most corrupt country in the
world? Not a pretty reputation. Of late, too many sociopaths are getting into positions of power, both in
government and in private industry. Sociopaths are people with criminal personalities. The smart ones
know how not to get caught. With such people ruling us, what else can happen to our nation but go
down the gutter? That's why we need to get rid of the Establishment people on both sides of the aisle,
and try to get new blood in.

[MADem]

173. She was just on local FauxSnooze tv--she's 'not interested.'

They were badgering her re: the results of the Quinnipiac Poll, breathlessly reporting that she's less popular than Christie and more popular than Obama...so there's where some of that "Run EW for Prez" push is coming from. Wonder why Faux would be playing that game...?

But she's no fool. She "knows what she's doing in the Senate" and improving loan rates was one of the things she listed. She also wants to improve infrastructure. She didn't say "I have no plans." She said she wasn't interested and knew what her role was.

"Bucking the seniority system" doesn't mean "Getting ...Feinstein to retire." It means stepping in front of others who have done the work for committee assignments and things like desk assignments. Harry Reid gave her Ted's desk, and there were other, very senior Senators who wanted it, for example. Personally, I agree with Harry, particularly given the sad circumstances of Ted's illness and long goodbye before death.

I am really not interested in a lecture which the rest of your commentary pretty much is.

I keep up with the news and I deal in realities.

You apparently don't appreciate the fact that I really like Elizabeth Warren. I drove a LOT of voters to the polls--spent the whole day at it, pretty much--to vote for her. I made sure to talk her up at every opportunity ahead of the election. I think she's an especially fine Senator from Massachusetts. She actually spends time with her constituents, which is a rare touch.

That said, the chance of Elizabeth Warren becoming President of the United States in 2016 is very small, indeed.

I won't repeat my "don't shoot the messenger" because I get the feeling you're locked/loaded.

[Cal33]

174. Sorry for sounding like I was lecturing. I didn't realize I was doing it. Nope, I'm

not locked/loaded, nor do I want to shoot the messenger. I am glad to learn that you
not only like Elizabeth Warren, but that you had taken a very active part on her behalf
when she was a candidate for senator from Mass.

Yes, I think she is a very fine human being, and I admire her for it. I have mixed feelings
about her spending lots of time with her constituents. It depends on how she does it, of
course. I can't help but think of Gabby Giffords. You know, there are so many crazies
around. I hope she is more careful.

I think it's proper that Sen. Kennedy's desk should go to another senator from the same
state. How is that bucking the system? About Feinstein, I was giving my opinion about
what I think of her functioning as a senator, and that length of service is not necessarily
an indication of how good an individual is at the job. Of course, this may not have much
to do with seniority either.

If Elizabeth Warren said that she wasn't interested in running for POTUS, then the chances
of her running in 2016 are, as you say, very small, (here comes a "but&quot but I'm not
giving up hope that she can be persuaded to change her mind. A lot, I suppose, could
also depend on how events will develop in the time between now and then.

[MADem]

175. Senators are supposed to spend time with their constituents.

We're in MA--we're not gun-nutty. When someone gets shot in the state, it's the top story on the news.
She was out in Western MA today, where no one ever goes, touting infrastructure investment. I have to hand it to her.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/08/sen_elizabeth_warren_tours_run.html


8-5-13 - Westfield - Republican staff photo by Don Treeger- Senator Elizabeth Warren toured the runways at Barnes Regional Airport and Barnes Air National Guard Base as a $13.5 million runway reconstruction project got underway. She is flanked by Air Guard Maj. General Scott Rice (L) and Col. James J. Keefe commander of the Barnes Air National Guard 104th Fighter Wing (speaking).

She made a few other stops as well.


http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/08/us_sen_elizabeth_warren_makes.html

Warren's first stop in the Berkshires was Sunday afternoon, where she attended an ice cream social and met with constituents in North Adams.

Warren continues her swing through the region on Monday, with a morning tour of the General Dynamics site in Pittsfield. General Dynamics is a defense industry contractor for shipbuilding and marine systems, defense systems, land and amphibious combat systems and munitions. The tour of the company's Plastics Avenue facility is closed to the press, although Warren is slated to be available for questions afterward.

The senator is also scheduled to participate in a public hearing on arts and tourism held by the state Legislature's Committee on Tourism, Arts, and Cultural Development at the Berkshire Museum in Pittsfield. House Speaker Robert DeLeo is also expected to attend the hearing.

Afterward, Warren plans to tour Dalton's Crane & Co., which has supplied currency paper to the U.S. Department of the Treasury since 1879.

I get the impression she takes her job VERY seriously; that's one reason why she's so good at it. I think she also likes the work, and she is very smart indeed--a perfect storm to be an effective senator.

[Atman]

153. To the GOP, the only president that could be worse than a black man...

Is a Clinton woman. You think things are bad now? Wait until they have a woman -- the wife of The Hated One they impeached -- in the Oval Office. Might as well just lock the doors to the congress right now.

[Metric System]

156. There sure are a lot of PUMAs on DU. I for one can't wait for the mass exodus/banning. What goes

around, comes around.

[Cal33]

159. I had to look up what PUMA stands for (Party Union My Ass). Hey, Democrats are like that. The

Republicans are the ones who march in lock-step. Haven't you noticed that the
vast majority of military people are Republicans? I served my two years as a
draftee, and I know I couldn't stand being a military person for 20 or 30 years!

[Metric System]

158. I don't see Elizabeth Warren criticizing that horrible corporatist Obama now. What makes you think

she'll go after that horrible corporatist Hillary? Sounds like some are painting on a blank canvas, again. AND do you think Warren will garner support and affection from the Democratic base if she attacks Pres. Obama's record and legacy? Because that's what she'll have to do to be the candidate some here want her to be.

[Cal33]

165. You may think of Obama as a horrible corporatist. I think Obama is a middle-of-the-roader, who is

obsessed with the idea of bipartisanship, and he gives in too much to GOP demands. I can't speak
for what Elizabeth Warren thinks - I simply don't know.

[1-Old-Man]

167. You may not know what Ms. Warren thinks but I agree with your assessment of the President.

I have seen enough of Senators Warren and Clinton to know which one I prefer. By a mile its Warren. At least with her I know there will be support for the average working person, its is what she has devoted at least the last several years to politically (while teaching). I have absolutely no faith what so ever that Hillary Clinton would do the same. Not since she was introduced to us as First Lady have I seen the least indication that she gives a tinker's dam for the middle class. There will simply be no vote from me for Hillary.

[AppleBottom]

162. We need REAL change not more broken promises. nt.

[brooklynite]

168. Think about Rand Paul. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and ask yourself:

"Do they behave as if they want to run for President"?

Now think about Elizabeth Warren and ask yourself: "Does SHE behave as if she wants to run for President"?

The answer is "no". You can dream all you want, but if you're not prepared to organize a serious and professional recruitment effort, you're going to be very disappointed come 2016.

[Cal33]

171. You are right. When Obama did not appoint Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protectio

Agency that she founded, many people were angry. Then they started asking her to
run for the Senate, and kept building up the pressure, and Warren acceded. I hope
the same thing will happen when enough people will ask her to run for POTUS.

[Douglas Carpenter]

169. If one is content with the way things are voting for Clinton makes sense. If one wants real changes

then they should vote for a progressive. If one wants to hand down to the next generation a country and a world that is heading in the direction the country and the world is currently heading - then a vote for Clinton makes sense. If one wants to see fundamental changes in the direction the country and the world is heading - they should vote for a progressive.

[Cal33]

172. I also think that if we were to have full Republican control of the Federal Government for

the next three or more terms in a row, our nation will have become a Fascist dictatorship.
We are now where Germany was in 1930. There are too many similarities for comfort.

Yes, a Clinton win would at least prolong the life of the half-way democracy we have now
for a few more years.

We do need a Progressive for our next president to help turn the tide around.

[Rex]

170. If Warren is our primary runner, then she has my full support.

If it is Ms. Clinton, then she has my full support.

[Peacetrain]

176. As a card carrying Democrat.. I would proudly vote for either one

We have many wonderful possibilities..the primaries will be interesting..they always are.. I would be hanged if I would cut off my nose to spite my face and say I would only vote for such and such.. That makes no sense. Just gets you boxed in.

[gulliver]

177. "we'll be having more of the same as what we've been having from Obama..."

You've been getting a "blocked Obama". A "blocked Warren" or a "blocked Hillary" would be exactly the same, blocked. I like Warren and would definitely give her a listen vs. Clinton. But the outcome of the election is something we have seen before with Obama, so don't get your hopes up.

If Warren is elected and faces the same level of Republican obstruction Obama has, we will be here in 2020 reading threads on what a middle-of-the-roader Warren is—by the current OP no doubt. For that not to happen we have to un-elect Republicans.

[Cal33]

179. I came to the conclusion that Obama was a middle-of-the-roader a long time ago, and also that

he was obsessed with the idea of bipartisanship, and that he was giving in too much to the GOP demands.
These evaluations were based on my observations of his actions, more so than on his words. Then about
a month ago Obama himself made the remark that if he had been president in the 1980s, he would have
been considered to be a "moderate Republican." I was not surprised at the information, but I did not expect
to hear it from his own lips.

And about the filibusters, Harry Reid could have made changes in the way of applying them, but he chose
not to do so. I understand he still has the opportunity to modify the rules. I guess we'll have t see
what transpires.

I agree with you that the GOP will try to destroy any and every president who is not one of their own. This
is how these nuts work.

[Cal33]

180. What you say about blockages from the GOP is very true. But, just think back a few

months: Reid had the chance to do something about the filibuster rule -- and he didn't.
And this after some 400+ filibusters from the GOP!!! My first impression was that he was
an easily frightened man, either that or he might be a masochist who loves being a
doormat and gladly invites the GOP to walk all over him. What is someone like that doing
in the Senate, much less as Senate Majority Leader?

Then the thought occurred to me, wouldn't he, as senate majority leader, be having
at least occasional meetings, if not regular ones, with the president? Could it be that,
for whatever reasons, that's the way they want it? I also understand that Reid can still
do something about making changes in the filibuster rule. We'll have to wait and see
how things turn out.

But at this moment, it looks like a deliberately planned thing to me. Is there some
strategy behind all this? I don't know, and I simply can't think of any reason for choosing
such a course of action.