Warren can run for president. She should run for president. & despite her denials, she probably will

[xchrom]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/run-warren-run/384490/

?ni4z15

Elizabeth Warren today told Fortune magazine that she won’t run for president. If Warren stands by that decision, she’ll do a tremendous disservice to her principles and her party.

Warren is the only person standing between the Democrats and an uncontested Hillary Clinton nomination. She has already made clear what she thinks of the Clintons.

Warren has suggested that President Bill Clinton’s administration served the same “trickle down” economics as its Republicans and predecessors.

Warren has denounced the Clinton administration's senior economic appointees as servitors of the big banks.

[daleanime]

1. If she cares about the issues....

she says she cares about, I don't see how she can avoid it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

26. How about ...

Last edited Wed Jan 14, 2015, 11:53 AM - Edit history (1)

her caring, and fighting, for the issues she cares about from her Senate Leadership that she already holds ... a spot where she can actually fight (i.e., write legislation) a singular and focused fight; rather than, hitting the campaign trail {ETA: where she'll have to address far more issues} ... and should she when, have to split her attention between what she says she cares about and the other (70+%) part of the POTUS job?

The benefit of being a Senator is one gets to select what issues one focuses on, as others handle the other stuff.

[maddiemom]

29. I absolutely agree for now!

[daleanime]

31. Where as a presidential candidate....

gets to influence everyone who's running. Changing congress is a necessity and that won't happen with just 'holding our positions'.

Now if you know of anyone else within a stone's throw of the White House that would be a game changer, please let me know.

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. I do not ...

Now if you know of anyone else within a stone's throw of the White House that would be a game changer, please let me know.

Other than, Bernie, of course. But then, I haven't paid much attention to phantom candidates.

At any rate, strategically, I disagree with that "running will influence everyone who's running" tact ... campaign is (in the end) just words; legislation, fought for, is far more likely to influence those running because they are forced to take a position on something tangent and real.

[cascadiance]

85. Though I know and would heavily support Bernie, I think she's a better practical choice...

Bernie would be a warrior for us like no one else has been if he were president.

But as far as the pragmatics of a candidate who can get nominated, and subsequently elected, I think Warren has a better shot for the following reasons:

1) Bernie still has the "he's not a Democrat" now thing that the corporate media will try to strangle him with - ...even if in my book if he becomes a Democrat to get nominated and not go the Ralph Nader route, it shouldn't be an issue. That distraction could cost him votes both in the primary and in the general election by people not paying attention and being suckered by the corporate media.
2) Bernie's a "socialist" - Which he describes himself as, will be used against him, even though in my book it would be a badge of honor to wear. Warren, even if advocating many things that Bernie or a socialist would advocate, isn't touting herself as one, so it would be a harder issue to "distract" the public with the way the distracto media would want to play it.
3) Elizabeth Warren, like Hillary Clinton is a woman - this would do two things. Diffuse the identity politics distraction cards in the primary that many in a election would play that people only support either of these candidates because they are a woman, or reject them because they are a woman. If they are the top two contenders, then the media will need to focus on ISSUES (which the American people deserve to hear more discussed) as a way to separate them.
4) Elizabeth Warren, also since she's a woman, helps with the woman vote in the general election, as many will not only want a decent progressive, but to give a very good progressive woman the chance to set a template for future women candidates as our first woman president. I think women would support her in droves like they've never supported a woman candidate before! And many of us men too, who want that first woman in the White House to set this tone.
5) Bernie Ward will have almost every Friday show recording with Thom Hartmann gone over with a fine tooth comb by the corporate media to find something they will try to hang him with. With Warren, it will be a lot harder to find a mountain of media, etc. on her to find something to screw her with.
6) I think that Warren as a slightly younger candidate, will also get the younger generation's better support, and many will like not having to be concerned about someone like Bernie getting "too old" while in office the way that Reagan did when arguably alzheimer's set in before he left office, which messed things up in terms of his oversight of things like Iran Contra his last few years there, even if he still might have done evil then.
7) Elizabeth Warren, with her background in studying the plight of the middle class with her career at Yale, understands the plight of the middle class intellectually moreso than just about any other politician in Washington, and I think this would come out as she ran for president too and hopefully present her as being the most qualified in a non-partisan way too. Watch this video for an example of what she should be recognized for before she was even on the political radar early on in 2008.

That's why even though Bernie would be awesome too, I think Warren is the realistic candidate we need to push that can become and should help lead us out of our mess the way FDR did in similar times in the past.

[1StrongBlackMan]

92. I agree with all of this. n/t

[daleanime]

93. Amen....

[NYC Liberal]

112. Not all leaders NEED to be president. We need people in Congress, leading from within and among.

Ted Kennedy spent almost 50 years in the Senate, and I would argue he accomplished far more for the country from there than he would have in 4 or 8 years as president. I'd love to see EW become a Ted Kennedy. Granted, she won't be there for 50 years (barring some major medical breakthroughs), but she can do a lot of good in Congress.

If she runs, great. I'm supporting Hillary but if EW runs and wins the nomination I will gladly and enthusastically support her.

[daleanime]

113. Yes, we do.

Last edited Fri Jan 16, 2015, 01:52 PM - Edit history (1)

But we also need to change the game and you don't do that by running the same type of candidate as always for the top office.

Now don't get me wrong, I have tons of respect for Hilliary. If she becomes our nominee I will support her with a heavy heart because that will mean that we have already lost. Now I can already hear people willfully misreading me on this. Even with the disagree of issues, the name problems, etc... She would have a good chance of winning, it's us that would lose.

The two most pressing issues facing us are climate change and income inequality. And the only reason income inequality gets on this list is because, in my eyes, it's a large part of why we're not addressing climate change. We can't afford to put this off any longer.

Hilliary is too deeply in the pocket of Wall Street to confront them in any meaningful manner. Just my honest opinion.

[merrily]

32. So, you're saying Hillary should run for the Senate again?

[1StrongBlackMan]

65. No ...

Her Senate sit has sailed ... why should she go backwards.

While I am fairly agnostic to any of the supposed candidates' (e.g., EW, HRC, J Biden, Bernie, Webb) runs ... at this point, I favor EW's economic "platform" and just about everyone else's "platform" on the other (70+%) of the POTUS' job ... largely, because I haven't heard EW's position on much of anything outside of the economic realm.

[merrily]

68. I didn't think so. No one who talks about how much more effective Warren can be in the Senate

than in the Oval Office seems to think that the same principle applies to Hillary.

[1StrongBlackMan]

76. You do realize that EW ...

CURRENTLY holds a Senate Senate; whereas, HRC, doesn't ... right?

[merrily]

81. Give me a minute to think why something that condescending deserves a reply, k?

[1StrongBlackMan]

84. Okay. n/t

[Autumn]

88. So funny that they just won't see Hillary's ship has sailed. It was sunk in 2008

[Autumn]

90. Obama sunk Hillary's battleship, in 2008

That's a ship that sailed off into the sunset.

[sheshe2]

41. Thank you!

[SpankMe]

64. You are correct.

She'll be more effective in the Senate for now. She should spend the rest of her senate term working hard on the issues she's an expert in, and then see what things are like in 2020. If a Republican takes the WH in '16, then we'll need a galvanizing candidate in 2020 for the win. By then, she'll have fulfilled a whole senate term and may be ready to run for POTUS.

[1StrongBlackMan]

66. +1. n/t

[2naSalit]

97. I would like to add to that sentiment...

Because I agree that she is best situated in the seat she currently holds to do the people's business in her current position. My addition includes the recognition that she is fully aware of the extent of her skills and abilities and where she can do the most to benefit us she is choosing to rely on her greatest strengths f or the benefit of the nation rather than compete in a competition that will spread her attention thin and take her out of the powerful position she already holds.

(insert the video of "Leave Brittany Alone!" crying person only insert EW for "Brittany&quot

[1StrongBlackMan]

100. But a womenfolks "No" ...

Last edited Wed Jan 14, 2015, 10:07 PM - Edit history (1)

only means "NO" ... unless we REALLY want her to say "YES" ... in which case we are completely justified in trying to convince her reconsider, because we REALLY want her to say "YES."

Oh, wait ...

[2naSalit]

107. !!!

I know, right?

[sheshe2]

108. ....

well done.

[Autumn]

111. Good thing we didn't let a silly idea like yours stop us from electing a young Senator from Illinois

[1StrongBlackMan]

114. Silly idea ... Yeah ...

Elizabeth Warren has told everyone who is willing listen what she has planned and why (hint: It's where I got my silly idea).

Her CHOICE/DECISION to remain in the Senate (my silly idea that I got from what she has said) allows her to focus solely on that which matters to her, without having to split her attention. I accept that.

But then, again, I accept a person's right to decide what they want to do ... even when I REALLY want them to do something I want them to do.

[Autumn]

116. Did you say that Obama should stay in the Senate when he said he wasn't running for President?

Of course not. Obama said he wasn't going to run, he was going to stay in the Senate. That was his CHOICE/DECISION at "that time". Lucky for all of us, people got him to change his mind. I will stand corrected tough, calling your idea that she should stay in the Senate is worse than silly, it's a bad idea and shows your hypocrisy

" her caring, and fighting, for the issues she cares about from her Senate Leadership that she already holds ... a spot where she can actually fight (i.e., write legislation) a singular and focused fight; rather than, hitting the campaign trail {ETA: where she'll have to address far more issues} ... and should she when, have to split her attention between what she says she cares about and the other (70+%) part of the POTUS job?
The benefit of being a Senator is one gets to select what issues one focuses on, as others handle the other stuff."

[1StrongBlackMan]

118. No, I didn't ...

But then again ... I (and most others) did not attempt to "draft"/convince him to run, after he said he wasn't going to run.

Further, unlike Senator Warren, Senator Obama did not indicate any particular matter that mattered most to him, nor did he state, directly:

I'm, I'm not running for president. That's not what we're doing. We had a really important fight in the United States Congress just this past week. And I'm putting all my energy into that fight and to what happens after this.

See the non-hypocritical difference? And, my silly idea ... is NOT my idea; it is Senator Warren's idea.

Lucky for all of us, people got him to change his mind.

So his Presidency has been a good thing? Well ... that is progress, I suppose.

[MohRokTah]

2. Seems to me the Warren fans are getting pissed off at her now that she made her statement...

in the future tense.

Time to accept she won't run.

[Dawgs]

5. No. We're pissed off that we might be stuck with Hillary..big difference. n/t

[MohRokTah]

8. So support Bernie Sanders.

[Dawgs]

15. I do, but Warren is the only one that could beat Hillary.

Bernie will help spread the message, but Hillary will be the nom without Warren.

[MohRokTah]

30. Oh well, she isn't running.

[Dawgs]

52. Yep, too bad. Looks like we'll only have one candidate that acts like a Democrat.

And, unfortunately he has no chance of winning.

[maddiemom]

27. Would Liz run for V.P. with Sanders?

Seems the ideal solution for any worries about Bernie's age.

[daleanime]

34. If Bernie got the nomination...

she would definitely be on a fairly short list.

[merrily]

43. She is not that much younger than he is.

The three of them are not exactly young. But, it is what it is.

[maddiemom]

110. About eight years younger.

And women generally have a few years longer life expectancy than men. Reagan was close to turning seventy (though not a positive example). If we consider sixty-five too old these days, God help us all. European countries don't have the same concern.

[merrily]

119. Yup. Not that much. It's not only yabout llife expectancy, but about performance; and

you really don't help any of them by citing Reagan.

[maddiemom]

120. Reagan: NOT the best example, as I said.

[merrily]

123. LOL. I've seen some comedy sketches portraying him variously as

sleeping through his administration while a group of Machiavellian WH people ran the country, or as a guy who put on the aw shucks and maybe somewhat vague demeanor only for outsiders and was an evil, focused @#$% when only insiders were present.

There may have been moments of both. And possibly a cover up. But, I do think he had started to show symptoms while in the White House. I remember one speech in which he said something like, "I honestly don't think I did that. But, they tell me I did, so I must have." Those are not going to be the exact words because it was a long time ago that I saw it. I don't even remember the subject. But the gist of the comment that I paraphrased hit me right between the eyes as in "What the heck is he trying to pull? Is he trying to confuse us?

I didn't I knew then about his diagnosis and I assumed he was being deceptive. And maybe he was, who knows. Arnold did something similar when he was running for Governor, about the groping accusations. First he said he didn't do it, whereupon loud applause and cheers ensued. Then, he said he did it.

Anyway, shhhhh about Reagan. I doubt the Republicans will bring him up as an example of why anyone is too old to run. So, why should we?

[RiverLover]

12. I'm actually a little pissed at Warren, I'll admit.

And I'm extremely concerned for our country bc we might be stuck with Hillary as the Dem nom. In this scenario, the only outcome in the GE will be having a Conservative in the White House.

[Dawgs]

16. Fair enough.

[RiverLover]

24. Thanks for understanding, Dawgs.

[cascadiance]

89. I think Warren's been "bugged" by the corporate media to commit to a run more than Hillary....

... and there is a REASON for this! As soon as she "commits" to running, that's when the gloves come off and the media and other forces launch in to attack mode against her that does her or us no good if she announces this early.

She's better off keeping this a mystery, and having her focus on issues that keep setting her up for being our "leader" that get more attention as long as this "mystery" stays alive. I think she's smart enough to see this, and whether or not she has real plans to run, it makes sense to continue "not committing" the way she's been doing to avoid getting screwed in the process.

I think if we as the people build up the movement and the "parade" that is later large enough for her to jump in front of and lead that it would be hard then to stop her momentum if the media is not only having to deal with trying to slap her down as a candidate, but also having to slap down a big movement of people as well that have built something for her to lead then.

That is why we continually have our efforts to try and start this movement slapped down here by Third Way types. They know that if the movement is allowed to build, that eventually this will happen and screw the corporatists down the road, which is what America deserves to happen to help us rebuild this country.

[Historic NY]

53. Things could be worse....

but apparently no one thinks a Republican can win.

[benz380]

79. If Hillary wins it's Corporate Republican Lite.

I guess that's better than Corporate Republican Full Strength.

[FSogol]

6. They'll really lose their minds when Waren hits the campaign trail for HRC.

[MohRokTah]

9. She's said she would support Hillary.

I suspect there will be many campaign stops with the two of them together.

[Dawgs]

19. What's sad is that you wouldn't. n/t

[FSogol]

25. I like Waren a lot and would considering voting for her if she ran.

I take her at her word that she isn't running.

Truthfully, other than her economic issues, I'm not sure she has enough appeal/experience to win a Nationwide office. If she were to run, we'd all learn more about her views on other issues during the campaign/primary season.

The fervent Warren supporters here on DU perceive any non-supportive view of Warren as support for HRC and a whole slew of 3rd way/corporate nonsense, but in my case, if the primary was today, I'd pull the lever for Martin O'Malley.

[merrily]

45. Is O'Malley running?

[FSogol]

46. Yes, he spends his time in Iowa and New Hampshire and is putting together an organization.

He'll make an official announcement this spring. Although he is popular in Iowa with Democrats, most of the establishment Dems are waiting to see what HRC does before committing support for other potential candidates. Most wannabes are waiting for Clinton to make a move.

[merrily]

50. That's exciting. I looked into his record very briefly a few months ago when I posted asking

on DU about candidates DUers would recommend for donations.

I remember having a bit of a mixed reaction--then again, that is very typical for me. I tend not to "fall in love" with any candidate or politician anymore. I will take another look.

[FSogol]

56. Here's a good Mother Jones article on him. They called him the most environmentally friendly of

all the potential candidates.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/martin-omalley-longshot-presidential-candidate-and-real-climate-hawk

[merrily]

60. Thanks. That's very helpful of you. I bookmarked and will read when I can concentrate on it.

[Dawgs]

54. Got it. You just take joy in seeing Warren supporters get hurt. Nice. n/t

[FSogol]

58. Well, I guess you think baby llamas should be killed for toothpaste additivies. Nice.

How can you possibly get that from my post?

[Dawgs]

80. "They'll really lose their minds when Waren hits the campaign trail for HRC"

Maybe you disagree, but mocking shows lack of caring.

is right.

[FSogol]

83. Enjoy your delusions.

[SidDithers]

102. I can't wait...

The exploding heads are going to be fucking spectacular.

Sid

[FSogol]

103. They'll just move on to some other fantasy candidate (who isn't running) and proclaim them as

the greatest progressive ever.

[merrily]

39. Where do you see "pissed off?"

Never ceases to amaze me how people read straightforward words on page or a screen, relatively factual statements, and see anger, outrage, etc. Very odd.

IMO, that says more about the reader than it says about the writer.

[Autumn]

117. Find one who's pissed.

[L0oniX]

122. Enjoy your big money in politics candidate.

[NCTraveler]

3. "she’ll do a tremendous disservice to her principles and her party. "

Her principals will be untouched if she doesn't run for president. Pretty arrogant to claim it would be a disservice to her principals.

"Warren is the only person standing between the Democrats and an uncontested Hillary Clinton nomination. "

Timothy Geithner was the only person qualified to head up the Federal Reserve. Dear God, the only person.

"How many people remember what Hillary Clinton accomplished as a US Senator?"

And Warren? How about Kucinich? Grayson?

Was this written by a Bush speechwriter? A republican? Seems like it is nothing but an attempt to stoke division. Just seems like the writings of a republican insider.

[RiverLover]

18. It was in fact written by a raging Republican. You're right.

David Frum

[NCTraveler]

28. David Frum says Warren will be doing a disservice to her principals if she doesn't run.

Is this the same Frum who wrote "George W. Bush was hardly the obvious man for the job. But by a very strange fate, he turned out to be, of all unlikely things, the right man."

Sounds like a very principled man who Warren and her supporters should be taking advice from. Sarcasm.

I would love to have the chance to vote for Warren in the primary. Never in my life would I use Frum to make my point.

[RiverLover]

38. Ha! Exactly. nt

[geek tragedy]

4. She benefits from the ambuguity.

While there's a possibility she could run, people pay more attention to her. Because she has disclaimed any interest in running, she avoids the grandstanding/pandering label she would get if she runs.

[merrily]

47. Why would Dems give her that label? I cannot recall other Dem primary candidates getting that label.

Transparent.

[geek tragedy]

51. So no one at DU will accuse Hillary of pandering

and grandstanding?

You must not have been here in 2008. Far worse was said about every primary candidate.

[merrily]

55. No. In 2008, I was on a political board that allowed posters of all political persuasions--anywhere

on the continuum. No one there, even the right, accused any Dem candidate of grandstanding simply because they choose to run in a primary. Are you sure the accusation was simply because Hillary ran?

[geek tragedy]

63. Perhaps I wasn't clear.

What I am saying is that if someone is a candidate, everything they say will be treated as a campaign statement, every action a campaign stunt. not one of principle.

[merrily]

67. I think that very much depends on whether what they say is consistent with their past.

If a life long Third Way type suddenly becomes an economic populist, that will not wash with me. I would not call it grandstanding, but I might calling it bs or pandering.

BTW, until Charlie, my sig line said I had not picked a candidate yet and I have not. It also said that Hillary would not be my candidate.

[hrmjustin]

7. I don't think she wants to run.

[MohRokTah]

10. IT took a lot of work to get her to run for the Senate.

She had to be dragged kicking and screaming into that race. It just wasn't something she wanted to do.

The people who know her best know she will not run for the presidency.

And quite frankly, I cannot blame her one bit. Look at how Obama has been muckraked, by both the left AND the right!

[merrily]

57. Thats not how I remember it. As I remember it, Warren wanted the job of administering Dodd Frank,

but Obama had someone else in mind. Then, she visited the DNC and various donors seeing if she had enough support from them. Then she ran. No dragging. No kicking. No screaming.

The people who know her best know she will not run for the presidency.

Really? Her husband said she won't run?

[MohRokTah]

69. Talk to Markos Moulitsas about it.

He was part of the Netroots team that worked for weeks to get her to run. She was EMPHATIC, she was not going to run for the Senate. They finally convinced her that if she did not Scott Brown would win.

He'll tell you, it was hard work convincing her to run and at several points they nearly gave up.

[merrily]

71. Moulitsas is not "people who know her best."

And, meaning no disrespect to you or Mark, I trust my own recollection of what I actually observed at the time more than I trust your recollection of what Moulitsas said she said.

Also, I remember Daschle, during an interview, saying how hard he (Daschle) had to work to get Obama to run for President.

Seems to be SOP for some ally to stress how reluctant the candidate was.

[MohRokTah]

72. Then I suggest you read this

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/23/1316067/-Elizabeth-Warren-isn-t-running-for-president-and-that-s-a-good-thing

[merrily]

74. Why should I read it? Because it's consistent with your POV?

There are articles taking every possible position on this. I trust myself more than I trust any shill author pushing his or her POV--or the POV of the person or company paying him or her.

[MohRokTah]

75. Okay, fine

You're free to make up what happened.

I'll continue to live in the reality based community.

[merrily]

82. Never made it up. Simply followed actual news reports at the time.

But you are certainly as free to revise history and call that reality. It's doesn't help anything much, but it is a free country.

For the record, with opinion pieces and agendas being all over the place, not buying into the particular opinion piece you want me to buy into does not equal making things up.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

11. Keep pushing now if you want her to.

Right up until the filing deadline. If she does change her mind, it will only be the result of incredible pressure from activists demanding she run. Without that pressure, there's zero chance she will. With it, the slimmest possibility remains, despite the firmest wishes of Hillary supporters.

[oberliner]

13. How many times and how many ways does she need to say it?

She is not running. Respect her wishes.

[Thinkingabout]

14. Warren is in an excellent position of advocating for the consumers of the US, she is very good in

field of expertise and can affect change. She knows what she can do as Senator and she is doing what she needs.

[tammywammy]

21. She'll be much more effective advocating for citizens in the Senate

The things people like her for, she can actually get stuff done in the Senate. A VP role would basically take away her power. As President there's too many other variables than just where she's excellent at.

She should stay in the Senate where she can make real changes.

[Thinkingabout]

35. Agreed

[treestar]

17. She's not the only person who could run

It's still early.

Plus, though she says the right things, is there any reason to think she would make a good President? That requires working with others and not simple statements.

[MohRokTah]

78. She's nowhere near enough of a narcissist to run. eom

[treestar]

109. They all know she's not interested

They are just looking to spite Hillary's supporters, and can't find anyone else. Liz has never had any interest in it herself. Now it will be all Bernie all the time, unless someone else is discovered.

[joeglow3]

20. President is a shit job only for those with big egos who want power

I am not saying this as a bad thing, but question if she truly has an interest in all the baggage that comes with the presidency.

[tammywammy]

22. And maybe she just wants to do use on the financial aspects

And not deal with foreign policy and other things.

[joeglow3]

23. Exactly.

[FrodosPet]

62. Considering her positions on Israel/Gaza, bombing the Islamic State, and the role of religion in...

... her life?

Greenwald attacks Warren for her statements on Israel/Gaza says she sounds like Netanyahu
- http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025456110

Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she supports President Obama's decision to authorize airstrikes in Iraq
- http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/sen_elizabeth_warren_warns_abo.html

Elizabeth Warren on health care and religion
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/elizabeth-warren-on-health-care-and-religion/2012/08/23/5c509058-ed6c-11e1-9ddc-340d5efb1e9c_blog.html

How long would it take for the purists to throw her under the bus if she were elected?

[tammywammy]

70. No matter which democrat gets the nomination nod

They will be thrown under the bus. No one is perfect.

[Bobbie Jo]

91. They won't throw her under the bus at all

Last edited Wed Jan 14, 2015, 03:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Any of those positions would suddenly become reasonable and prudent.

ETA: lol, told ya.

[Autumn]

95. I'm very aware of her positions. No bus for Liz. She still has my support and I am against Obamas

air strikes in Iraq, don't like the things Israel does, and I want Liz for President in 2016. As for your last link I don't see a problem with her views on the ACA and I don't have a problem religion even though I am not a believer in organized religion. Thanks for the last link but I bet you didn't read that or you wouldn't have included it in your silly list.

Thanks again for the last link, off to post that in the group.

[frazzled]

33. Why?

I don't dislike Elizabeth Warren, but neither do I understand the general idolatry she receives around these parts. Why "should" she run? And what is it we know about her other than her views about Wall Street and banking.

Elizabeth Warren was a bankruptcy lawyer (and prof. of bankruptcy law), so she does know some things about banking and finance. She's useful in the Senate on that score. But she never worked in the public service or government before a few years ago. (She also was a Republican until a few years ago, but that doesn't seem to enter into the equation for a lot of people; perhaps they are converts too, so I won't go there.) Finally, she hasn't had the most progressive record among Democratic senators since she's been there. She's about in the middle.

Where does she stand on civil rights, on foreign policy issues, on regulatory issues, on the environment, on the arts, on education, on defense, on ... we could go on to list a host of unknowns in which a president necessarily would be involved.

It seems to me that we always tend to pick a cipher onto whom we can project a lot of our aspirations.* It's reminding me a lot of the John Edwards phenomenon of 2007-8: a pretty moderate-to-conservative Democrat who hadn't participated in public service for the majority of his life in anyway, had a meh record in Congress, and who had one populist slogan. And people thought he was the best thing since sliced bread. Frankly, I just don't trust the collective wisdom of the Internet. Or at least, I wouldn't trust it with my nation's interests.

I have no other candidate, so I'm not trying to run her down to pump someone else up. I am just interested in the pop phenomenon of Internet idolatry.


*One might say that we did that with Obama. But to me, Obama's positions were very clear from the beginning (and visible in his long record of public service, his writings, and colleagues' assessments). Nothing he has done has surprised me one bit. I knew he was a non-ideological pragmatist from the get-go.

[RiverLover]

40. If you go to the EWG here, you'll learn more. Like she was just awarded a MLK award & gave a really

great acceptance speech. She fights for carbon regulations, clean water regs, and alternative energy. It just doesn't make the corporate media headlines like her financial reg fights.

[frazzled]

59. I don't go to any fan groups here

So when I'm questioning the "idolatry" that arises on the Internet, don't send me to the fan group as an answer.

And "fights" is a strong term. The president has accomplished more than any leader in history regarding carbon regulations and alternative energy, and no one praises him. And the MLK Leadership Award is just a local thing in Boston.

Look, we're not talking about signing onto a letter with 12 other senators in favor of carbon regulation, or of making a statement about civil rights. The question is what would someone do or get done. What have they done in the past (voting republican for many decades clearly did nothing to address either the environment or civil rights). What would make them more qualified than another to do so. I'm not seeing "exemplary" here. Just what is to be expected.

[Fearless]

36. She can do more as president than Senator.

As a Senator she is one of a hundred people. As president she is one of one. As president she would decide which bills become law and which don't. As Senator she has little impact on that and less so in regards to what bills come forward as she is now in the minority.

She should run.

[merrily]

87. Until now, no one knew how much more power a Senator who is in the minority in her own party,

with her party being the minority party in the Senate to boot, has than the POTUS has .

And those who are both honest and sane still don't know.

There is another issue as well:

Although the Dem Party always had its conservative wing, it did not take over the Party until after Bubba was elected twice. Then, it was like dominoes falling. Liberals turned Third Way, liberals got frozen out, etc. I want to see a Dem President who is not a New Democrat and see if we can "reverse the curse." (Red Sox term.) If we keep nominating nothing but Third Way/DLC/ types, I think the Party is doomed. Look at fucking November 2014.

[WhiteTara]

37. Isn't there a law somewhere now that says

when a woman says no, she means no. I think the law is titled something like "Yes means yes"

[Neon Gods]

42. Sadly...

...if she runs she will lose. She will lose not because she's wrong, or that she's uninspiring or a bad campaigner. She will lose because a large group of Democrats in Congress will not support her. They will walk away from her and let her lose because she threatens Wall Street and because their large Fox News-bots will howl in outrage and if they support Warren THEY will lose big in THEIR next election. I think Warren, who deals with these pols daily, knows they won't support her and that's why she won't run.

Things can change between now and the primaries, of course, and if you want her to run by all means keep pressuring her. She's the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party in ages!

[longship]

44. Speaking of denial... nt

[rtracey]

48. sorry to disappoint

I know many progressives on DU want Ms Warren to run, and I can see why, but I believe she can do more good as a Senator in a Democrat controlled congress. We must push to gain control of the congress again, not just the Whitehouse. As we have witnessed, the president is very limited in his/her scope of actions he/she can take. As far as governmental aspects, yes, but for private sector, most things needs congress approval. Eliz Warren is best served in the Senate.

[SheilaT]

49. What I also find astonishing here is

that back when Hillary was saying she wasn't running, all the Hillary supporters absolutely didn't believe that, but also absolutely insisted we believe Warren when she said the same thing.

[Vattel]

73. Warren is too militaristic for my tastes, but when the alternative is HRC, what the fuck

is a progressive to do? I hope she runs, becomes the President, and manages to be at least not worse than Obama on foreign policy.

[stillwaiting]

105. I don't see her as militaristic at all. I do see her as passionate though.

The passion she displays in conjunction with the frustration she clearly feels (that she shares with most average Americans) could be perceived that way I guess, but I don't see her leadership style as militaristic at all.

And, I also hope that we have another alternative to HRC that is appealing to progressives.

[Vattel]

106. By militarisitc I mean too ready to resort to military force to accomplish political objectives.

[OKNancy]

77. David Frum - LOL

as mentioned above, this is by that creep David Frum. He's really,really scared of Hillary.
He doesn't give a shit about Democratic values.

[Sheepshank]

86. Warren doesn't strike me as a person who 'plays' politics and games with the public.

she says what she means, and she means what she says.

If she says she is not running 2016, I would tend to take her at her word. It's the type of character she presents...no mincing words, being honest in her public representations of herself.

[great white snark]

94. And the folks Republicans count on for running with their narrative continue to do it.

It's us against them not us against us.

[brooklynite]

96. Boy...why are some people so OBSESSED about proving that Warren's going to run?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6081375

[Android3.14]

98. If Clinton wins the nomination, the country loses

The election outcome, at that point, will be moot.
'nuf said.

[joshcryer]

99. Yes, she hasn't said a legitimate "no" yet.

[HappyMe]

104. If she wants to - she will.

If she doesn't want to - she won't. I will wait until spring to see who is running, and figure out who I will vote for then. I know that I won't be voting for Clinton.

[Marr]

115. I just want to note how funny it is that so many Hillary fans

think Warren can be more effective in the Senate than in the White House.

[L0oniX]

121. The anti Warren gang is pro money in politics so expect attacks.