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

[Omaha Steve]

Source: The Guardian

David Smith

Elizabeth Warren, one of the most prominent Democrats in the Senate, has broken ranks to criticise Barack Obama for misreading the economy and a swath of Democrats for selling out to wealthy elites.

In an interview with the Guardian, the Massachusetts senator, tipped as potential presidential candidate in 2020, also spoke of her optimism about grassroots resistance to Donald Trump and how it has changed American democracy.

Obama left office in January, touting an economy 11.5% bigger than at its peak before the 2007-08 financial crisis that preceded the start of his time in the White House. The figures said that economy generated almost 15 million new jobs over 75 consecutive months, the longest streak on record, with the national unemployment rate falling to 4.7%. It is a record that seems at odds with the frustration of voters who chose Trump.

Nonetheless, Warren has become the most senior Democrat to challenge the former president’s halo.

FULL story at link below.

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

[HoneyBadger]

1. Campaigning already

Beat the rush

[JustAnotherGen]

2. She should stick to running against

Her opponent in Massachusetts and Trump.



Phil Murphy is doing this here in NJ -and it's working. No one gives two shits or a holla that he worked for Goldman Sachs. It's her job - as Phil is stating clearly - to protect us from Trump and folks in square states looking to take from high tax paying states when we need to help our own.

What part of this doesn't she get?

Obama good - Trump and the Republicans are evil and out to get us all.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

8. Nope, real leaders like Elizabeth and Bernie need to keep tellin it like it is...

It's the only way we'll find our way out of the "political wilderness" we find ourselves.

[Locrian]

20. yes

Until we get peoples heads out of the sand - we'll continue to lose.

The left has its blind spots too, when it comes to looking at reality.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

50. I have to believe the Democratic Party is going to wake up and smell the coffee.

[elleng]

59. Wish I COULD so believe.

[ehrnst]

64. In what way is the Democratic Party currently "asleep"? (nt)

[tonyt53]

67. Very good question.

[ehrnst]

63. So, what, exactly determines who is a 'real" leader, and who is not? (nt)

[mpcamb]

94. Start with truth when dealing with issues.

She's right.
We messed up badly, losing to an historically weak clown.
Give it a minute to sink in.
We lost a nearly un-losable election to a moron/shill for the worst values on this planet.
DO You Think some changes are in order????

Obama clearly played an honorable game with the R's-in-power and was acutely naive about how they'd respond.
That NEED criticism. Do Not Trust these people. Their word is worthless. They lie and backstab with impunity.
Get smarter than that.
O had a slow learning curve and deserves blame for that .

She's not wrong.

[nikibatts]

99. "WE" didn't lose to the deplorable Trump. Those who failed to vote lost the election.

[ehrnst]

118. No other candidate was running against Russia. (nt)

[ehrnst]

113. Not clear on what "truth" you think is being missed.

That we can't trust Republicans?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/sanders-trump-work-together-231158

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/28/politics/bernie-sanders-north-korea-donald-trump-cnntv/

What really enabled Republicans stealing the Oval Office from HRC, who won it with more votes than any other white candidate?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39442901

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8489128/michigan-recount-first-hand-account/

We "messed up" by choosing the most progressive, qualified, experienced Democratic candidate ever? When 54% of the white vote went to Romney in 2012, I don't recall that we were hand wringing about how we messed up and lost the white vote.

[Honeycombe8]

69. "Real" leaders? As opposed to who being an "unreal" leader? nt

[ehrnst]

117. Yeah. Damning by omission...

Much like "true progressives."

[LanternWaste]

74. Tin Gods and Sacred Cows "tell it like it is." Anyone else doing it is simply "attacking."

Tin Gods and Sacred Cows "tell it like it is." Anyone else doing it is simply "attacking."

Every time.

[ehrnst]

119. +1000 (nt)

[Jno_Gilmor_]

110. Exactly, voters are tired of the DLC/New Democrat approach...

Although Obama did many great things, he turned out to be to much of a centrist on the economy.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

133. As much as I hate 2 admit, you're right. What kills me is we still shuda EASILY won a 3rd Obama term

[Jno_Gilmor_]

134. Yeah Obama would have easily won.

He was able to unite both wings of the party for the most part

[Stellar]

37. Agreed!

[HoneyBadger]

46. Goldman's office is the tallest building in the state

Buys them some slack

[yurbud]

132. so stick with the strategy that lost both chambers of Congress, most state houses & governorships?

[BumRushDaShow]

3. Obama seems to irk

many white folks to no end. No matter what end of the political spectrum. He rocked their world to the core and they can't get over it.

[WellDarn]

13. Let's see about this

I'm black. I'm not irked. President Obama is the greatest president this country has ever seen and in all likelihood the greatest president it will ever see. As to the economy, he grew the DJIA and the GNI without a lick of help. In other words, he whipped the f'n Republicans at their own game and he whipped them bad.

But it was still THEIR GAME.

OUR game has always been what Newton and Seale and Cleaver said in the 60's, socialism. The economic and political power structure in this country owes us $60 trillion (not to mention compelled social equality) and that is NEVER coming from pumping $$$ into the hands of already rich people. It comes through redistribution of wealth.

What's more, anyone who actually hears Obama knows that he believes exactly what I just said. So when someone, even a white person, says that we still need to beat the path to economic justice, you can pretty well bet that Obama agrees.

[BumRushDaShow]

15. I am a tail end boomer

and my parents were from the silent & greatest generations.

My mother (poli-sci/history major) had always told me since birth that this is a "capitalist country" and "capital = money". And that is the way it is and that is the way it will always be.

"Economic justice" is essentially fiction because this country was founded by white wealthy land-owning males FOR white wealthy land-owning males, and their founding documents underscored their power, and they will forever fight to keep that money in their own hands. We can work around and nibble around the edges but this system will never change as long as the core of the founding of this nation was to benefit the people who others (rightly) rail against.

[WellDarn]

35. All true

If we accept that this is a capitalist country and immutably so. You and your mother are undoubtedly correct that the Founders intended to vest political power in wealthy white folks

(Aside: I mean no disrespect to disparity in power between women and men at the time of the Founding by excluding the adjective "male" from my description. As a practical point, it is undeniable that the Constitution left power in the hands of white males. The document itself, however, did not exclude wealthy white women from political and/or economic power, as it did blacks. That exclusion was the result of a social structure which prevented most women from acquiring wealth. As much as white women have been denied equality, and continue to be, I think it's important to distinguish between the experience of white women and people of color.)

That being said, allow me to beg to differ with your last sentence. Notwithstanding the Framer's intent, this country has became increasingly democratized since the early 20th Century, well, at least up until Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United. Over that period of time, power has remained vested in wealthy white people not through the Constitution, but by the political process. (In fact, in neither Buckley, nor Citizens United, was the Court able to point to a Constitutional grounds that was anything short of laughable -- although admittedly this is only because the Court refused to admit what you, your mother, and I all know, namely that the Constitution as originally drafted was fundamentally racist and classist.). At this point, the wealthy maintain power only by convincing the general populace to allow them to do so. In any democratized country, the redistribution of wealth remains only a ballot away.

[BumRushDaShow]

44. "The document itself... did not exclude wealthy white women from political and/or economic power"

Yeah it did because the 14th Amendment explicitly mentions men versus women in terms of representation, women didn't get the right to vote until 1920, and even up until the 1970s, many women (including my mother) could not have a credit card in their own name if married, needed a husband's permission for certain healthcare choices (including hysterectomies - again into the '70s), etc., and couldn't get a loan without being co-signed by some male.

The key here being the 10th Amendment, which allowed the states to do all manner of egregious things to people who were not wealthy white land-owning men.

And response to this -

That being said, allow me to beg to differ with your last sentence. Notwithstanding the Framer's intent, this country has became increasingly democratized since the early 20th Century, well, at least up until Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United.

And those cases you cite rest my case. They will always find a way to go back to their "original intent" and will keep nominating and confirming SCOTUS justices who believe in it. This country has had brief periods of "enlightenment" - e.g., Plessy v Ferguson being upended by Brown vs Board... but as you might note that despite 4 Constitutional Amendments dealing with voting rights (not "privileges" as the GOP keeps insisting) - the 15th, 19th, 24th, & 26th, they still keep finding ways to abridge that right.

[WellDarn]

53. Again, I cannot deny

Each of those (turning to a euphemism milder than what first came to mind . . . "atrocities&quot "indignities" are historically accurate. Suffrage, however, does not approach freedom from enslavement and the remaining items you mentioned are examples of societal, not constitutional barriers. Mind you, though, I am not denying the insipid evil they incorporate.

I agree on so much of what you say that I almost hate to bring up one other little thing. The Tenth Amendment is not the monster which right wingers would have us believe. In fact, I am dismayed on how many of us on the left are willing to accept that it is.

Allow me to throw out something to just think about. When we look at the text of the 10th Amendment (not quoting, just trying to stay close here), it reserves to the states (or the people) all powers not granted to the federal government or prohibited to the states. No matter how the right may want to twist that language, the states still get nothing but the leftovers (and even then only the leftovers which the Constitution didn't say they couldn't have). If you accept the right wing theory that the federal government was given very few rights, this is a big deal (as you pointed out). Let me suggest, however, that the "few rights" premise ignores the astoundingly broad (and mutable) language the Founders used in describing federal powers. Even the narrowest of these powers, to regulate interstate commerce, has become defined so broadly over time as allow the federal government to legislate in a area that could not have even been imagined at the Founding, criminal law. The other terms enumerating federal powers are even broader, so broad in fact that it has required the Court to come in and conjure up some non-textual bullshit to keep the federal government from exposing the 10th Amendment as nothing more than a remnant from a time where the Founding Fathers needed something to convince (trick) the Southern/rural/slavery-dependent states to join in getting the country up and running. I don't think that was an accident.

In any event, this has been a joy and I am impressed with the scope of your knowledge and the soundness of your arguments.

Take care.

[malchickiwick]

104. Women ALWAYS had the right to vote!!

It just wasn't recognized, nationally (many states had women's suffrage prior), until the Nineteenth. The Fifteenth makes no mention of sex, and it was THAT amendment, along with the Fourteenth, that suffragists used to argue that they had the constitutional right to the franchise.

[BumRushDaShow]

111. As I wrote - the 14th Amendment explicitly mentioned men

and although some states permitted not only women but in some cases, also allowed "free" blacks to vote, it was still irrelevant should those individuals move to a different area, as they would lose that franchise.

My bigger complaint is that despite 4 Constitutional Amendments related to the vote, more than any other subject, there are evil-doers today who CONTINUE to find ways to abridge the franchise.

[ucrdem]

29. That's about the size of it.

Warren has played this tune before and while it might suit her constituency it's a fast track to failure nationally.

[BumRushDaShow]

34. I understand the concept of targeting and tailoring a speech or remarks to a demographic

But the problem with Sanders and Warren is that the demographic they are targeting with their purported "populist" message is NOT applicable to "the entire United States". It looks to just a portion of it. Yet they are speechifying as if what they are saying actually applies to everyone and it can never do such - not the way this system of racism/white supremacy built into the Constitution has been set up.

I.e., there is no "one size fits all" in this country although there are categories of "clothing" that can be worn by most and those should be part of the "national" message. For the "special interests" like "white working class males", they can have a tailored message that illustrates what is in it for them but the rest of the platform is what they also will get, whether it impacts them or not.

[tonyt53]

45. BINGO!!!!!

[OnionPatch]

75. I don't understand

Why some people here keep insinuating that the "working class" is some kind of code for white men. Aren't there women and people of color in the working class?

When I worked in a steel mill in the rust belt, I worked right alongside blacks, other women and plenty of other minorities. And outside of the steel mill, minorities also depended on the local economy like everyone else. We ALL suffered when the mill shut down.

Supporting the working class by caring about whether they have decent jobs seems like a win-win strategy to me. IMO, Abandon the working class and abandon hope for ever winning another election along with it.

[BumRushDaShow]

90. It's called "code talk" or "dog whistle"

because those politicos who have used that term have done so specifically in reference to certain "red" areas of the country with small minority populations while dismissing working class POC, many concentrated in urban areas, as non-existent and who are accused of practicing "identity politics", a RW term that the "left" has happily adopted. This despite the fact that most people in this country are "working class", not matter what color or creed or religion or area of the country.

Addressing "jobs for the working class" sounds great but the way to get there has never been found to be effective for ALL parties across ALL regions of the country. I.e., time and time and time again - POC are the LAST to be hired and the FIRST to be fired. THAT is a fact. POC are often systematically kept out of certain unions and have had major problems getting apprenticeships with blue collar companies. THAT is a fact. In fact here in Philly, there was a commission set up to look at the trade unions -

Despite pledges to diversify, building trades still mostly white males

<...>

Here is a snapshot of the makeup of the union members in the building trades in Philadelphia as of the end of 2007: 99 percent were male, 74 percent were white and 70 percent lived in the suburbs.

Not exactly a diverse workforce.

City Council and Mayor Michael Nutter certainly didn’t think so. “Economic apartheid,” the mayor called it. In a get-tough mood, City Council passed resolutions requiring that 50 percent of the workers on the soon-to-rise $760 million expansion of the Pennsylvania Convention Center be non-whites and women.

Meanwhile, Nutter convened a blue-ribbon advisory commission on construction industry diversity. It issued a report in March 2009 that outlined steps to address the long standing (as in 50-year-old ) issue of non-whites being shut out of jobs as union carpenters, electrician, bricklayers, plumbers, etc.

Now, let’s zoom ahead five years and offer this snapshot of union members in the building trades as of the end of 2012: 99 percent were male, 76 percent were white and 67 percent lived in the suburbs.

Not much difference, not much at all.

http://axisphilly.org/article/despite-pledges-to-change-phillys-building-trades-still-dominated-by-white-males/

So when you approach this problem of "jobs for the working class" it isn't as simple as it seems. There is rampant disparate treatment between "white working class" and "POC working class".

[OnionPatch]

92. There are so many other "working class" jobs

than just construction. In my 57 years that term has always meant non-college-educated people (including minorities) who worked for relatively low to middle-class wages. I belonged to the USWA and made relatively good wages but we considered the low-paid waitress down the street (or anyone who worked anywhere at a low-wage job) a member of the "working class" as well. I assume Bernie and Elizabeth do too since they're old farts like me. In fact, I have heard both of them refer to the "working class" in ways that make it clear that they do. I've read their books, listened to their speeches and interviews and I'm not buying the idea that they're racists who only care about white men's jobs.

Maybe some right-wingers have been using the term as code but the Democratic Party has always been the party of working people (by any other name). I wouldn't belong to it if it didn't. I also wouldn't belong to it if it wasn't supportive of civil rights. It seems ridiculous and divisive to me to imply that they can't do both.

[BumRushDaShow]

93. They may not be racist

but their language speaks volumes.

But sadly, you ignored the issue that I attempted to illustrate that separates "working class" by race. Dealing with unions - whether construction or other trades - has been a big deal because by and large, POC were kept out of many of them.

It took decades to break it but the transportation industry (our public transit) now has a large percentage of POC workers. But that didn't happen until just a couple decades ago.

My mom used to tell us the story about the transit strike here in Philly in 1944 when she was 14, when FDR sent National Guard to ride the buses and trollies - the workers had gone on strike because guess why....?

http://northerncity.library.temple.edu/exhibits/show/civil-rights-in-a-northern-cit/collections/philadelphia-transit-strike-of/what--the-philadelphia-transit

The white "working class" transit drivers didn't want no nigger "working class" transit drivers.

Black "working class" people (bus and trolley drivers) were NEVER treated the same as "white working class" people.

I am sick of the fucking shit - generation after generation after generation and all the fucking excuses and dodging of the elephant in the room.

[OnionPatch]

120. I didn't mean to ignore or deny the issue of racism.

I am aware of the racism that has historically been embedded in unions (and every other part of society) and understand your anger but I was not aware that the types of issues you cite are common in modern times.

Unions are only a tiny segment of the "working class" anyway. How did the issue of "jobs for the working class" morph into the issue of racism in unions?

[BumRushDaShow]

121. There are arguments throughout this thread

and all over DU that focus on unions with the assertion that the Democratic Party has "ignored them" and that this is therefore part of the reason why "we lost". And then up comes the subjects of NAFTA and TPP and "union".

Thus blame is bandied about directly related to the party's relationship with unions and their critical role in supporting the "working class".

As I know you are aware, unions have over the past century, helped to provide not just "jobs" but better working conditions for laborers. However they have a checkered history when it comes to POC and notably for several types of occupations, it was a requirement TO BE IN a union in order to get the job. So if you were a POC not allowed into the union, then you didn't get the job.

What I posted about here in Philly in the building trades - the problems ARE modern and still going on. That was the study I posted. And in your argument, you dismiss each set of "working class" occupations that I bring up apparently wanting to only consider the service industry (hotel/hospitality/restaurant/janitorial) but even there, the race problem doesn't go away.

There were airport hospitality groups here who participated in yesterday's International Workers' Day events as well the "Day without Immigrants and POC" event, citing issues of rampant racism, poor working conditions, and persistent defiance of our local municipal minimum wage requirement. Hearings are being scheduled in our City Council once this was found out.



As I have noted in this thread - the issue of "working class" IS complex and there is nothing from either Sanders or Warren that even wants to address that. And when many of us bring up the issues that keep the field from being "level" we are told that this is just engaging in "identity politics", so sit in the corner and eat your peas.

[OnionPatch]

122. You seem to see this as an issue about unions.

I do not. I see only a loose relationship there, which is why I'm not devouring all your links to union clashes.

Yes, it's complex, but basically I see a handful of states that the Democrats should have won and NEED to win in the next election as long as we are saddled with the antiquated electoral college.

I am not one who believes that the job issue in the Midwest was the only reason Hillary lost but I do see it as one reason, yes. I don't believe we should be courting Trump supporters but instead the ones who sat out the election. I also don't think we should chuck identity politics. I think we can have both support for minority rights AND support for jobs for the working class. I still don't understand the idea that we can't have both. I see nothing inherently racist in addressing the issues of the working class in the swing states where we NEED the votes as long as we don't compromise our values, and I haven't seen Bernie or Elizabeth compromise them.

[BumRushDaShow]

123. The OP title is "Elizabeth Warren calls out Obama and Democrats for losing way on economy"

and that is what my series of posts has been addressing from here in the 5th largest city in the U.S. in a state has been continually called a "swing state" (PA). So when you say -

I see nothing inherently racist in addressing the issues of the working class in the swing states where we NEED the votes

I am posting from one of those supposed "swing states" - one that "flipped" for the first time since 1988.

And with respect to this -

and I haven't seen Bernie or Elizabeth compromise them.

I have to respectfully disagree and have posted in this sub-thread the why. I.e., the issue for certain working class people IS unions (whether lack thereof or corrupt) and if one is going to come up with solutions to help "all" when it comes to jobs and the economy, then one needs to get rid of the scotomas regarding trusted agents for the workers and consider ways to address that. When the subject is brought up to show how racism impacts jobs for "some" working class, not just in the industry, but even at the union level, it is summarily dismissed by people like Sanders as "identity politics". And so the message that many POC then hear is "you urban people are not 'working class' because only I define what that means".

And if one wants to cherry-pick the "swing states" to focus on when it comes to targeting "working class" votes, then all that does is weaken the argument that one is "for all working class". I think people have posted enough on DU regarding the statements by Sanders over the past year, whether "gaffes" or purposeful and you don't agree but many of us hear him "loud and clear".

Again - there have been posts in this thread that repeatedly cite the term "union" and discuss "unions" and it's interesting that you have yet to engage any of those posters with your views. I.e., we are more in agreement than not versus what they have posted about that I have been disagreeing with.

[ehrnst]

114. +1000 (nt)

[smirkymonkey]

66. I like Elizabeth and I voted for her, but she didn't even win a liberal state like MA

by that great a margin. I don't think she has a chance in hell nationally. She is doing a great job in the Senate where she is but I don't think she should be our candidate in 2020.

[karynnj]

88. She ran against a popular incumbent who the Boston media treated very well

To give you an idea, he was praised when he was given a seat as the most junior Senator on the Small Business Committee with all kinds of comments of how that helps Massachusetts. Not noted was that the former chair of that committee was still on the committee, but chairing the SFRC. More experienced, more connected and far far more competent ... and also from Massachusetts. (When he chaired the committee it was not described that way.

He ran a TERRIBLE campaign - especially as the media as sold him as a nice guy -- and one of the people. His nastiness destroyed that asset.

[LenaBaby61]

109. "I don't think she has a chance in hell nationally."

I really like Liz too, and believe like you that she's doing a great job in the Senate. I also totally agree with you in believing that she won't have a chance nationally if she continues pissing off a LOT of the base she'll need if she does make a run at the presidency in 2020, because of her calling out Pres. Obama for making this particular speech. Bernie's even managed to piss off several true blue Bernie supporters I know. I mean they're quite mad at him because look at what we're going through with this fat-ass, lying, treasonous, putin puppet installed into the Oval office with the help of GOP's voter-suppression and the ruskies cyber-hacking and whatever ELSE they're STILL doing. Just to attract some racist, dumb, deplorables who still think Pres. Obama "tapped" that putin-puppet, LIAR-IN-CHIEF? Really?

Ruth Marcus is also on her high horse, saying that Pres. Obama and Michelle have made enough money off their book deal. I wonder how she feels about tRumputin and his family and cabinet of deplorable billionaires making HUGE sums of money off the government and charging everything to the tax payers via the government? Talk about missing the damn forest for the trees. That pig in the White House is DEFILING the presidency DAILY and you're worried about monies that the Obama's are making as a private citizen's?

Just sit down somewhere Ruth Marcus with your Obama purity testing self

[ehrnst]

115. And we saw how the long knives on the left came out when she endorsed HRC sincerely. (nt)

[Honeycombe8]

124. I don't think she has national appeal, and her age is an issue.

As we've seen with a couple of elderly Presidents (Reagan, Trump), their mental health is an issue, as well as physical health, because of their age. I also think the country is in a mood to go for someone who is mature but not a senior.

But her supporters won't believe that, just like Dennis Kacinich's supporters wouldn't. So, there it is.

But who else is there? There are no heroes on the horizon that I see.

[smirkymonkey]

128. I agree - I think she is doing a great job in the senate and I supported her wholeheartedly in

MA, but she has the age problem and has been around long enough for the republicans to have built up enough ammunition against her. She is still being demonized by the right and she's not even a candidate yet.

She also has a charisma problem, unfortunately. I know some people will disagree with that, but she is going to come across as Hillary part II to the same people who didn't show up in this past election. First there is a very real misogyny problem in this country. I would like to see a female president, I just don't think it's going to be the next election unless we get someone very charismatic who comes out of left field.

She kind of has this "nagging schoolmarm" thing going - and again I support her politically - but even I can see she is not going to appeal to the masses. I even had to talk a few of my friends into supporting her in the MA Senate election (who were Democrats!) because they were so personally turned off by her personality. They thought she came across as shrill and angry. I told them to focus on her politics and not her personality. However, that isn't going to work on a national level.

I like what she is doing and I think she is a great champion of democratic/liberal causes, but I really don't see her as presidential material.

Now here is an up and comer from MA that does have potential - Seth Moulton:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/05/01/seth-moulton-creating-buzz-about-presidential-bid/zxAxmueS0cnwGmfeK1hxwO/story.html#comments

Clip from the article:
"Right now, this has less to do with Seth as a potential presidential candidate and more to do with the type of profile the electorate wants for a field of presidential candidates,” said one Moulton adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity. “And it’s not somebody who’s over 70 years old, who’s been around a long time, and has the same name as somebody who ran for president 30 years ago. When you’re presented with that opportunity as a sitting member of Congress, you’re crazy if you don’t look at it.”

Moulton’s combat-earned credibility on military questions has allowed him to criticize Trump on national security matters in a way some Democrats have shied from. In a Boston Globe forum more than a year ago, he compared Trump’s rise to Hitler’s. After Trump ordered missile strikes on a Syrian air base last month, Moulton teamed with a Republican congressman to criticize the president for taking action without “clear goals and objectives.”

[snip]

Still smarting from Trump’s election, some Democrats are pondering what lessons to take away from November and wondering whether their party’s biggest names — including Warren and Biden — are too old to take on Trump, who would be 74 on Election Day 2020.

Party strategists are also concerned about their party’s messaging on the economy, particularly since Trump snatched previously blue Rust Belt states that have been stung by manufacturing’s decline: Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Moulton has an answer there, too, encouraging his party to talk about the challenges posed by automation.

“A lot of people are standing on factory floors right now not worried that their manager is going to replace them with an immigrant,” he said recently on “Real Time with Bill Maher,” an HBO program. “They’re worried their manager is going to replace them with a robot. And that’s what we gotta be talking about. And I think it’s actually a huge opportunity for Democrats in the next election to actually have a credible plan to deal with this.”

[Honeycombe8]

129. He looks interesting. I'm going to keep my eyes open for him. nt

[nikibatts]

100. Yes, and he could have done so much more with just a little help from both sides.

There was nothing he could do to satisfy some folks, even when he did exactly what they wanted that made them more angry.

The worse thing he did was get bin Laden and everything really went down hill from there. Some even resented Hillary being in the situation room during the operation.

[BumRushDaShow]

112. Speaking of the situation room...

You can tell the heartburn about that because Drumpf's team manufactured their own version of the famous situation room photo!

In fact there are some hilarious meme versions out there.

[pnwmom]

4. What does she think Obama should have been doing, with Republicans controlling Congress?

The Rethugs would have prevented even the stimulus bill we had, if they could have stopped it. They wanted the economy to get WORSE under Obama, so they could blame him for the recession caused by Bush.

[BeyondGeography]

5. People won't be looking for Obama's 3rd term in 2020

She'll be a strong contender, not least because she is more of a populist and has the intellectual chops to back it up.

[ananda]

6. I'd vote for Warren gladly!

nt

[BeyondGeography]

9. Me too

eom

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

10. Moi aussi!!

[QC]

22. +1

[Stellar]

39. Me also...

and she will need and get Obama's help.

[NewJeffCT]

21. I love Sen Warren and will gladly donate to her campaign

and vote for her. However, while she is charismatic to me, is she charismatic enough to the population at large to go up against Trump? Since Reagan in 1980, the candidate considered more charismatic has won each time.

[BeyondGeography]

51. I think people are going to be looking for results

We're really talking about persuadable voters and turnout. Hatred of Trump will be a big driver on our side, and she does have the added benefit of offering a clear contrast which should help with independents and the base.

I hope she runs. I hope a lot of qualified people run.

[vi5]

7. Unions, Unions Unions

At what point are people going to grasp that Dems lukewarm support of unions over the past 20 or so years has cost us all dearly.

It's quite clear from numbers and data and facts that the increasing economic inequality that has been destroying us has be happening in direct correlation to decreases in union membership.

Dems since the Clinton era have thought they could have it both ways. Pay lip service to unions to get their votes but without actually putting in any hard work or actual political risk to do so.

It's one of more than a few economic areas where Dems have approached it with a "Well yes, we can all agree that......." and then hoped they could get credit for being slightly more reasonable and realistic than the Republicans. And it hasn't worked. For the party as a political entity or for the economy. And I'm afraid we are too far gone to ever go back to what would be needed either with strong unions themselves or for public perception of them which along with many other issues, we've ceded the narrative to the Republicans.

[Plucketeer]

25. Spot on!

McTurtle & Boner - those two musta somehow found a way to keep Obama from finding some comfortable, picket line shoes.

[delisen]

52. In Wisconsin unions backed destroying government unions

They backed Walker but didn't end up with the promised jobs anyway. Walker is on his way to a third term in 2018. He comes from a modest background himself and is very good at divide and conquer.

The Democratic Party hasn't killed unions or caused their members to vote Republican.

Democratic economic policies were not responsible for driving inion member voters for voting for Reagan

You are operating on a false premise and I suppose you have your reasons

False facts are not facts.

[bucolic_frolic]

11. Obama was boxed in from the get go

despite the Democratic Congress in 2009, they barely held majorities
and squeaked thru healthcare

If he hadn't hired Geithner and the investment bankers, there would have been
progressivism? Like William Jennings Bryan?

Obama was hired to prevent the economic meltdown within the parameters of
his financial sponsors. He delivered. It's really unclear if this economy will ever
free itself from debt, finance, leverage. It's what makes capitalism go because
it creates the juice that makes it go - risk and incentive. When they create a
system where innovation and motivation compete with financial incentive, that
will change the world. Until then we have what we have and had best focus
on reducing the downside before upsetting the applecart.

[OKNancy]

12. article headline is more negative than the article itself n/t

[JHan]

26. Yes it is.

[fleabiscuit]

106. Yes, kinda standard electioneering within a friendly party piece. nt

[still_one]

14. Excuse me. "He left an economy 11.5% bigger, and generated almost 15 MILLION NEW JOBS in

75 consecutive months"

Of course the article goes on to completely erase all that to throw the premise that trump won because of the "frustration of voters who chose trump". What a BULLSHIT false narrative.

Ignoring the Comey inerference, and the media's LIES that when comey sent the letter to the republicans in Congress, the email investigation was reopened. THAT WAS A LIE, and the damage it did made a difference:

https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/28/media-freak-out-fbi-letter-disregard-facts-and-run-gops-false-description-clinton-email-review/214184

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-chaffetz-fbi-investigation-lies-e9fff5359102

https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/30/ny-times-floods-front-page-fbi-letter-stories-while-acknowledging-it-didn-t-reopen-clinton-server/214202

After that, Hillary's poll numbers immediately went down. Nate Silver has no doubt she would have won if not for that.

Of course the media doesn't want to bring that up because they are right up to their neck in propagating the misrepresentation and lies. I suspect that is why all these recent stories trying to sow dissent among Democrats have been suddenly appearing, to distract attention from the shoddy, intentionally misrepresented, and double standard coverage they provided.

Of course the article also ignores the Russian connection, the racism, sexism, and bigotry that was involved, and how the press essentially gave trump a free pass.

While Warren is entitled to her opinion of course, the facts don't justify her criticism. President Obama and the Democrats in the first two years prevented us from going into another great depression, saved the American car industry, incorporated the largest financial reform in years through Dodd Frank, and gave us the largest healthcare reform through the ACA. That is just the obvious ones, issues regarding civil rights, opening up relations with Cuba, preventing the nuclear proliferation in Iran, etc. etc. etc.

Of course the naysayers will come back and say it wasn't enough, ignoring the political realities that even though during the first two years we had the majority in Congress, we needed blue dog support to get that legislation through.

It is so easy for someone to look back and criticize what President Obama shoulda, or coulda done, when the political realities tell us something else.

Well the media should be real proud of itself because with their help their ratings should be going through the roof with trump in the WH. Hell, maybe they can try to push us into war with NK as they did Iraq. Do you realize what that would do for their ratings?

In a New York Times article, what Hunter Thompson described regarding George Wallace has a better finger on the button regarding those that supported Donald Trump than Senator Warren's assessment I believe:

"For the television networks the spectacle became irresistible, particularly since rallies often erupted into violent chair-throwing confrontations between Mr. Wallace's supporters and angry demonstrators. Hunter S. Thompson understood that George Wallace's followers were not interested in position papers on banking regulations or the pros and cons of thermal energy. Watching the Alabama governor perform was awe-inspiring to the gonzo journalist, who likened the rallies to a Janis Joplin concert "in which the bastard had somehow levitated himself and was hovering over us."

The article then goes on to describe a part of America that many would like to ignore:

"Both George Wallace and Donald Trump are part of a long national history of scapegoating minorities: from the Irish, Catholics, Asians, Eastern European immigrants and Jews to Muslims and Latino immigrants During times of insecurity, a sizable minority of Americans has been drawn to forceful figures who confidently promise the destruction of all enemies, real and imagined, allowing Americans to return to a past that never existed."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/opinion/campaign-stops/what-donald-trump-owes-george-wallace.html?_r=0

[George II]

17. And unemployment was cut in half, the stock market more than doubled, etc., etc., etc.

Does Warren have any idea or memory of what happened for the eight years before Obama took office?

Damn, this stuff really bothers me - does no good at all and not entirely based on reality.

[still_one]

18. Exactly George. It completely misrepresents what happened

[JHan]

30. It bothers me too and I've had enough of the grandstanding.

We have a president who wants to make gerrymandering and voter suppression priorities in his advocacy during retirement so this BS does not help.

Anyone talking about Obama's record without making mention of partisan gridlock and filibustering from republicans is working on getting perpetual side eye from me.

[SunSeeker]

61. Exactly. Obama only had 24 working days of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

And that was right at the beginnning of his first term. It is amazing he was able to get as much accomplished as he did, including the ACA (which saved my brother's life), rescuing the auto industry, passing Dodd-Frank and overturning DADT.

How quickly we forget. Even those who should know better. Like Elizabeth Warren.

[JHan]

73. He faced over 300 filibusters over issues that were long a concern for Democrats:

Minimum Wage,

HealthCare

Infrastructure.

I hate the revisionism going on that seems designed only to raise the profile of certain politicians. We've lost sight of the picture here , and what has been the big picture over the last 8 years - regressive GOP philosophy and their mindless obstructionism.

[bettyellen]

77. Exactly this. The obstruction was endless.

[JHan]

78. And that obstructionism is being used to hammer him, slander his efforts and insult democrats.

tell me who does that benefit if not the GOP?

[bettyellen]

80. I wonder if they downplay it because they feel for some reasons they'd not face it?

Trump thought that too. It's naive, isn't it? Or do they know in the back of their minds it was easier to attack a black man, and they'd not face that? So it's another kind of "pragmatism"- one that leads us to court this e Trump voters? I don't know.

[JHan]

82. you raise some great points.

It's all about playing to Trump voters and courting discontents to increase profile.
I hate to be so cynical but that's the only logical explanation.

[bettyellen]

83. Realistically I know some candidates can literally say "it's not my problem" because it won't ever

be their problem.... but I can't separate that from how callous and how wrong that is. And to view it as an area of opportunity is messed up.

[nikibatts]

102. I guess we are beating a dead horse whenever we point out these facts. Hang in there, though.

[George II]

16. Where has she been? She was in the Senate through most of Obama's administration....

...she's just talking about this now? Why didn't she say or do something about it four or five years ago?

[Historic NY]

33. Really McConnell didn't tell her to shut up then......

Then again the Republican Gov. Baker has a higher favorability rating then she does, even among Democrats in her state. So instead of running against Trump she picks Obama

[ehrnst]

65. +1000 (nt)

[gordianot]

19. It is not hard to stir shit among Democrats.

Focus on the threat at hand not among yourselves.

[JudyM]

47. Right, and if she runs, it'll be a better party whether she wins the primary or not, like in '16.

We need to grow both in terms of mass appeal and in terms of improving how we operate. The surprise of Sanders' widespread appeal forced self-reflection about our party values rather than blind adherence to the party's more recent status quo.

Beyond the fact that Hillary won the popular vote, I have hope that we can do much better if we work at getting back to our roots and honing our message into a pithy, appealing form.

[OnDoutside]

23. Is it any wonder why the Republicans control the House

Senate, White House and lots of Governor's houses ?

[SunSeeker]

24. Not helping, Elizabeth.

I really like Elizabeth Warren, but she is wrong when she says that "The Republicans have clearly thrown their lot in with the rich and the powerful, but so have a lot of Democrats.”

It is not a "lot of Democrats." The vast majority of Democrats support and fight for working people. As does the Democratic Party platform. It is night and day compared to the Republican Party platform and what Republicans are doing on a daily basis.

That quote smacks of the "both parties are the same" false equivalence propaganda the GOP trolls us with.

Has Elizabeth now decided if we can't beat this propaganda we should join it?

Did she forget it was Obama who tried to appoint her head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau but the Republicans blocked him?

[JHan]

27. Although I expected a more negative article based on headline that quote is unfortunate

It's one of those passing quotes without substance "so have a lot of democrats"....who are the "a lot of democrats"

[Hell Hath No Fury]

56. When you eat from the same trough as the GOP --

the results are predictable. Under From and Emmanuel, the Democratic Party made a conscious decision to seek campaign funding from the same corporate interest as the GOP. THAT IS A FACT. And the American worker has seen the results of that new union. You can push for all the worker protections, minimum wage increases, and other worker-friendly initiatives you want but if all you are left with are dead-end service jobs then it all means squat.

[SunSeeker]

60. "Service jobs" would not be such a "dead end" if we had the programs Dems want.

Job training, free public college, universal healthcare, public retirement plans like CA is trying to implement, paid family leave and affordable childcare would make service jobs (which are a fact of life in the US post-industrial, global service economy) decent, livable jobs. It is Republican policies of tax cuts and slashing social programs that have made these jobs unlivable. People in the Scandinavian countries live perfectly happy lives in service jobs. The difference is they have the social programs Dems are fighting for.

[Plucketeer]

28. Intriguing - the grudging respects afforded Warren here.

And that has to be because she wears a (D) next to her name. I know of another senator who thinks like (if not MORE than) Warren does - and if HE had been the one to say these things, the pummeling he'd get would make the words here for Warren look like a gentle massage.

[SunSeeker]

36. My respect for Warren is not "grudging." It is genuine respect.

And if "another senator" actually joined the Democratic Party, he'd have it too.

[Plucketeer]

43. Sorry

I only seriously tried to convey myself with the written word when I reached age 50. "Grudging respect" - by SOME - is what I should have written.

[LakeArenal]

42. Thanks, Pluck.

It is interesting that the two current have to battle the ghosts of the past. The Party is going to change. There is a lot of resistance to change. The two current popular senators are considered the leaders one day and not the next. They feel the need to separate from the past, but some are just not having it.

Neither Obama or Clinton have spoken of the new party platform or against either of the two current senators. I think most of us would re-elect Obama and Bill Clinton. We would love HRC as president. We aren't going to have Obama II or Clinton I. Just isn't going to happen. As long as the bickering continues regarding the direction of the Party, we will not attract anyone new. Democrats aren't trying to reach out to the Party loyalists they are trying to increase the fold. It makes a bunch of folks angry.

[ehrnst]

116. My respect for Warren is enthusiastic.

I don't do cults of personality though.

I feel a need to immediately ask "what does Elizabeth think about this?" when an issue comes up, nor does she expect people to, as I sense HE does.

I don't suffer from dualistic "black and white" "us or them" "my way or the highway" thinking, and I don't respect leaders who do.

So, yes, I can criticize things she says, and still think she's a great leader, and she doesn't think that dissent from her views is automatically wrong.

[bigtree]

31. hardly

...she says there were 'blind spots' in Obama's assessment of the economy. That's not only an unfair, inaccurate (tepid) critique of what Obama said about the economy during his term, it's about all she had available to criticize about his efforts.

The rest of her criticism fell on Democrats for that old canard about having 'thrown their lot in with the rich and the powerful.' It's a caricature of our former president and party which is void of the specifics which define our Democrats far apart from the republicans she's lumped together with them.

[Backwoodsrider]

32. Elizabeth Warren worrys me

If she represent the democratic part in 2020 this male democrat is running. She is critical of Trump and the GOP and any other authority and that's great we need more folks like Elizabeth but she is no leader. If she tries to bring her critical fear based reality into a leadership position she and her followers will be mocked as weak whiners, again.

This post will be deleted by Admins in 3 2 1 ...

[DrToast]

76. I'm not a fan...

While I agree with her on many things, she doesn't strike me as a leader. I think she finds it easier to complain than it is to govern. I think Bernie would have the same problems.

[smirkymonkey]

131. I would have to agree with you. I pretty much agree with her on most things and

I like the way she relentlessly goes after the fat cats, but I don't think she is presidential material. I have a number of solid reasons, but instinctively, I just don't think she has a shot at winning over the country.

[LovingA2andMI]

38. Let's Say This...

If Warren starts her March to 2020 (which it looks like she is) being critical of Former POTUS Barack Obama over and over again, she can kiss a goodbye to at least 8-10% of the African-American Democratic Base she would need to get past the primary finish line.

Warren would be wise to remember she will not be the only Democratic contender in the 2020 Primaries. In fact, the field will be much larger than in 2016 for the Democrats and that is a guarantee. And if us Black Folks keep reading these lines about her criticizing on the regular Barack Obama, our votes will go to another Democratic Candidate besides her.

[HoneyBadger]

48. Warren does best when she is against something or somebody

She is the pit bull that you take off the leash. A Trump Presidency is perfect for her presentation.

[NewJeffCT]

54. I agree that she's great at attacking people

however, the person said that if you attack Obama, she's not going to get out of the primaries because she won't get the African American vote that is crucial in so many Democratic primaries.

[brush]

86. Agreed. She should learn from Sanders. He ignored the AA vote in the south and never recovered.

Attacking Obama is not smart at all for a potential Dem POTUS candidate.

[LovingA2andMI]

55. She is criticizing...

Former POTUS Barack Obama who saved the MF'ing Economy from the biggest DEPRESSION since the great Depression in this article and not the Idiot in the White House, Cheeto. With that, Warren needs to re-direct her pit bull nature elsewhere or risk losing a large bloc African-American Democratic Voters in the 2020 Primary.

[HoneyBadger]

71. It is puzzling

Trump ran as Not Obama. I would expect the 2020 nominee to run as Not Trump. Which should be a walk in the park for her. She is probably counting on her skills to savage the other candidates in the primary.

[The Polack MSgt]

40. Senator Warren, no I believe that you are misreading the situation here

I believe that lately you and Senator Sanders heve been attempting to garner support among the mythical "Obama/Trump" voting bloc and that is a mistake. You are both chasing Bigfoot. As a factor in coming elections, that group is fairy dust - It is a media creation

Trump voters will not vote for you because you go on the record criticizing Obama.

Attacking mainstream Dems won't make a difference either.

The folks you are playing footsy with happily picked a racist sexist criminal - Because he was better in their opinion than any Democrat - Including you and Senator Sanders.

This winking and nudging flirtation with the white supremacists and misogynists who populate the "economically anxious" is sickening, and is alienating and dis-motivating people who are actually willing to vote for Democrats.

BTW my original draft was only 2 words. It was 7 letters long

[sheshe2]

96. I get what the original draft was.

Once again I agree with all that you posted.

That aside, Warren is also up for re-election 2018. If Gov. Charlie Baker is her challenger, and word has it...that could be true, then the fight will be grueling, sad to say he is well liked here in MA. Actually even I have given him some kudos this year for going after tRump on our sanctuary cities. This is where we have out issues, you see Baker-R is going after tRump-R and that is a good thing. Sadly Warren-D is going after Obama-D instead of tRump and that will not play well at all.

[The Polack MSgt]

98. What? I thought politics were the devil.

I get so pissed that at times i lash out. Why can't people see the obvious in the open flat out RACIST nonsense that they spray

[sheshe2]

107. I have no answer for you, MSgt.

I don't get it either.

[brush]

41. WTF, it's open season on Obama now by other Dems, like trump isn't available or something?

Last edited Mon May 1, 2017, 11:59 PM - Edit history (2)

Sure makes you wonder?

We had a successful president who was able to accomplish quite a bit despite unending repug opposition so the smart thing to do now is trash him ?

God, no fucking wonder we lost. We can't stick together.

[sheshe2]

97. Sad isn't it brush?

Ya know, good thing I remained a host in the Obama Group. I thought Obama would no longer be trashed and ridiculed on this board once he left office. How wrong I was. We had a quiet time for awhile, it's ramping up.

ODS are strong.

[bluestarone]

49. gotta say here

That i think Obama saved this country from complete destruction when he became president!!! Everything the Republicans had there hands on were about to explode! THEN after he succeeded saving us all we have to remember the congress WOULD NOT help with a dam thing! so to say he could have done more while not a lie is somewhat misleading. I like Warren and Sanders very much but i DO NOT think Obama or any other person could have done more than Obama did under the conditions he was working with! Now we ALL need to remember this and stop tRump and all the Repubs in congress. if not then look out because it can get ALOT WORSE FOR SURE!!

[Txbluedog]

57. Warren thinks the "grassroots resistance" is going to carry her to the WH

The Dems back people like Warren and Sanders, avowed socialists at their own peril.

[David__77]

68. If Warren is a socialist, FDR was a communist.

I think a role of leaders is to lead. That is, to blaze a trail.

[Arazi]

125. Warren and Sanders are socialists??!!

Go Liz and Bernie is my response

[FiveGoodMen]

58. Don't suppose that it occurs to any of the responders to this OP

that Warren is saying what she means and isn't just playing a strategic card here.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

62. From her track record I would say that is the case.

She has been saying the same thing since I saw her first appearance on "The Daily Show" waaaay back in the day. Yup, it sure sucks when a politician has core beliefs they stick to.

[David__77]

70. Integrity means observing what ones observes, and saying what one knows to be true.

I can agree or disagree with someone's truth - I do acknowledge integrity when I observe it. I want leaders who have integrity.

[LiberalLovinLug]

72. OMG a Democrat said something critical about the the party!

Sanders at least could be dismissed as a part time D. Gawd help us now! How dare she say some of the fault of losing might be on the Democrats themselves! Doesn't she know she shouldn't pull her head out of the sand? Its dangerous! Obviously we should keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results!

[fleabiscuit]

108. What did she say critical of the party in that read? nt

[Freethinker65]

79. Love Elizabeth Warren, but I disagree with her on this

even if she is running for President, she should magnify and expand upon the positive aspects of the platform laid out by the Democratic Party in the last election, not dwell on what she sees was ineffective. There was plenty of pro-worker/jobs/economic (affordable college, job training/retraining, small business incentives, minimum wage and benefits, etc.) attention as there always is. The party's economic policy platform was drowned out by clever free use of the media (MSM and social) to follow sound bites, hints of scandal, and the next leak.

The true "wealthy elites" (Trumps, DeVos, Tillerson, etc.) are now running the country for themselves.

I doubt she honestly thinks she has a chance at swaying voters that relish Trump calling her "Pocahontas", so I fail to see how this helps.

[delisen]

81. What have Warren and Sanders said about Schumer's Big Money ties?

Integrity seems to be selective. do they not criticize Schumer because he hold the power position in the Senate? Is Schumer's big money connections off-limits because he is in position of power over them?

I don't have much patience with with politicians who are not willing to be even-handed in their criticisms, who do soundbite negative commentary on just the highest profile Democrats.

If you just criticize high profile Democrats you will get media attention but the rest of us get a skewed view of what is "troubling" at the intersection of money and politics.in politics.

Too many economic progressives see a big swamp "over thar" but don't want to acknowledge the one that is in their own yard.

[BumRushDaShow]

91. Very good observation

(and of all people, NY, NY Schumer! )

[Doreen]

84. Warren I like you BUT

you try doing anything when most of the repukes have pledged to fight EVERYTHING you try to do for the country. There is a lot of things he tried to do and he got ruled out by the repukes.

[Blue_Tires]

85. Who are all these dumbassed advisors

who keep thinking that bashing a wildly popular Obama is the best way to win votes? Did nobody learn the lesson the last time a primary candidate decided to piss off black primary voters?

[haele]

87. Here's the thing all these "What's wrong with Dems" commentaries leave out...

This isn't the 1930's - 1980's anymore. Everyone has access to the news they want, the opinions they want, and the outlook that makes them comfortable, instead of having one (or maybe two/three) sources available to them.

We are fragmented as a nation. We have been encouraged to create our own reality and live in it. We can isolate ourselves into a work-home-internet/Netflix/Cable routine and never interact with our neighbors unless there's an emergency.

While there are a few communities that do "come together" on a regular basis for, say, street fairs, or carnivals, or farmer's markets, not a lot of them do that sort of thing anymore. Everyone's too busy, too stressed, things cost too much...and the work, the responsibility of maintaining a community just dissipates to the few people who have a vested interest and the means to participate.

When Rome fell, it wasn't the removal of the Roman armies that led to a decline of civilization from a secular republic into sectarian feudalism...it was the disconnect of community, the implosion of local governments into themselves.

Democracy requires participation from the local base up the ladder.
If local Democrats won't participate, if Democrats in general allow all these paid "experts" with philosophical bias to continue to frame the reasons we lost without looking at what worked, and we as Democrats allow money to get directed in response to whoever has the loudest voice, we will continue to fail.

Technology and the way people communicate and interact now-a-days will keep us from ever electing another FDR, or Lincoln, or Eisenhower, or LBJ any more. We're going to be stuck with popularity contests, because no one wants to deal purely with reality and fixing problems - not the media, who are interested in attracting eyes, and not the electorate in general, who are apparently too tired and stressed out to pay attention much past each news cycle, or too interested in creating their own little snowglobe communities that re-enforce the reality they want to live in.

Until we address Real - the social, economic, and environmental Realty of the group as a whole - until we address a bigger community, a bigger Nation, a bigger World than we as individuals, as politicians, as leaders need to do to actually GOVERN.

Because as it is, most politicians pontificate and deal. They don't Govern. They don't think beyond the constituency that got them elected, and they aren't going to do anything more than they have to, especially if it's "unpleasant" and "upsetting" to the average voter without a lot of thoughtful, adult explanation.

Haele

[BlueStater]

89. No Warren, no Sanders, no Biden.

For gods sake, can we PLEASE run someone who's at least UNDER 70? Is that really an unreasonable request?

[Yurovsky]

95. That would be refreshing...

The national party is in dire need of new blood, new faces, new voices...

I like Warren, but she seems to be desperately seeking attention. If she keeps disrespecting Obama, she's going to have a hard time unifying the party if she does win the nomination. Not smart politics if you ask me.

[Sculpin Beauregard]

101. Fight fight fight.

[phleshdef]

103. Elizabeth Warren owes much of her political success to President Obama.

I still like her but like everyone else, she should shut the fuck up and wait to see what Obama actually says in these speeches before passing judgement. I have a feeling Obama is going to end up making people criticizing him over this speech thing look very, very stupid.

[underthematrix]

105. We know PBO always wins

Warren has done a lot of good in terms of articulating econ policy but if she's going to appeal to angry white Trumpsters also known as the white working class she's gonna have to throw some shade PBO's way. PBO has big shoulders, hands, and feet. He treats it like lint and just brushes it off.

I'm focused on promoting and supporting #BlackExcellence, #BlackWealth and #BlackInnovation. Warren is just part of the noise.

[chillfactor]

126. she has lost all respect I had for her.... n/t

[Me.]

127. If This Is The Way She's Going To Campaign

I hope we have a better candidate.

[HoneyBadger]

130. Warren just locked up the nominee slot

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141765191