2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWas Elizabeth Warren under external pressure when she added a 2nd tweet quickly?
Last edited Fri Jan 15, 2016, 03:22 AM - Edit history (2)
There was nothing wrong with her praise of Bernie Sanders about his Wall Street policies. But within an hour and a half she had changed it.
(ON EDIT: Since I am being accused of ugly things....let me reword my 2nd sentence.
"But within an hour and a half she had written another to include all the candidates."
YES! The first one still remained, and she added the second an hour and a half later.
I hope that clarifies it to everyone's satisfaction. The word "liar" is now thrown around here way too loosely.
Any questions?)
Why Did Elizabeth Warren Suddenly Pivot to Praise All Dem Candidates on Wall St. Reform?
At 10:10 a.m. ET on Wednesday, bankruptcy law pro and anti-big bank hero Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat representing Massachusetts, took to Twitter to offer her unequivocal support for Senator Bernie Sanders. The praise in question stemmed from Sanders heightened rhetoric this week, when the Democratic-Socialist candidate for President visited New York City to speak publicly about Wall St. reform.
Elizabeth Warren
✔
@elizabethforma
I'm glad @BernieSanders is out there fighting to hold big banks accountable, make our economy safer, & stop the GOP from rigging the system.
10:10 AM - 6 Jan 2016
4,742 4,742 Retweets
7,866
But then this happened.
But something seems to have happened in the hour-and-a-half following Warrens Tweet, perhaps facing pressure from within the Democratic party to clarify her sentiments to include the party frontrunner Clinton in her praise. 91 minutes later, Warren returned to Twitter to offer this cryptic update to her sentiments:
Elizabeth Warren
✔
@elizabethforma
I'm glad that ALL the Dem candidates for president @HillaryClinton, @BernieSanders & @MartinOMalley are fighting for Wall St reform.
11:41 AM - 6 Jan 2016
452 452 Retweets
803
I agree with this statement from the Mediaite article:
Regardless of her true support, on Wednesday it would appear that some external pressure seems to have influenced Warrens rhetoric and approach, putting her in a position to clarify that ALL the Dem candidates for President are fighting the fight she most believes in (but really, only Sanders does).
Dretownblues
(253 posts)Could this mean that she want to endorse Bernie, but is being pressured not to?
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Dretownblues
(253 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)She's at loggerheads with Hillary about banking reform, her revised tweet notwithstanding. And she noted last year that her singing the letter encouraging Hillary to run was NOT an endorsement.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)"But people close to Warrens political advisers in Boston say an endorsement of Clinton is far more likely than one of Sanders at this point."
But that is followed by "Clinton allies have long pointed to a 2013 letter that Warren signed with other female Democratic senators urging the former secretary of state to get into the race."
However, Warren herself said last year that signing that letter did not constitute an endorsement. I personally think that she, as a newly-minted Senator with no prior political experience, was pressured into signing the letter. She has shown that she's not particularly enthused with Hillary, while showing herself to be more closely aligned with Bernie.
senz
(11,945 posts)EW knows full well Hillary's connections to Wall Street, and she's certainly smart and savvy enough to know that Hillary is now in primary campaign mode, trying to appeal to progressive Democrats.
If EW were to endorse Hillary over Bernie in the primary, something horrible would have to have happened.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)This is now a question of integrity. Is she going to stay out and let this race run its natural if less predictable course? Given that Hillary is no where near Warren's professed positions on the issues, if Warrren endorses Hillary she will be toast for any future political ambitions as she will be viewed as caving to Clinton power brokers/thugs.
If Warren is truly the person she presents herself to be, she will stay out until the nominee is fairly well identified.
Do not be fooled by Hillary taking nuanced positions leaning somewhat left as she will say ANYTHING in order to realize her lifelong dream...
Dretownblues
(253 posts)but if she were to endorse Hillary, it would make me question her motives behind it. Not that I would stop supporting her, but it would make me question how much is she really playing the politics game. Also believe me I have never once thought of Clinton as a Progressive, that includes Bill.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)I think she's one of the good guys but she's honing her intra-party political skills because she made some missteps when she first joined the Senate and as a result had to learn some hard political lessons. Warren is NOT a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Bernie is the only senate member.
While I don't know this, I'm guessing she will endorse HRC because the politics work for her in the long term. And they need to work for her so she can get re-elected.
Dretownblues
(253 posts)wouldn't surprise I'm just hoping that she stays true to her progressive stances. Even if she does, like I said she won't lose me as a supporter just because of that.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)that says Elizabeth doesn't think Bernie can win....who got to her I wonder. Hope there is not a voting glitch as the days go on and the voting starts.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)So who really knows.
senz
(11,945 posts)Check this out: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017320929
JI7
(89,279 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)JI7
(89,279 posts)their candidates have done so she responded with saying she is proud of what all of them are doing on that issue.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Maybe she changed the tweet on her own?
Women can think on their own, ya know.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Look up "inconsistent" in your dictionary, then get back to us.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I didn't even verify the OP's claim which appears to be suspect.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Your OP is based on a lie.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)You really should be careful who you call a liar.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)...she tweeted something else. She never changed the first tweet, they were two separate tweets.
You're not being truthful when you say she changed her tweet.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Whatever makes you happy.
Or could we take an effing vote on whether madfloridian lied or misspoke or was totally right.
As long as it makes you happy.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)RichVRichV
(885 posts)She may have changed it on her own as she wants to stay above the fray and not appear to endorse anyone yet (We've all seen how any compliment can get blown out of proportion). But there is real pressure being put on her to endorse.
Pressure grows on Elizabeth Warren to pick a side in Democratic race -CNN
senz
(11,945 posts)that some would interpret her praise as an endorsement, and she wants to refrain from endorsing anyone in the primary. So she changed her tweet.
Makes perfect sense, and I can understand why she wants to stay neutral.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,459 posts)I hope if Senator Warren endorses one of the candidates, that she is being true to her heart.
Thanks for the thread, madfloridian.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)I don't see pressure changing that. Little Georgie tried with no luck.
Uncle Joe
(58,459 posts)The AGS 010 grading scale is easy to understand.
The highest possible grade is zero; and 10 is the lowest.
Easy, huh?
So, a diamond with a color grade of 3 has less color than a diamond with a color grade of 5. Diamonds having less color are more rare; therefore, they may cost more on the retail market.
When writing the grades of a diamond using the AGS Scale, diamond Cut grade is first, then diamond Color, clarity, then Carat Weight in that order.
If a diamond possessing the finest diamond cut grade is also colorless, free of inclusions and blemishes, and weighs one carat, it would be written as: 0/0/01.000 carat.
In the American Gem Society Diamond Grading Standards, this would be known as the famed Triple Zero® or Triple 000.
(snip)
https://www.americangemsociety.org/ags-diamond-grading-system
Used in so-called diamond anvil experiments to create high-pressure environments, diamonds are able to withstand crushing pressures in excess of 600 gigapascals (6 million atmospheres).[14]
(snip)
Unlike most electrical insulators, diamond is a good conductor of heat because of the strong covalent bonding and low phonon scattering. Thermal conductivity of natural diamond was measured to be about 22 W/(cm·K), which is five times more than copper. Monocrystalline synthetic diamond enriched in the isotope 12C (99.9%) has the highest thermal conductivity of any known solid at room temperature: 33.2 W/(cm·K).[37][38] Because diamond has such high thermal conductance it is already used in semiconductor manufacture to prevent silicon and other semiconducting materials from overheating. At lower temperatures conductivity becomes even better, and reaches 410 W/(cm·K) at 104 K (12C-enriched diamond).[38]
Diamond's high thermal conductivity is used by jewelers and gemologists who may employ an electronic thermal probe to separate diamonds from their imitations. These probes consist of a pair of battery-powered thermistors mounted in a fine copper tip. One thermistor functions as a heating device while the other measures the temperature of the copper tip: if the stone being tested is a diamond, it will conduct the tip's thermal energy rapidly enough to produce a measurable temperature drop. This test takes about 23 seconds. However, older probes will be fooled by moissanite, a crystalline mineral form of silicon carbide introduced in 1998 as an alternative to diamonds, which has a similar thermal conductivity.[5][27]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_properties_of_diamond
senz
(11,945 posts)I'm not particularly interested in diamonds as gems but do find it wondrous and amazing that both diamonds and graphite are forms of carbon. Also, the diamond industry is perfect to use as an illustration in explaining the concepts of vertical and horizontal integration. (Just in the spirit of geekiness, fwiw.)
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)praised Sanders, then spend a day backpedaling and "explaining" in away.
It's downright creepy, that's what it is. Screw the Clintons and their bullying ways,
people not being able to speak their minds without "retribution". It's sickening.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Thanks for sharing.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)How so?
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)and this is becoming a rather obvious pattern, now with Warren.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)it could be that Democratic bigwigs who want to stay neutral now have to watch every public utterance about any of the candidates.
But their spontaneous enthusiasm does seem to be with Bernie Sanders.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)and doesn't want to be seen as reneging on whatever promise she might have made. But that raises the questions of who and why and what she got in return.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Everything is not some grand conspiracy . . .
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)used to try to discredit those who do question.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)So, you acknowledge that you were raising a "question about a candidate" when you suggested that Elizabeth Warren may have been forced by "external pressure" to change her tweet. Which candidate, pray tell, were you raising questions about? Bernie Sanders? No, I don't think so. We both know the candidate you were implicating is Hillary Clinton. And if Hillary Clinton or her campaign exerted external pressure on Sen. Warren, that would certainly amount to a conspiracy.
You threw a rock and then tried to hide your hand. It didn't work.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Good Lord this is crazy around here.
It was a logical sensible query by Mediaite, I posted it because I agreed.
senz
(11,945 posts)There is nothing wrong with wondering why politicians do and say things. We all know they have both a private and a public/professional existence. The OP has as much right as anyone to point out discrepancies and it doesn't necessarily mean bad motives. Putting it out there as she did invited other people's explanations which could very well influence the OPs evolving opinion of the matter.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Obviously one candidate's fans will prefer the original version, but it doesn't follow that anyone else was involved. Elizabeth Warren doesn't strike me as someone easily pushed around.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)ram2008
(1,238 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 15, 2016, 02:28 AM - Edit history (1)
They're usually written by interns and reviewed by a mid level comms staffer. Most likely the tweet was approved by mid level staffer and seen by the communications director or Warren, and they were instructed to elaborate for political concerns/ staying neutral etc. Not something influenced directly by external sources, but an inner circle calculations.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)That's for sure.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 15, 2016, 03:25 AM - Edit history (1)
My hunch: She wants to be able to woo Hillary supporters when they put her on the ticket with Biden.
Fiorina tore into Clinton over the foundation etc. and Matthews said not a word. I also saw a women rep that has been a long time supporter of Clinton making a very cutting remark at the end of the interview. Something is definitely up....
senz
(11,945 posts)That seems like a waste of Warren; she has a greater effect as Senator. Unless you mean an attempt to head off a Sanders win?
stone space
(6,498 posts)They each seem to have their own timestamp.
Is the second one supposed to be an edited version of the first?
If so, the act of editing the post seems to have started the retweet count over. Not sure how twitter works, though.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Actually it looks right now to me as if BOTH have been deleted from her twitter feed. I read them just before I posted, and fortunately my old buddy NYC_SKP has a screenshot of them.
I hope my edit is now satisfactory to everyone.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)Hmm, that sounds like some other politicians I know.
bigtree
(86,008 posts)...sounds like the writer made it up.
Simplest explanation would be that Warren didn't want to appear to be taking sides.
I wonder how much of this nonsense speculation is meant to discredit her, as it is to discredit her statement of support for 'all' of the candidates' wall street reform efforts?