"Elizabeth Warren says Obama doesn't understand 'lived experience of most Americans.'"

[pnwmom]

Last edited Wed May 3, 2017, 05:45 AM - Edit history (4)

Why does she think that?

Because he was raised by a single mother and her parents?
Because they lived in an apartment?
Because they lived in Hawaii?

Is Hawaii less real than Oklahoma?

Just what are "most Americans"? As far as I can tell, we're extremely diverse, and more and more so every day. And the large majority of people with incomes below the median voted for Hillary, not DT.

And they voted for Obama twice.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/elizabeth-warren-says-barack-obama-193335465.html

The Independent
Mythili Sampathkumar

Elizabeth Warren says Barack Obama does not understand 'lived experience of most Americans'


Senator Elizabeth Warren has said politicians like former President Barack Obama have “giant blind spots” regarding the “lived experiences of most Americans.”

Talking about her new book This Fight Is Our Fight, Ms Warren also did not rule out a possible 2020 presidential bid.

Ms Warren said politicians like Mr Obama and others in both parties talk “about a set of big national statistics that look shiny and great” like the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and unemployment rates, but they neglect that “the lived experiences of most Americans [are] that they are being left behind in this economy.“

[ecstatic]

1. Just as I was warming up to her

She is showing her true colors now. She's not using common sense--she's just reading from a script and unaware of how off the rails she sounds.

[NurseJackie]

132. I share your feelings of confusion and betrayal. It's crazy.

[Hamlette]

201. she is off the rails, my true blue hubby hates her with a passion

I always thought he was over reacting but I too am beginning to cool. It's the politicians as zealots who screw things up.

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. This is bound to help her on the talk show circuit while she hawks her book. Shame on you EW. nt

[Volstagg]

93. Did you criticize Clinton for hawking her book

about 100 times during her interview yesterday?

[bettyellen]

128. Her book wholeheartedly celebrates Dem values and criticizes the GOP and rightfully so....

Pundits love to use Dems to attack other Dems and reward them with more air time for doing so. It will get them clicks- at the expense of other Dems. Honestly much of it seems political posturing for air time.

[Tarheel_Dem]

138. Did she try to plug her book tour by trying to pick a fight with Barack Obama?

[Eliot Rosewater]

151. No, she didnt. My position on Bernie might have to include Warren soon.

Either knowingly or not they are helping Putin.

[Tarheel_Dem]

153. I can tell you this...she has disqualified herself from competing in a Dem primary, AFAIC. This....

won't land well in the AA community, and as we saw in 2016, you can't win a Dem primary without significant AA support.

[Eliot Rosewater]

166. I cant figure out if they are on you know who's Russian payroll or just idiots

[karynnj]

185. For her hard choices book, yes definitely

Especially on Syria, where in fact Ban ki Moon blames her for not wanting to go all in on a diplomatic deal. Yes, I know Obama could have over ruled her on this, as he did on helping the rebels more.

Then, I agreed with you and other Clinton people that she had both the right and need to define her foreign policy, which I disagrwed with.

Warren has the right and responsibility to define herself. She should take care to give Obama credit for things he did.

[Cha]

146. EW is ignorantly attacking President Obama to sell

a book.. shame on her

[trixie2]

3. This upset me

Why Elizabeth? Why?

[LuvLoogie]

161. Probably on the advise of her publisher. I don't think she has the spine

people attribute to her. She scolds.

[democratisphere]

4. I agree with Elizabeth Warren.

Politicians, specially Washington politicians, don't even begin to understand the struggles of the majority of Americans in the job market and recent economy. It is a real battle to just keep your head above water. This single, broad spectrum issue was the deciding factor in this last election.

[sarge43]

48. As Warren is a Washington politician, she doesn't understand either. Correct?

By your standard, she's a hypocrite.

[betsuni]

49. +1

[True Dough]

110. She is much more wealthy and privileged than the average American

So, you're right, she is in no position to criticize Obama on that front.

There are so many real targets to go after. Why she is going after Obama at this juncture is mystifying.

[sarge43]

114. Further, I doubt that once she leaves public life,

she's going to head off to the Berkshires to live in a shack off the grid and give up that senate pension/bennies.

Yes, what's with this sudden purity test for Obama?

[Demsrule86]

116. President Obama was not born rich and went to college on student loans like the rest of us...her

words disgust me.

[LenaBaby61]

5. Not Liz now with this BS ....

Liz, please stop

Focus on the guy "installed" in the White House whose obviously suffering from Dementia or some other mental deterioration, and that he's also guilty of colluding with the ruskies to get into the White House.

Can some of these folks who claim that they're anti-tRumputin please stop firing away at Pres. Obama. IS the angry white male and angry white Rust Belt voter THIS damn important to them?

Talk about ignoring whole forests for the trees.

[treestar]

60. Exactly. WTF? Why is she going after Obama now?

Does Donald understand our experience? A lot less. WTH isn't she saying this about him? It would make a lot more sense.

[BlueStater]

6. I've never been as crazy about her as everyone else here is.

It wouldn't surprise me if she's not even reelected next year given her approval ratings in Massachusetts. The last time I checked, she was one of the most unpopular senators in the country so she seems to be far more polarizing than folks here seem to realize. She would be a horrible presidential candidate.

[Kahuna7]

40. I agree with you 100%. She's alright..I guess. But she doesn't have

enough appeal for a presidential run. Bashing Obama will not help her with the Democratic base who voted for Obama TWICE.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

106. I would vote for her in a New York minute for Massachusetts senator. For president, no.

We can't afford to lose Senate seats.

I wonder why she is relatively unpopular in her home state.

[jrthin]

111. +1 nt

[ATL Ebony]

188. I'm with you. +1000

She doesn't mind speaking her mind but at times it seems she's picking a fight against her party. Wouldn't mind a Dem challenger for her seat. I can take her or leave her.

[oberliner]

7. No, she did not say that

Here's what she actually said:

“I think President Obama, like many others in both parties, talk about a set of big national statistics that look shiny and great but increasingly have giant blind spots,” she told the Guardian. “That GDP, unemployment, no longer reflect the lived experiences of most Americans.

“And the lived experiences of most Americans is that they are being left behind in this economy. Worse than being left behind, they’re getting kicked in the teeth.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/01/elizabeth-warren-barack-obama-democrats-economy

[Jno_Gilmor_]

11. Big difference when it is read in context n/t

[pnwmom]

12. Why does she think he has a giant blind spot? Doesn't she understand that he had to make a huge push

just to get the stimulus through, and it was much smaller than he'd asked for? And that he spent most of his Presidency being blocked by the most obstructive Congress in history?

He couldn't do everything he wanted to do because of Congress. But when he ran for re-election he needed to talk about his successes -- and those statistics he cited are a commonly used measurement.

Why is she blaming Obama for that?

[onetexan]

16. she sounds more like Bernie every day that she throws O under the bus

next she'll be saying she's not a Democrat. Liz oughtta go join Sanders in forming their own socialist party.

[bettyellen]

135. I've always been bothered she was a Republican during the Reagan years....

It was an ugly time, and I've never heard anything that explains it past she realized their economics plans were messed up. Never heard any regrets about it other than that. So to me her appeal has always been limited.

[betsuni]

21. +1

[melman]

13. No, she definitely did not

Curious isn't it. I wonder if the OP will bother to correct or delete. Seems unlikely but we'll see.

[pnwmom]

20. That is the quoted title of the article. No, I won't "correct" it.

And saying Obama had a "giant blind spot' is just as unfair.

Use your common sense. It's easy for a non-incumbent to criticize and attack. But Obama wasn't going to get re-elected by announcing that Americans weren't doing well under his Presidency.

Whatever people may think, the economy is doing a lot better than it wouldn't have if Obama hadn't been elected. He got the stimulus passed, got money for the auto industry and for healthcare, and got the economy going again. It was falling off a cliff when he took office.

[melman]

27. Of course you won't

That wouldn't fit your very obvious agenda.

[pnwmom]

29. LOL.

My agenda was to respond to an unfair criticism of one of the greatest Presidents we have had.

What's yours?

[treestar]

64. and to support the Democratic party

a perfectly permissible agenda on DU and one Elizabeth Warren should consider doing better.

[treestar]

62. It was the actual title

pnwmom explained perfectly.

[LanternWaste]

133. No doubt you'll of course specify what the alleged narrative

"That wouldn't fit your very obvious agenda..."




No doubt, rather than cower behind implication, you'll of course specify what the alleged narrative you reference is, thus illustrating the courage of your own convictions, yes?

"Of course you won't..."

[KTM]

168. Thats twice

It sure seems like you want to bait people into violating forum rules.... speaking of very obvious agendas...

[stevenleser]

173. Are you saying you can't explain your point without violating forum rules?

That doesn't sound like the issue is with the other poster.

[KTM]

180. Not at all

First of all, it was not MY point that couldnt be explained, it was another poster upthread. Im *only* referencing what someone said in reply to that poster.

I see posters being very careful to NOT break forum rules, and other posters appearing to try to get them to do just that.

I could get all linky, but maybe that would put me over some line too.... Basically, a post said something like "Just look at the usual suspects here" or something similar, and the reply was "Be specifc." (i.e., name names, which would count as calling out members.)

This post was similar, i.e., " I suspect you have an agenda" (pretty tame, though maybe sidling up to the line) followed by "Oh, do get more specific and ascribe a specific motive to me" (in violation of the same rule.)

Maybe I'm wrong, but thats what it looks like to me.

Its kind of sad that the jury system here, coupled with people who will call almost anything a "personal attack" has led to so many obtuse posts where people have to dance around to try to express their feelings. It aint beanbag, and IMHO we should all be able to be passionate about our passions.

[emulatorloo]

134. So much melodrama over some tepid criticism of Sen Warren

[Cha]

148. Yeah, what's your "agenda"?

[bettyellen]

129. She knows the sort of extra attention and the headlines she will generate

By taking this tack. She's watched others use the same formula for success. She made the choice to be "controversial" and not focus on the GOP.

[oberliner]

139. Well, she is trying to sell a book

And this, apparently, is what gets the media's attention.

[bettyellen]

141. Politicians going to politic....

[JCanete]

15. yeah, that was my thought after reading too. Come on people. I get that these are sensitive topics

but look before you leap on a narrative, and be happy that that isn't what she said, unless you're so unhappy with what she did say that you'd rather she said this other thing so that she could get slapped down with some righteous indignation.

[betsuni]

18. Isn't she saying that politicians like Obama have giant blind spots when they talk about

big national statistics like GDP and unemployment statistics because those statistics don't reflect the lived experiences of most Americans? She's saying Obama doesn't understand that those statistics don't reflect the real lives of Americans and that makes him out of touch with ordinary Americans. Clear to me. And it's bullshit.

[pnwmom]

24. She's wrong. Obama understands those statistics.

He's also realistic enough to know that you don't win re-election by moaning about all the ways you weren't able to accomplish everything you ideally wished to. Presidents who are perceived as whiny and ineffective don't get re-elected.

He cited those statistics because they are commonly accepted measurements and they DO represent measurable progress over the course of his Presidency -- that began in the midst of a huge recession. It doesn't mean he has a blind spot to real people's experience.

Because he saved us from falling off a financial cliff, most people have no idea how bad it could have been.

[betsuni]

33. Agree.

What really pisses me off about this "out of touch" crap is that his mother was an anthropologist, he lived in another, very different culture as a boy. He's not stupid. The idea that he doesn't doesn't understand American lives or culture or statistics just because he lived in Washington DC for awhile is fucking absurd.

[treestar]

65. Yes, his health care motivation

came from his mother's struggle with medical bills and insurance companies! At least partly.

Granted he is smarter and has more charisma than most people do, and thus he would not live an ordinary life. But for someone like that, he is extraordinarily empathetic. He spent time talking to people on the campaign trail. Hillary did that too. It is to be noted Donald did not.

[still_one]

80. You are darn right he understands pnwnom, and that is why every time those statistics were

announced, President Obama acknowledged the struggles much of the populace was having in spite of those improving statistics.

Warren knows perfectly well that a President can't just wave their arms, and something happens, it requires a legislative process, from representatives that were elected by the people.

[Voltaire2]

53. Of course. Why is Warren being attacked here?

Sometimes this board is just baffling.

[HoneyBadger]

56. Harvard Law's First Female POTUS of Color possibly....

Vs Harvard Law's First Male POTUS of Color

If anyone should understand Obama, it should be Warren.

[treestar]

66. Why is Obama attacked here? Why is Hillary?

This board allows plenty of attacks against Democrats.

[DFW]

71. The second I saw this, I thought to myself

This HAS to be something taken out of context. She does take petty shots for nothing.

[still_one]

79. Except it ignores the very fact the President Obama, almost everytime those statistics were

announced for a particular period, went out of his way to acknowledge that he is well aware that a lot of the populace is hurting badly in spite of the improving statistics.

Her assessment of President Obama as being unaware, and having a "giant blind spot" in those areas is hogwash.

[oberliner]

87. I think her point is simply that economic statistics don't always tell the whole story

And how all of us need to be reminded of that sometimes.

The press seems to want to stoke some kind of Warren vs Obama feud to get hits.

She had many more interesting and significant points to make in that interview, but nothing as sexy as "Warren attacks Obama!!"

[still_one]

108. I agree Obe, that is her point, but I don't agree with her assessment that President Obama has a

blind spot regarding the statistics as telling the whole picture.

Your second point in my view really hits the nail on the head. The press absolutely is going out of their way to create the impression of a deeply divided Democratic party, and doing their part to encourage it by over exaggerating different views within the party.

The over analysis of the differences between Perez, Sanders, Pelosi, and others in the party, or aligned with the party, only serve their purposes to exploit this.

A perfect example of this is the different views of various Democrats, and those who align with the Democrats, regarding support of Democratic candidates' whose positions on abortion do not align with the parties platform. The press exploits this to its full extent.

Of course what is usually left out of that discussion, is the political reality that after the parties nominee for a particular office has been selected by the voters of that party, and you are left with an anti-choice Democrat running against an anti-choice republican, isn't it better in most cases that support is given to the Democrat?

Bob Casey in Pennsylvania is a perfect example of this. Casey is as anti-choice, and anti-roe v wade as they come, however, he was the Democratic nominee for Senate in Pennsylvania against Rick Santorum. Except for abortion, Casey would be labelled as progressive in on almost every other issue. So the question is, if Bob Casey runs for re-election in 2018, and wins the Democratic primary for Senate in that state, should the Democratic party support Bob Casey against the republican?

Of course the press won't go into those details because it doesn't sell papers

[mountain grammy]

83. In context, much more realistic perspective.

and it's true. Yes, wages are up, employment is up. But we all know, they haven't kept up with costs and more and more people are falling farther behind. This must always be acknowledged.

[trc]

157. Which, I believe, Obama acknowledged damn near every time he spoke.

"But more needs to be done" was a common theme in speeches he gave for years.

[Adrahil]

100. Kinda looks like she did to me.

Also, it is true that a President has to abstract economic performance to SOME extent.... it's the only way to manage such a huge economy.

But it's not like Obama did press for training programs, infrastructure, and all kinda of efforts to IMPROVE that lived experience. Did Warren forget all that stuff? Given the limitations he faced from a largely unfriendly Congress, he did remarkably well and she should say that.

It would be more accurate to say Obama was stymied from doing the things he wanted to do to help working and middle class Americans.

[Demsrule86]

118. Same thing. She calle out Obama and basically said the partys' are the same.

and she said this:

"...The senator went on take a swipe at members of her own party while describing the collapse of old distinctions between left and right. “I think there are real differences between the Republicans and the Democrats here in the United States,” she said. “The Republicans have clearly thrown their lot in with the rich and the powerful, but so have a lot of Democrats.”..."

Sen. Warren, How dare you? I will not vote for you in any primary...not now not ever.

[LanternWaste]

131. Another distinction lacking any relevant difference.

Another distinction lacking any relevant difference.

[oberliner]

140. Agreed

It's so frustrating to see the media play these games.

[adigal]

186. I agree with her...I don't think he has experienced that life in many years...

but most in Congress haven't.

I have to say, when we were dealing with a crazy lunatic as new president and Obama was out having a blast with billionaires, I thought more than once that he was out of touch. I get he needed a vacation, but I never thought he had the fight in him that Warren and even Hillary has.

[Afromania]

8. and there we go

[Doreen]

9. Obama may have not been poor but

he was not rich in fact not even close. I would say he has more connection with the average American than any president in modern history. I like Warren but why is she wasting her time attacking Obama? Attacking trump and his cronies is more useful. Obama is not running for president so lay the fuck off.

[JNelson6563]

10. I dare say things seem to be

Going to her head. I know someone who worked on her Senate race that said they had to explain the Koch bros to her.

How far she has (not) come!

[JI7]

14. i hope not. obama and clinton did much better in mass than she did

and so far polls show she is not doing as well as they did .

maybe this is just short term to try to sell a book to a certain crowd. but she really needs to focus on re-election .

[HoneyBadger]

17. Now that Gillibrand has dropped out, Warren's 2020 win seems to be that much more secure

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141765191

[Thekaspervote]

19. I like her, but from time to time has been critical

Of president Obama. Now is not a good time. Why is she so unpopular in MA? Anyone?

[JI7]

22. i don't think she is unpopular

but just hasn't done as well as some other democrats.

[HoneyBadger]

32. State voters ask what have you done for me lately

They have a different perspective than national voters.

[ashredux]

23. This is how the Russians work folks.....they are still working here

[HoneyBadger]

28. Are you saying that the Russians write Warren's speeches?

Link please

[ashredux]

35. Nope. Just misrepresenting what she actually said

[pnwmom]

41. Saying that Obama had a blind spot is just as unfair.

Obama wasn't running for re-election as an outsider. He was running as an incumbent. And to do that, he had to point to measurable SUCCESSES -- successes shown in those "shiny" statistics -- and not whine about how the Rethugs had prevented him from doing even better.

And he had large majorities among voters whose incomes were below the median -- so they knew he had their backs.

[Cha]

159. The "Russians" set up EW to ignorantly attacking Pres Obama?

[redgreenandblue]

25. The OP first lies about what Elizabeth Warren actually said and then calls her a racist.

If I were a Russian troll, this is the sort of thing I'd post here to stir up shit.

[pnwmom]

26. The OP quoted the exact title of the article. nt

[melman]

36. You're playing a game here

I don't know if you imagine the game is not obvious, but I can tell you that it is.

You know full well it's about more than the title.

[pnwmom]

43. No game. Saying he had had a huge blind spot is JUST as unfair, as I've already explained. nt

[ms liberty]

52. This. n/t

[Cha]

147. You're projecting.

[SMC22307]

205. Yep. And I'm happy to see the majority of DU...

rejecting this bullshit of an OP.

[Voltaire2]

54. We have an overtly authoritarian right wing party

in control of all three branches of the government and a large majority of the states and some people here are obsessed with attacking Democrats, with creating internal disputes within the opposition to a fascist takeover of our country. Why?

[pnwmom]

57. That's what I want to know. Why is she criticizing Obama as being out of touch? Of course

he was citing "shiny" statistics --- like employment numbers and GNP -- he was running for re-election. Did she think he would have been re-elected by saying everything sucks but "vote for me again"?

[treestar]

68. LOL

Calls her a racist?

[redgreenandblue]

89. It looks like the "is it because he is black?" line was now edited out.

[Hekate]

163. That is an appalling statement, redgreenandblue

[LiberalLovinLug]

30. Respect!

Love her even more now. Truth to power. She doesn't care if her words upsets the fragile ears, chicken littles, or the ones that believe only racists have the right to criticize something about Obama. She's not afraid of whining authoritarians from either side and speaks her mind. Go Liz Go!

[pnwmom]

31. So Obama is a whining authoritarian? nt

[LiberalLovinLug]

38. Did not say that and did not intend that.

[bettyellen]

190. "The ones who believe only racists have the right to criticize ...Obama" WTF?

your basically expressing envy toward racists - is that because they don't have to listen to those PC "whining authoritarians"? Please clarify.

[LiberalLovinLug]

192. Think about it

It boils down to this:

A) Everyone has the right to be whatever they want, be it a racist, a pacifist, a libertarian, an R, a D, or whatever. We all agree on this. Its freedom of choice. And it follows that someone that is a racist would no doubt be critical of Obama without question.

B) Some here though, while still believing the first point, also believe that Democrats on this board should not have that right to criticize Obama.

C) Thus the conclusion is that those particular people believe in the rights of racists to be critical of Obama, (albiet for different reasons) but not DU members.

[bettyellen]

193. You get that this board is not a "free speech zone" for racists or even fans of the GOP....

And that we have community standards that exclude racist crap? so no, were actually not more tolerant of racists than we are of those who push GOP talking points.

[LiberalLovinLug]

194. Wooooooooooooosh

[bettyellen]

195. Pretzel logic used to make DUers look like assholes is nonsense...

Nothing's going over anyone's head. But your concerns are notable.

[LiberalLovinLug]

196. You are the one that questioned my logic

To further explain,
I think we all agree, however begrudgingly, that a rasict SOB has every right to criticise Obama on Free Republic.
However there are those that want to deny the right of criticism to fellow DUers on this more supposedly liberal board. Notwithstanding that the criticism is from another direction.

And if that kind of logic makes someone look like an asshole, your word, what am I supposed to do about it?

[bettyellen]

197. You and I both agreed to OUR community standards, which have nothing to do with other communities-

And their standards or lack thereof. I'm not sure why you'd join a group and then mock them for their community standards- you basically have most of the internet without any. Knock yourself out.

[LiberalLovinLug]

198. You are looking at it very differently

One could make an argument that here there is an obvious 'standard' of moral, ethics, empathy, tolerance, that we hold that is far above those on, say, Free Republic. Even if just based on who they think is acceptable as the President.

I am talking about another type of 'standard'. The standard of allowing free discussion and criticism. You seem to be promoting the same standard in that regard, as a place like Free Republic. There one can disparage the Democrats, call them foul names, etc.. Here one can disparage the Republicans, call them foul names etc... Conversely, there you dare not breath a word of criticism towards Donald Trump, or what the Republicans are doing in the house.

Here is where your standards differ from mine. You seem to believe, much like those on Free Republic, that leadership, in the recent past, in our own party is off limits. And anyone that dares to will be attacked and maybe even have their post alerted on.

I believe that it is healthier, as a country and as a party, to be open to self criticism in order to improve. And sometimes that may be those in leadership positions. Even ones that you admire for the most part. I think Obama was one of the greatest Presidents in modern history, but I disagreed with him on a number of issues.

I think we are strong enough to take that kind of self criticism because we ultimately have facts, truth, logic, science, etc. on our side. That we can work through those types of arguments. We shouldn't be afraid of that.

[bettyellen]

199. It's not about fear of discussion, or MY standards but thanks.

Last edited Sat May 6, 2017, 03:23 PM - Edit history (1)

We have some standards here- including ones about racist and sexist stuff, and also some to prevent the anti Dem negative trolling that gets over the top. We attract a lot of disruptive people - you'd have no idea if you haven't hosted a forum or worked MIRT.

Without those rules, we'd be a cesspool of crap - in fact we were during much of the primaries. There were many people who were very active here who turned out to be Trump supporters. Loads of harassment directed at those who supported our candidate for president. Glad we have standards. If you dislike them - take it up with the admins. Or join somewhere else. Not my decision. I like it here.

It has nothing to do with fear or censorship or any other space on the web's standards or norms. The standards here were a bit looser during the primaries, and it was an absolute shit show. A lot of good people were made to feel unwelcome. I'm glad we have clearer standards. If someone can only say crappy things about Dems - whether they are trolling or just habitually mired in negativity, they may feel unwelcome here. There are good reasons for that- it's a community, and just like other spaces we travel to throughout our lives there are expectations of respect for others and the community. It's not that hard.

[LiberalLovinLug]

206. It shouldn't be a choice between a "cesspool" or a fan club

Surely there is somewhere in between where adults, and I like to think intelligent adults, can have discourse including raising their objections to policies, candidates, etc.. that come from the party they support. I always thought that this is one of the differences between us and the lock-step Republicans.
Its not that hard.
But have a nice day and I respect your right to be critical of me.

[bettyellen]

208. People raise objections to policies and statements Dems make all the time here. Let's not pretend

Otherwise. it's hard sometimes to tell the difference between honest discussion and trolling but that doesn't mean no one should try. Disrupters are common.
Du is not perfect, but if it's not reflecting your values (not that it always perfectly aligned with my own) I'm sure you can find spaces that do more closely. I think the admins do the best they can despite past mistakes.

[LiberalLovinLug]

210. Fair enough

[beachbum bob]

34. Warren just lost my support....

[ashredux]

39. Really? So, you are actually registered to vote?

[Cha]

160. Why are you insulting BeachbumBob?

[beachbum bob]

42. since 1972 my friend...sometimes warren talks too much

and in this case, put her foot in her mouth

[stonecutter357]

104. +1000

[Demsrule86]

119. Mine also...and I vote in every election.

[IndianaDave]

37. I really like Elizabeth Warren, but

she's off base on this. Our 44th President grew up as a regular kid. His work as a community organizer didn't exactly make him rich. Eventually he made great money, but he has consistently demonstrated that he's down to earth, and has real concern for every class of people. I simply disagree with Warren on this point, and I wish she hadn't said this. But, like all of us, she's entitled to make mistakes once in a while. So, we'll get through this just fine.

[ucrdem]

44. OP is accurate, and Warren has gone down this road before.

Just did a jury coincidentally and checked the OP against the linked article. Yes it's accurate, no it doesn't misread or misinterpret what Warren said.

[samplegirl]

45. The big difference

Was Obama cared about working poor!

[mdbl]

46. It's really easy for the trolls to get everyone all riled up here

Elizabeth Warren was a staunch ally of what Obama was trying to accomplish. She is right about politicians being focused on a few numbers. It's a common bubble. For example, the unemployment rate is lower, even though most of the jobs it represents pays suck wages. I think that was her point but, go ahead people, make it harder for good democrats to get elected.

[RandiFan1290]

50. Same trolls were trashing Obama in 2014

Blaming him for the Ebola 'outbreak' hysteria right before the election.

I never see them go after any republicons.

[pnwmom]

59. She's making it harder for good Democrats to be elected when she disparages what Obama

accomplished.

He dragged the country off a cliff in 2008, and yes, he did have some "shiny" statistics to his credit over the course of his Presidency. He didn't have a blind spot when he highlighted them. He was campaigning for re-election, and then trying to help Dems in 2014 and 2016. He was trying to show that the country had made progress during his Presidency, and it had. Do you think he could have been re-elected if he said, yeah, everything stinks -- re-elect me anyway?

Too many people have no idea how much worse things could have gotten if he hadn't gotten the stimulus passed, and the bill for the auto industry, and clean energy, and Obamacare and everything else. We could still be in the equivalent of the Great Depression now if he hadn't turned things around in that first year.

But lower income people DO give him the credit, ironically. Obama had strong support among voters whose income are below the median. They didn't think he had a blind spot. They knew he was working hard for them -- against the most obstructive Congress in history.

[Docreed2003]

78. This! X1000

[alarimer]

97. She is not disparaging him.

That is a blatant mischaracterization.

You talk as if Obama were perfect and that everything he did was perfect. He was, and is, most certainly not perfect. And neither were the things he did.

[Demsrule86]

120. She did and she party's were the same basically...she is not going to be the presidential candidat

in 2020 assuming she keeps her seat...she was below 50% in January. I have not seen recent polls.

[pnwmom]

127. It's blatantly wrong to say that her claim that he had a giant blind spot to the

reality of people's lived experience is NOT disparaging him.

[Cha]

149. No, that's a strawman.. No one is saying President Obama

is "perfect".

[athena]

113. Exactly.

Republicans don't do this. Even though they disagree with Trump, you don't see a single Republican out there criticizing or disparaging Trump. But we Democrats can't support our leaders. We feel like it's our job to criticize the members of our own team.

[uponit7771]

130. +1, and now low UE rates mean nothing

[gordianot]

47. Even when given the high ground some politicians give it up.

The danger in the White House far exceeds any partisan political concern or criticism. Move on do not eat your own.

[get the red out]

51. Please

She is beginning to make me hope that she does NOT run for the Democratic nomination for President.

[Tatiana]

55. This is another sensational headline.

That doesn't correspond to what she said. I think she is correct in the sense that many people were left behind in this current economy and if a better attempt had been made to address the "lived experience" of those people, many would not have voted for Trump.

We do have to have a conversation as a party in terms of who our coalition will be and how we will pull it together in order to achieve a majority of votes.

[pnwmom]

85. She said Obama had a blind spot for people's real lived experience. And that is false and unfair.

The fact that he pointed to positive statistics, in an effort to show what he had accomplished, doesn't mean he was unaware of real people's lives. But there was only so much he could do in the face of the most obstructionist Congress in history.

[PA Democrat]

58. "And they voted for Obama twice." But then millions of Obama voters voted for Trump.

Enough to swing the election. We have to ask why. The election should never have been close enough for the Comey letter and the Russian interference to put Trump in the White House.

I think Elizabeth Warren could have expressed the issue better, but the truth is that among many of the voters who switched from Obama to Trump, their primary reason for voting for Trump was economic. Despite the economic recovery they felt they had been left behind. And if we ignore the PERCEPTION that these voters feel that Democrats don't understand (although I must point out that the article actually misquoted Warren) their economic fears, we could lose more elections.

Unemployment is way down, but millions of Americans have been forced to take lower paying jobs. People are struggling to send their kids to college and are distressed by the student loan debt their kids are incurring. Millions feel they are falling further and further behind and feel BOTH parties have ignored their plight. Yes, Democrats leave the Republican party in the dust when it comes to promoting policies that help the poor and the middle class, but if the voters don't PERCEIVE that as being the case, we could lose more elections.

[pnwmom]

61. Why? Because the media turned it into a horserace in order to up their ratings.

Their coverage was almost entirely negative and almost entirely NOT devoted to comparing policies.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/12/report-general-election-coverage-overwhelmingly-negative-in-tone-232307

The coverage of the 2016 general election was marked with overwhelming negativity, leading according to a new report from The Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center, released Wednesday.

The study, which analyzed news reports on the main newscasts from the major cable and broadcast networks along with major daily newspapers like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, slammed the press for what it concluded was the "corrosive effect" of mostly negative news throughout the general election.

“Negative news has partisan consequences,” the study's author, Thomas Patterson, wrote. “Given that journalists bash both sides, it might be thought the impact would be neutral. It’s not … If everything and everyone is portrayed negatively, there’s a leveling effect that opens the door to charlatans. The press historically has helped citizens recognize the difference between the earnest politician and the pretender. Today’s news coverage blurs the distinction.”

SNIP

Both candidates received equally negative coverage on coverage related to the candidates’ fitness for office, including stories about their leadership abilities, ethics, policy positions and personal qualities. Coverage for both candidates on those issues ran at about 87 percent negative to 13 percent positive. The press paid more attention to Clinton’s controversies than to Trump’s, and the tone of that coverage, which made up at least 7 percent of all Clinton coverage every week, was more than 90 percent negative.

“The mainstream press highlights what’s wrong with politics without also telling us what’s right,” Patterson wrote. “It’s a version of politics that rewards a particular brand of politics. When everything and everybody is portrayed as deeply flawed, there’s no sense making distinctions on that score, which works to the advantage of those who are more deeply flawed. Civility and sound proposals are no longer the stuff of headlines, which instead give voice to those who are skilled in the art of destruction.”

[PA Democrat]

69. I agree that the media failed to cover policy differences

but many people didn't need the media to tell them that they were struggling financially. Their vote, however sadly misguided, was a vote against the status quo.

So how do we battle this?

[pnwmom]

70. That is the million dollar question. How DO we battle the other side when the MSM

coverage is almost entirely negative for both sides -- making it appear as if both candidates are equally bad? And then toss in the fake news and micro targeting of propaganda by Russians?

Add in vote suppression and voter ID laws.

We have less than 2 years to figure this out. Because they're going to take everything they learned during this election and use it against us in 2018.

[BeyondGeography]

63. We have the answer

Our party, or at least the part of it that can't get over their apparent distaste for Sanders and Warren, needs to wake up:

One finding from the polling stands out: A shockingly large percentage of these Obama-Trump voters said Democrats’ economic policies will favor the wealthy — twice the percentage that said the same about Trump. I was also permitted to view video of some focus group activity, which showed Obama-Trump voters offering sharp criticism of Democrats on the economy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/05/01/why-did-trump-win-new-research-by-democrats-offers-a-worrisome-answer/?utm_term=.5ef57627fa58

[JHan]

73. let's not leave it there hanging..

How do voters come to that conclusion, and actually vote for a man saying he is going to cut taxes on the wealthy?

How do they arrive at the conclusion that any republican could be the answer to their problems when it is demonstrably false that anything we had on the platform last year, or anything we've been pushing for over the past couple years, was designed to help the wealthy.

This is mythmaking.

The story there is how successful republicans have been in shaping narratives that a man who tells voters he is going to cut taxes and deregulate is seen as a "man of the people". The story there is the danger of populism.

and yeah I can also blame democrats for not creating better memes to counter it, but that doesn't change the fact that view is false.

And you cannot assess Obama's presidency without noting the obstruction. This is not excuse making, it's pointing out the degraded state of politics in Washington which was never the sole fault of the President. Did Obama err in judgement at times? Yes of course he did, but to say he is not connected or always had a giant blind spot to those who suffered the most in his presidency is an unfair attack on his value systems as a politician. Elizabeth should give Obama's final address another read, and pay attention closely to what he pointed out we need to get a handle on if we want to see less Trumps in the future.

[BeyondGeography]

101. The voters we're talking about are going on their instincts

Last edited Wed May 3, 2017, 12:36 PM - Edit history (1)

They aren't going to read speeches or even listen to them for the most part. If you want to win them back, we need to give them candidates who can cut through all that clutter you're referring to with sincerity and authenticity. Starting at the top of our ticket last year, we didn't do that.

[JHan]

102. "going on their instincts"

how does that differentiate from anyone else who saw Trump was on shit? There are many people who are not political junkies, who also saw he was on shit.

I listened to Trump and instinctively knew this, my interest in politics notwithstanding.

If the argument is we need to create better memes to counter destructive republican jargon then THAT should be the focus, not making insinuations that we didn't care as much as a man who scapegoated Immigrants, lied about jobs coming back and exploited people's fears.

[BeyondGeography]

124. Part of it is not expecting them to vote for someone they've already decided they don't like

That part is easy. As for your instincts, and mine for that matter, so what? We obviously didn't see Trump the same way as more than 60 million voters. Now there's good data on subgroups within that number, including those who voted for a black liberal Democrat in 2008 and 2012 and turned away in 2016. You can choose to accept the findings and what they imply or not.

[JHan]

126. There's a lot about the data being conveniently ignored:

"likeability" is nonsensical. The fact that a man ten times worse than any democrat is in the white house proves the point that "likeability" is a fickle qualifier. This is someone who did not release his tax returns and dragged political discourse to gutter levels.

He is in the white house. He was REWARDED for his behavior. He is also a man who beat out the supposedly top talent of the republican party, including John Kasich.

Yes, what motivates instincts for segments of the population matter. I referred to myself as an example, but I am not alone. Working class people of color saw through Trump's BS . Obviously none of this negates that it was fatally wrong of the Clinton campaign to rely on the meme that the Obama coalition ( which began to get shakey in 2012) was strong.

So yeah there's a lot of data being conveniently ignored - like the fear of diversity, and other ISM factors that Trump had his finger on.

[delisen]

90. Latest research: Trump voters were not economic focused

The early analyses on voting immediately after an election tend to be more opinion than fact because it takes time to analyze all the data.

Trump voters were motivated by the other issues-sometimes regarded as "social' issues.
This is why house and Senate leadership is pulling back from Human Rights.

the latest data from the American National Election Studies (ANES) :

The new ANES data only confirms what a plethora of studies have told us since the start of the presidential campaign: the race was about race. Klinkner himself grabbed headlines last summer when he revealed that the best way to identify a Trump supporter in the U.S. was to ask “just one simple question: is Barack Obama a Muslim?” Because, he said, “if they are white and the answer is yes, 89 percent of the time that person will have a higher opinion of Trump than Clinton.” This is economic anxiety? Really?

Other surveys and polls of Trump voters found “a strong relationship between anti-black attitudes and support for Trump”; Trump supporters being “more likely to describe African Americans as ‘criminal,’ ‘unintelligent,’ ‘lazy’ and ‘violent’”; more likely to believe “people of color are taking white jobs”; and a “majority” of them rating blacks “as less evolved than whites.” Sorry, but how can any of these prejudices be blamed on free trade or low wages?

https://theintercept.com/2017/04/06/top-democrats-are-wrong-trump-supporters-were-more-motivated-by-racism-than-economic-issues/

[JHan]

94. facts are pesky things ++++++++++

[Tom Rinaldo]

105. That can be said of the majority of people who vote Republican in any Presidential election

We know that. It has been a given since at least Nixon's "Southern strategy". The term "Trump voters" means absolutely nothing if you don't factor in that the vast majority of Trump voters would have been Ted Cruz voters or Marco Rubio voters or even Jeb Bush voters if one of those men had won the Republican nomination instead.

The only Trump voters who are particularly worth studying are the ones who voted for Trump but would not have automatically voted for virtually any Republican who got the nomination, and they make up a small minority of Trump's total voters. But as it so happens our Presidential elections are often determined by small percentage shift of voters. That's why talking in sweeping generalities about Trump voters, even when those generalities are true, doesn't yield any valuable insights. Yes, national Democratic politicians always lose virtually all of the hard core racist vote and most of the soft core racist votes.

What matters are new ripples in the overall trends. That's why a big deal was made about so called Reagan Democrats back in the 80's, and why Obama to Trump voters are being studied now. The percentage of Trump's overall votes that came from people who previously voted for Obama is pretty small by all accounts. But they still more then represented Trump's margin of victory in several key states.

I expect that Trump motivated a small percentage of generally apathetic typically non voter hard core racists to go out and vote for him. That may be significant because small numbers can swing elections. But it is meaningless to us as Democrats because there is no way in hell we can or should try to woo those assholes to us. We don't want them, they don't want us. Those weren't the Trump voters who previously voted for Obama however. It is that sub group for whom economics played an important role.

[PA Democrat]

121. Obama-turned-Trump voters cost Clinton election

And yet a more recent study refutes the conclusion in the one you cited. Check out the article below from the Seattle Times.

I don't understand how the article you cited can extrapolate the conclusion that all Trump voters are motivated by racism, not when the group of Trump voters that cost Clinton the election had voted for Obama previously. They voted for a black man but were too racist to vote for a white woman?

I agree that many of Trump voters were motivated by racially divisiveness pushed by Trump. But the article cites a perception that Clinton's policies favored the wealthy as the main reason former Obama voters switched to Trump.

Yeah, they were duped. But to paint all of them as racist is neither true nor helpful if we want to win future elections.



http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/report-obama-turned-trump-voters-cost-clinton-election/

[zipplewrath]

137. Pretty much

I'm afraid your comments will mostly fall on deaf ears around here. It was a very close election and one can "blame" almost anything on it. But the most telling is that there were Obama voters that switched to Trump and it appears that this group of people was moved by PERCEPTIONS that Clinton was more friendly to the rich and less connected to their troubles. Sadly, Obama may have been most responsible for that because after 8 years, many of those tiny slice of voters were the ones he was never really able to help. God knows it was an obstuctionist congress that was most responsible. But they cost Her the election.

It would have helped alot though if that large voting block that showed up AT ALL for his two elections, had shown up this time. But they appear to be "one candidate" voters. We'd never really seen numbers like that before, and we may not ever again.

[Cha]

158. White and wealthy voters gave victory to Donald Trump, exit polls show

snip//

In the end, according to exit polls, the election result seems to have been more about the clear backing of America’s white and wealthy voters for Donald Trump – including white graduates, and white female voters.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029008067

[PA Democrat]

164. Latest data from Democratic Party strategists published May 1

A group of top Democratic Party strategists have used new data about last year’s presidential election to reach a startling conclusion about why Hillary Clinton lost. Now they just need to convince the rest of the party they’re right.

Many Democrats have a shorthand explanation for Clinton’s defeat: Her base didn’t turn out, Donald Trump’s did and the difference was too much to overcome.


But new information shows that Clinton had a much bigger problem with voters who had supported President Barack Obama in 2012 but backed Trump four years later.

Those Obama-Trump voters effectively accounted for more than two-thirds of the reason Clinton lost, according to Matt Canter, a senior vice president of the Democratic political firm Global Strategy Group. In his group’s analysis, about 70?percent of Clinton’s failure to reach Obama’s vote total in 2012 was because she lost these voters.

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/report-obama-turned-trump-voters-cost-clinton-election/

[LexVegas]

67. whitesplaining. nt

[betsuni]

72. Yup!

[tallahasseedem]

74. WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?

Is this bizarro day? He absolutely embodied it.

That's it. screw her.

[workinclasszero]

75. WTF Elizabeth Warren???

What the hell got into her??

This shit is nuts. I pretty much lost all respect for Senator Warren with this garbage attack against President Obama.

I just don't get these attacks by BS and EW. Why do they want to weaken the democratic party and attack its base voters?

We have a dangerous right wing fanatic in the WH and his fascist party in control of the government and all I see here is relentless attacks by BS and now sadly Sen. Warren against democrats.

What the actual fuck!?

[sharedvalues]

76. Dividing, dividing, dividing

Safire's NYT articles in the 90s were part of the drip drip GOP drip that made Americans distrust Hillary for little reason in 2016.

[HopeAgain]

77. We really need a most misleading topic award

This is another prime nominee.

She is absolutely correct about using GDP as an economic measure. If Obama disagrees, then I would think Obama would be wrong...But she didn't attack Obama like the OP implies.

Mischaracterized by centrists... Seeing lots of that lately.

[pnwmom]

82. She said Obama had a blind spot for people's real lived experience. And she based that criticism on

his use of those statistics.

What was he supposed to do? He was running for re-election and those were excellent statistics. Anybody with his statistical record who was running for re-election would be nuts NOT to tout those numbers. He wasn't unaware of real people's "lived experience." He showed his awareness of real people every day and in every speech.

[melman]

143. "Mischaracterized by centrists... Seeing lots of that lately."

Absolutely. A whole lot.

And there's nothing coincidental in how much of it we're seeing. There's a very obvious concerted effort to trash and bash.

[Historic NY]

81. Ahem....Obama's never owned a house until 2005....

Obama didn't vote Republican all his life!!!!

Obama's 2004 DNC speech launched him.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul27.html

[WellDarn]

84. The reasons Warren gives for making this statement

ignores the stark contrast between Obama in 2008 (who ran on ideals) and Obama in 2012 -- well, actually post-2010 (who just played the game) AND is IMHO, pretty much BS. If Obama's lack of "sharing the lived experiences of a majority of Americans" was an obstacle to caring about, and working for, them, we would have never seen the Obama of 2008.

HOWEVER, her statement (standing alone and stripped of the BS) is 100% correct. Obama has not shared the lived experiences of most Americans. He has not shared the lived experiences of most Americans for the same reason that I HAVE NOT SHARED the lived experiences of most American.

I do not want to shock anyone, but Barack Obama is a black man and "most Americans" are white, or, at very least, not black. I haven't the foggiest idea what it means to be in a position of privilege and still get held back. I can't conceive what it means to have every cultural advantage and to still be unable to get ahead. I actually have to listen to working class white folks talk and then use human empathy to understand their pain because my pain is completely different.

By the same token, white politicians DO NOT SHARE MY LIVED EXPERIENCES, or the experience of any other person of color. None of the three frontrunners in our 2016 primary have any idea what it means to be a black person in America. I no more expect Senator Sanders, or Secretary Clinton, or Governor O'Malley to know what I've experienced than I would for me to know what they've experienced. But, when I say "I am Michael Brown" or "Our death rows are filled with the same strange fruit as the lynching trees" I expect them to listen.

The fact of the matter is that Obama listened as he was going through HIS "lived experiences" and he came out in 2008 and talked to all of us . . . black, white, worker, immigrant, oppressed (and not) and with the power we gave back to him in return for those two years, he saved this country from financial ruin AND at the same time spoke the hard truth that we are not all the same.

To criticize Obama for what he didn't accomplish after 2010 revealed that the white suburbs neither listen nor empathize with anyone that isn't like themselves and are not going to reciprocate is both naïve and unfair.

[pnwmom]

86. Welcome to DU, WellDarn. Thanks for your thoughtful post! n/t

[Kentonio]

88. I'd advise people to read what she actually said, and not just the Independent's version

“I think President Obama, like many others in both parties, talks about a set of big national statistics that look shiny and great but increasingly have giant blind spots,” she says. “That GDP, unemployment, no longer reflect the lived experiences of most Americans. And the lived experiences of most Americans is that they are being left behind in this economy.

Worse than being left behind, they’re getting kicked in the teeth.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/01/elizabeth-warren-donald-trump-fight

She didn't say Obama has a blind spot towards the poor, she actually said that the national statistics have blind spots. She also didn't say that "Obama doesn't understand 'lived experience of most Americans.'", she actually said that the national statistics increasingly don't reflect the lived experiences of most Americans.

If people still want to take issue with her then ok, but let's at least start with an accurate representation of what she actually said, not just a journalists interpretation.

[KTM]

170. Bingo - +1

She didn't say Obama has a blind spot towards the poor, she actually said that the national statistics have blind spots. She also didn't say that "Obama doesn't understand 'lived experience of most Americans.'", she actually said that the national statistics increasingly don't reflect the lived experiences of most Americans.

Time and time again poster's have said in this thread that she said something she did not, even when pointed out multiple times. You are 100% right, but it seems a lot of people are willing to intentionally misinterpret her words so they can muckrake. They think we dont see that.

Look at the replies - all the usual suspects. We are not blind.

[Jno_Gilmor_]

178. ++++

[lunasun]

91. She should walk around the Obama's neighborhood in Chicago and maybe think again

Need to talk a lot for media attention when Book sellin'

[jberryhill]

92. Can you remind me what was the question that evoked that response in the interview?

[alarimer]

95. This is a blatant mischarcterization of what she actually said.

The headline is a fucking lie.

And so is the interpretation of the article. It is an attempt to squash dissent.

So many here reject any valid criticism as "bashing". Our leaders are not saints; they are not heroes. They are often wrong. They make mistakes. They do terrible things, even if their motivations are correct. We vote for them. We should not worship them as some kind of infallible gods. Criticism does not weaken the party or any of its members or candidates. If anything, course corrections should make it stronger.

But Warren is correct. Those statistics don't accurately measure the real lives of people. Real wages (in terms of purchasing power) have fallen for DECADES. This is not new. The unemployment rate has never accurately measured underemployment or the number of people who have simply stopped working, or who work at irregular jobs (think odd jobs, paid under the table).

[JHan]

98. lol how is it a lie?

She said the President has a blind spot because he looked at GDP alone. These are her words not pwnmom's. And Which president hasn't looked at GDP to determine trends?

ALL presidents do this. As someone who followed Obama's speeches, his commentary, on a host of issues from environment, to race relations, to the economy, he has a thoughtful way of expressing himself which revealed he was very much aware of the problems that came into sharper focus under his presidency. Touting GDP doesn't mean he didn't care or he wasn't aware - he very much was aware and had far more substance to his analysis on these issues than Warren is giving him credit for...

[KTM]

171. No, she did not.

As was said upthread:

She didn't say Obama has a blind spot towards the poor, she actually said that the national statistics have blind spots. She also didn't say that "Obama doesn't understand 'lived experience of most Americans.'", she actually said that the national statistics increasingly don't reflect the lived experiences of most Americans.

She very clearly did NOT blame Obama, she said the stats in and of themselves dont reflect reality.

[JHan]

172. So her referencing Obama was to do what exactly?

Let's stop playing cute with language. Elizabeth is a charismatic politician, an effective communicator. Politicians know what signals they're sending off when they say what they say with full intent, save the times they err (everyone makes mistakes)

If I wanted to say specifically that GDP measurements don't tell the whole story about an economy with regard to the experiences of every single American, I could do that without mentioning a single politician's name. In fact I could say exactly what she said while noting what has impeded progress for Americans over the last 8 years, such as the fact that Obama faced over 300 filibusters over bills aiming to increase min. wage, fix the ACA and invest in infrastructure.

Her comments feed the anti-establishment, out of touch narrative, that was so in vogue last year under a Democratic presidency.

[KTM]

174. I think it *IS* clear.

In the last election, many former Obama voters went over to Trump. The fact is, millions of Americans feel left behind by their government. That sentiment, that feeling of having been overlooked or even used, is the raw nerve on both sides of the aisle for many every day Americans. Its why both Trump and Sanders got such huge followings, because they tapped into that feeling.

I think this is sort of like Bill's "I feel your pain" statements. Its a way of talking to the huge numbers of people in this country who want to see the government do more for the lower and middle class, a way of including people on both sides of the spectrum. By NOT blaming individual politicians or parties, but by pointing out that the things both parties use as measuring sticks dont work in the real world, she helps show her understanding of their feelings and issues without making it partisan.

I dont think she insulted Obama in any way at all here... she avoided partisan politics to try to reach voters of all stripes who want to see fundamental change in our country. All we are seeing here is someone reaching out to ALL people to say "we need to seriously change the system," without taking a left or right stance, and that DOES appeal to a lot of voters in this climate. Honestly, I dont think Obama would disagree with her or feel the outrage that many here are showing.

[JHan]

177. yes millions of americans left behind, including those who did not vote for Trump.

Clinton won voters making under 50k a year.

Trump's appeal crossed gender and class lines among a certain demographic. And the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, which doesn't garner much interest, also played a part.

No matter how you spin it her message is this: Obama and D.C focused so much on GDP and other trends, they didn't pay enough attention to the experiences of real Americans. I would say that the ridiculous partisan politics in Washington, and she is a Senator so she knows this, bears the lion share of blame. The actions of the Republicans today should leave no sensible person confused about who the real enemy here is....

And btw, I say this as someone who LIKES Elizabeth.

The only way you "change" anything is to vote enough people into office who will do the changing. The only kind of change that will partly fix this problem is recognition and acceptance that we're going through an economic transformation that has been evident since the early 00's, Obama laid this out in his farewell address speech succinctly, and that we must find solutions to ensure the transformation doesn't wreck the lives of Americans.

[KTM]

181. I dont think she was attacking Obama.

I know its popular to think that ANYONE who voted Trump is a douchebag, but I know plenty of people who did so who are decent people who felt like it was all more of the same, and that they were left out. I think that includes disaffected Dems, Republicans, and Indys, and EW is just making the case to ALL of those people by NOT making this a partisan issue.

[JHan]

182. There was a lot of frustration..

that comes at the end of any two term presidency ( except in rare cases). The calls for "Change" without understanding or thought beyond wanting "change" or understanding what "change" means. Clinton herself addressed those voters in her statement, the part of her statement that was 100% ignored by the media. Obama also understood those frustrations. By raising Obama's name she inserted him into the analysis and understandably there would be a discussion about that. Whatever the motivations of Trump voters were, they rewarded a charlatan to the Presidency who brought them "change", but it won't be the "change" they wanted. I hope that's a lesson to them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

96. President Obama played by the white man's rules and won.

BTW, that is why he makes Deplorables apoplectic because they lost playing by their own rules.

[nolabels]

107. I think you might have the white man label mixed up with rich man's label

And who is going to deny that eight years of being cozy with banks for what it was?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

109. The rich man's rules are you go as far as your daddy did.

Barack's daddy left him at a young age.

Barack played by the white man's rules and won; you are dealt a shitty hand and just have to deal with it, especially if you are black. The Deplorables are mad because they couldn't overcome the shitty hand they were dealt, and to make it worse being white was of no help.

[nolabels]

112. He won us a eight year lease on a grounded ship

Now we are forced to be what the other side was and ridiculed for, a party that tries to survive the day with gridlock

[Orsino]

99. Fake news.

If you believe that that's what she thinks, you should support it with a direct quotation.

[bettyellen]

142. No.... it's pretty accurate, unfortunately. Hey she wants clicks as much as any politician.

Last edited Thu May 4, 2017, 01:22 PM - Edit history (1)

[Orsino]

165. Citation needed. n/t

[bettyellen]

167. She should have made her point without claiming BO had a"a blind spot"

That was her choice to frame it that way- and we know the media eats that shit up. She gets more attention for being divisive, which sucks.

[Orsino]

189. Citation still needed.

Is there really a direct quotation that says that?

[stonecutter357]

103. so liz is just like BS..

[Demsrule86]

115. sounds Republicanesque Liz...(he's not one of us) sarcasm.

You lost my vote Liz in any primary. President Obama went to school on student loans as did Michelle...they paid them off just before or after he became a Senator...very very disappointed in you Sen. Warren.

[NastyRiffraff]

117. I'm very disappointed in her

I don't know her reasons for saying this; it could be just hawking her book or getting ready for a presidential run. Whatever the reason, it's wrong. After what President Obama went through, fighting for "most Americans" for eight difficult years, she says he doesn't UNDERSTAND them?

She's usually very intelligent, but this was stupid. And wrong.

[flamingdem]

122. Projection. She just revealed her blindspots.

Better to find out now so we don't waste time on her. There are better choices.

[MedusaX]

123. The 'lived' experience? 'Left behind' ? 'Kicked in the teeth' ? 'Blind spot' ? 'Most Americans' ?

Despite
'big statistics' that are 'shiny and great'

Yeah, really?
.... even fucking czarina Ivanka has already pointed out that it doesn't matter what the data & facts are because perception is reality...

Fine...
Warren is basically saying, but not saying, that

Americans have jobs and buy Lots of stuff from all over the world
(the great big shiny statistical data part)

But politicians apparently don't realize that Americans' perception of their own economic situation is not based solely on having a job and being able to buy stuff
And the statistcal data does not measure how people perceive reality
(Giant blind spot part)

And that there is a large group of Americans who do not perceive their earnings/financial position as being in sync with the economy
As they are finding it difficult to maintain their existing standard of living much less experience any opportunity to improve it..
(Lived experience part)

DUH....Instead of stringing together various sound bite worthy phrases that really just say 'there is a problem'

How about identifying WHY the economy
is not in sync w/ a large group of Americans

And
identifying WHAT needs to be done in order to solve this problem ...

[bettyellen]

136. THIS- she has bought the RW frame and is selling it. And pundits will tease out the BO criticism and

amplify THAT. And she knows it will sell more books and get her more airtime. She should know better.

[Iggo]

125. That's it! I'm voting for Clinton. When's the primary?

[BigDemVoter]

144. That is a clueless thing to say.

[Cha]

145. WTF, EW.. Now you're just pissing me off..

MORE.

Wonder what EW has to say about Pres Obama donating $2 Million Bucks to a Chicago Jobs Program.. since he doesn't understand others' " lived experience?

Mahalo, pnwmom

[Hekate]

150. We need to write to her as politely as possible and remind her of what you just wrote...

I say "politely as possible" because this moment I am stunned, aghast, and genarally gobsmacked that she would say such a thing.

Perhaps someone should remind the Senator that as a PhD, a college professor, and a US Senator, she herself is now removed quite a bit from the lived experience of the average American. Bless her for her achievements and all, but good gods what possessed her to say this about Barack Obama?

[Cha]

162. It looks to me like EW wants to sell her books by

ignorantly attacking President Obama.

Not even mentioning about the Unprecedented Obstruction in Congress for his Jobs Bill among many others.. where she had a front row seat.

And, he still "prevailed".

Link to tweet

[NurseJackie]

152. Disappointed in you, Liz.

[redstateblues]

154. Money money money- she is selling books. Shameful to do it

by making untrue statements about Obama.

[PatrickforO]

155. Honestly, I seriously doubt Elizabeth Warren would EVER say something like this.

I'm not seeing a video where I can watch her actually saying this terrible thing. All I see is a citation by someone called Mythili Sampathkumar in a rag called 'the Independent.'

So, there's the words dancing across Myth-ili's article, but where's the BEEF????

[Cha]

156. In fact, she has become increasingly critical of President Obama in recent days with her most recent

Elizabeth Warren says economic gains of Obama era have ‘giant blind spots’

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/05/01/elizabeth-warren-says-economic-gains-of-obama-era-have-giant-blind-spots

Elizabeth Warren calls out Obama and Democrats for losing way on economy

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/01/elizabeth-warren-barack-obama-democrats-economy

'Cause you know.. he didn't have Any Obstruction in Congress to Knock Down All the Bills he put forth.. Like Job bills for JOBS.

EW is ignorantly attacking President Obama and losing a large block of voters.. so is she going for book sales?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

169. WTF?

I usually agree with her but this is totally stupid.

[SunSeeker]

175. You're not helping, Elizabeth.

[Renew Deal]

176. Elizabeth Warren is a 1%er

She's one of the wealthiest senators and attacking Obama is good for book sales.

[Bradical79]

183. She's not wrong...

And the yahoo title greatly misrepresents what she said. But mentioning President Obama specifically isn't helpful at all to the party.

[Turbineguy]

184. Yeah. As so did FDR.

I remember one of the commercials that used to run in the late 60's early 70's "To get a good job, get a good education". The Obama's did just that. In America, if you're smart and you work hard, you get ahead. The Obama's did just that. The promise of America delivered for the Obama's.

Was their experience different than most? Yes. But for the reasons given.

[frazzled]

187. Another "Only I Can Fix It" populist guru

These darned politicians: they don't know a thing. Elitist, establishment, out of touch. Let me, the Harvard Law Professor and Senator—you know, one of the little folk from outside the establishment—lead you across the desert to the magical land of milk and honey, where everything will be as good as it was when I was a Republican.

[loyalsister]

191. I was annoyed by that all through the election

It is political tradition to talk about success any way it can be portrayed. But for a person who is working more than 1 job and barely surviving, low unemployment numbers are not a convincing way to talk about a strong economy. She's exactly right. shiny numbers do not translate into a perception that politicians care.

Why aren't we wondering where such people are? Well, a lot of rural areas at best have limited internet access and can't afford a computer. How does that affect the job search?

I am frustrated that so many take the easy way out and blame only bigotry without even wondering who and where the people she mentions are.

[BigDemVoter]

200. Ok. . . So perhaps she said it.

I still agree with 99% of what she says. I'm not going to say she's a "bad person" because she was quoted as saying something mildly annoying, as I'm not even sure what the context was in which she said it.

I'm much more offended about what Republicans are doing to this country, and I'm not going to be distracted by these "storms" that seem to pop up.

The more time we spend tearing each other to pieces, the more time those appalling motherfuckers will have to rape the country senseless.

[boston bean]

202. She is really pissing me off.

fight republicans, not democrats.

[chillfactor]

203. warren...

GO TO HELL!!!

[frazzled]

204. Obama never talked about GDP

I listened to so many of his speeches on the economy, and that was never something he stressed (or even mentioned). Why would he? Very few people even knows what it means. And it was never that robust during his tenure (though a lot better than people economists thought it should be after the recession.) Is it something the government is required to report on? Sure. Did he talk about it? No.

He did talk about unemployment, because it is indeed a pretty big deal when it goes down from 10% to under 5%, no matter what means you are using to measure it: it was significantly better than it was when he took office. Did he talk about those who were still struggling despite improvements in the overall economy? You bet he did. I looked it up, and here are some excerpts from his 2016 speech on the economy:

And we can see the results not just here in Elkhart, but across the nation. By almost every economic measure, America is better off than when I came here at the beginning of my presidency. That’s the truth. That’s true. (Applause.) It’s true. (Applause.) Over the past six years, our businesses have created more than 14 million new jobs -- that’s the longest stretch of consecutive private sector job growth in our history. We’ve seen the first sustained manufacturing growth since the 1990s. We cut unemployment in half, years before a lot of economists thought we would. We’ve cut the oil that we buy from foreign countries by more than half, doubled the clean energy that we produce. For the first time ever, more than 90 percent of the country has health insurance. (Applause.)

In fact, a poll that was out just last week says that two out of three Americans think their own family’s financial situation is in pretty good shape. But we know a lot of people are still feeling stressed about their economic future. . . .

But if you watch the talking heads on TV, they all say, the reason that folks are angry is because nobody has paid enough attention to the plight of working Americans in communities like these. That's what they say.

Now, look, I’m the first to admit my presidency hasn’t fixed everything. We’ve had setbacks. We've had false starts. We've, frankly, been stuck with a Congress recently that's opposed pretty much everything that we’ve tried to do. But I also know that I've spent every single day of my presidency focused on what I can do to grow the middle class and increase jobs, and boost wages, and make sure every kid in America gets the same kind of opportunities Michelle and I did. (Applause.) I know that. I know that communities like Elkhart haven’t been forgotten in my White House. And the results prove that our focus has paid off. Elkhart proves it.

Now, where we haven’t finished the job, where folks have good reason to feel anxious, is addressing some of the longer-term trends in the economy -- that started long before I was elected -- that make working families feel less secure. These are trends that have been happening for decades now and that we've got to do more to reverse. Let me be clear about what those are.

Despite the drop in unemployment, wages are still growing too slowly, and that makes it harder to pay for college or save for retirement. (Applause.) Inequality is still too high. The gap between rich and poor is bigger now than it's been just about any time since the 1920s. The rise of global competition and automation of more and more jobs; the race of technology -- all these trends have left many workers behind, and they've let a few at the top collect extraordinary wealth and influence like never before. And that kind of changes our politics. So all these trends make it easy for people to feel that somehow the system is rigged and that the American Dream is increasingly hard to reach for ordinary folks. And there are plenty of politicians that are preying on that frustration for headlines and for votes.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/01/remarks-president-economy

Read the rest of it, because it's good (goes on to address various myths that people believe). But here's the deal. The biggest myth of all, and the one that Elizabeth Warren is promulgating here to prey on the gullible, is that Obama only threw around fancy numbers like the GDP. That he and his elitist, establishment cohorts (like Hillary Clinton) didn't pay any attention to the Americans "left behind." Untrue. Just patently false. Besides that, it's easy to criticize, not so easy to change these big, long-term changes in the economy, such as technology and automation.

As a last remark, let me say that she is joining all those who are speaking essentially to a very specific segment of the population: white working class males. But here's the deal: welcome, finally, to the world of those "left behind in the economy," Liz. Because for decades and decades and decades (the whole entire history of America, actually) everybody besides white males were "left behind in the economy": women, minorities, everyone besides white males. Many of them have made gains under the Clinton and Obama administrations. But whoop dee doo, when the white males find themselves in the left-behind category that millions of other Americans have suffered for eternity, it's suddenly a big deal. And simple solutions are offered, most of which are entirely misdirected or unrealistic. We have been in a slow shift of our economy since the 80s, and it's a different economy. And yes, people are struggling everyday. And some of the fixes are little but significant, some are big and hard. But we're not going back, and criticisms of Democrats only help the Republicans, who are only making things far worse.

So, no.

[AgadorSparticus]

209. Ok. I blew off the first attack on Obama by both Warren and Sanders.

This is not accidental any more. There is clearly more at play than we know about. I really like Warren so I am a little surprised by this feuding. Is this a precursor to a progressive civil war? I don't remember the last time a past president had been attacked so much. WTF.....