Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
63 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
We need a female president!!! (Original Post) Logical Mar 2016 OP
eventually dana_b Mar 2016 #1
This message was self-deleted by its author Baobab Mar 2016 #39
Elizabeth Warren was my first choice Baobab Mar 2016 #42
My heart still breaks because she didn't run. RiverLover Mar 2016 #58
She's really smart and she's 100% behind the people and the country Baobab Mar 2016 #59
After 8 years of Bernie, hopefully we'd be ready for Jill Stein Mufaddal Mar 2016 #2
Provided Miss Stein helps the Democratic Party to trash Third Way ideology, and becomes Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #9
No need to trash them, the loss of 30 million or more jobs will do it. Baobab Mar 2016 #44
That race needs to be halted with extreme prejudice. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #57
there are several things involved, one of them is good, technology Baobab Mar 2016 #61
I applaud your enthusiastic optimism and intend no sarcasm. n/t xocet Mar 2016 #25
ive predicted Elizabeth would be our first female pres long ago, I still believe that:) litlbilly Mar 2016 #3
She could run the exact same type of campaign as Bernie and she would excel just like Bernie litlbilly Mar 2016 #4
Agree ...but if she was running now she would be put through all the INdemo Mar 2016 #46
I just think, at this time in history, things are different. things can be debunked so fast litlbilly Mar 2016 #48
yep. she'll have 8 yrs vp experience under her belt by then... Viva_La_Revolution Mar 2016 #5
Satisfies the Native American aspect as well. cherokeeprogressive Mar 2016 #6
She would not just make a great Pres. She would be a Great Demeracrcat Pres. awake Mar 2016 #7
Yes she would be a great VP but she would also be a great Senate Majority Leader too INdemo Mar 2016 #55
And she finger points too Arazi Mar 2016 #8
she'll be Bernie's age! 6chars Mar 2016 #10
YESSSSS! nt nc4bo Mar 2016 #11
+100. I'll bet she regrets, now, not throwing her hat in the ring, closeupready Mar 2016 #12
I think she was given a talking to by the leaders of the Party. They told her rhett o rick Mar 2016 #13
Or Fed chair.... truebluegreen Mar 2016 #21
Yep! Not VP. nm rhett o rick Mar 2016 #22
No, she would be totally wasted there. truebluegreen Mar 2016 #28
Yes, 1,000 time yes. nm rhett o rick Mar 2016 #29
She would win without their "help" Baobab Mar 2016 #45
I am sure they told her that if she ran against HRC she wouldn't get any super-delegates. rhett o rick Mar 2016 #47
Gd forbid that anything get fixed Baobab Mar 2016 #53
One election at a time. What we need, first and foremost, is a GOOD President winter is coming Mar 2016 #14
Yay! nt zentrum Mar 2016 #15
She'll be 75 in 2024 Renew Deal Mar 2016 #16
Warren Gwhittey Mar 2016 #17
Hell no. I bet Goldman-Sachs and the Banksters already have people in mind for Clinton's rhett o rick Mar 2016 #49
Fine with me too! n/t RoccoR5955 Mar 2016 #18
OR, after being VP for 8 years, Tulsi Gabbard can do it. pdsimdars Mar 2016 #19
What's her record like? white_wolf Mar 2016 #23
I think if Bernie picked Tulsi as his VP, padfun Mar 2016 #27
From your fingers to the Goddesses ears! Raster Mar 2016 #20
Please knock off the flame bait. nolabear Mar 2016 #24
Alert it or quit whining. nt Logical Mar 2016 #26
Exactly. jwirr Mar 2016 #30
And what is your reasoning... NCTraveler Mar 2016 #31
you're not seeing that from Sanders supporters ibegurpard Mar 2016 #34
Only Sanders supporters. Nt NCTraveler Mar 2016 #35
If that's true then that's terrible. NHprogressive Mar 2016 #50
OK THAT I can agree with MidwestTech Mar 2016 #32
8 yrs of Bernie in teh WH and Warren in the Senate Ferd Berfel Mar 2016 #33
Hells Rafale Mar 2016 #36
I think issues are far more important than leftcoastmountains Mar 2016 #37
8 years of Bernie??? Then a female president??? houston16revival Mar 2016 #38
K&R!!! You definetley want the first woman President to be a good one, not marred by exceptional Dustlawyer Mar 2016 #40
We sure do! SoapBox Mar 2016 #41
She could still be the VP this time! Helen Borg Mar 2016 #43
I would love that! nt Logical Mar 2016 #54
President Gabbard? earthside Mar 2016 #51
It'll be the best 16 years in American history! reformist2 Mar 2016 #52
She rocked on Rachel tonight Dem2 Mar 2016 #56
K & R Ivan Kaputski Mar 2016 #60
If only we could clone her . . . Utopian Leftist Mar 2016 #62
I would love to vote for her! vintx Mar 2016 #63

Response to dana_b (Reply #1)

Baobab

(4,667 posts)
42. Elizabeth Warren was my first choice
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 07:43 PM
Mar 2016

I've been reading her papers for 20+ years.

She is perhaps our country's leading expert on financial malfeasance.

Exactly the kind of person we need.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
58. My heart still breaks because she didn't run.
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 06:28 AM
Mar 2016

Seeing how the whole DC party is being hog-tied to Hillary, I'm wondering if she was forced into that decision.

There's NO doubt in my mind, we'd have a President Warren next year if she'd gone for it.

Baobab

(4,667 posts)
59. She's really smart and she's 100% behind the people and the country
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 11:54 AM
Mar 2016

And not the "too big to fail" banks, which are that way because of a Clinton-era FTA, so "re-electing" a Clinton would be seen internationally as representing an endorsement of a huge body of policy in that little known area that will lead to massive job loss, and our only hope of getting out of it would be showing how not only does the country not know about it, a bunch of people have deliberately kept it from us.

And its really bad. Unbelievably bad. For virtually everyone.

Obama was in on it, likely and Bush likely was in on it too.

There is no way out for us without putting that behind us. But the developing world has been strung along on these promises of Mode IV jobs - (in exchange for Mode Three concessions) for 20 years (with the admonition not to talk about it because its a sensitive subject to us) so its not going to be pretty.

 

Betty Karlson

(7,231 posts)
9. Provided Miss Stein helps the Democratic Party to trash Third Way ideology, and becomes
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 05:20 PM
Mar 2016

a Democrat herself in recognition of President sanders's accomplishments...

Yeah, sure, why not?

But Elizabeth Warren would be a good candidate too.

So would Nina Turner.

So would...

This could become a very long list. There are so many women dedicated to the wellbeing of the nation, and by 2024, so many who will be supremly qualified.

It baffles me to think that there are deluded souls who believe Clinton is the only shot women have at the White House. By the way: why nominate the one woman who doesn't care (as per her payday-lenders-friendly votes and her ties to Wall Street, her ties to the prison industry, at alii) about the well-being of the nation (nor the well-being of other nations, see her war vote record) and who has disqualified herself by always being one of the last to do the right thing? Why nominate the one candidate who is likely to doom our chances of taking back the Senate and the House, and might even lose the White House because she is thorooughly distrusted by Independents?

Why nominate a candidate who represents everything wrong with the status quo, and who is likely to do everything to prolong that untenable state we are in?

We need a female leader, not a female follower.

Baobab

(4,667 posts)
44. No need to trash them, the loss of 30 million or more jobs will do it.
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 07:45 PM
Mar 2016

What they call a race to the bottom.

Baobab

(4,667 posts)
61. there are several things involved, one of them is good, technology
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 12:29 PM
Mar 2016

and that is pretty much unstoppable.

But, that process is more gradual and could be addressed in no small part by rising to the challenge, globally, which would be a win win for everybody..

But instead they went with the worst possible approach for people and the best for the global multinationals, waving out the high perceived value service jobs..

Thats the so called "progressive liberalisation" (the two words in their trade context mean "irreversible disinvestment&quot that is the jobs for concessions scheme -


Either its true, and negotiations are almost completed, and they will find a way to hide it, or its a scam, a bit like ElDorado, its frequently been compared to those legends which were told to the Conquistadores to get them to send armies into trackless deserts, where they would presumably die of thirst.. If that is true, its a dirty trick played on the less developed nations by the most developed nations, with the jobs of millions of Americans and workers in other developed but non-unionized countries - with public sectors and government spending that can be liberalised..by means of the WTO revised GPA e-tendering e-portal.

Corporations from any member country can win them, if they can be the winning lowest qualified bidder. Countries have "disciplines on domestic regulation" to make sure they don't put obstacles in the way, like high minimum wages that will nullify the competitive advantage of the less developed countries, lots of skilled workers who will work for very low wages, temporarily. (the movement of natural persons provisions are not immigration)

Attempting to make it impossible for countries to maintain any kind of services if they compete with even a single commercial provider in the same service sector (thats what GATS and its plurilateral progeny do, in the newer deals case aggressively using a scope based on opt out instead of GATS opt in) and THEN in effect trading the newly created privatized jobs (by means of global competitive bidding) for concessions overseas, is profoundly bad policy on a great many levels.

We dont need to speed up the race to the bottom, thats lunacy, because its going to require a lot of global soul searching as to how we make a smooth transition without global self destruction- Because - in case people dont know this, we've known for quite some time that by midcentury, we'll have self aware machines that can do literally any human job for less than any person, tirelessly.

What a mess.

INdemo

(6,994 posts)
46. Agree ...but if she was running now she would be put through all the
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 07:55 PM
Mar 2016

negative attacks that Bernie Sanders is going through. Hillary has assembled a staff of advisers that are attack dogs.They have learned from those that wrote the book on Negative Campaigns. . Lee Atwarter and Karl Rove. Hillary has been running for President for 30 years and who knows,as active as she was during her husbands tenure,this could be her Third Term she's campaigning for.
Whether it be Bernie Sanders,Elizabeth Warren or whomever.she has been putting this staff together for eight years and she
will not be denied...........................But she is going to lose.

 

litlbilly

(2,227 posts)
48. I just think, at this time in history, things are different. things can be debunked so fast
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 07:57 PM
Mar 2016

now, they wont be able to get away with the old way of doing things.

awake

(3,226 posts)
7. She would not just make a great Pres. She would be a Great Demeracrcat Pres.
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 05:11 PM
Mar 2016

She like Bernie is the real deal!

INdemo

(6,994 posts)
55. Yes she would be a great VP but she would also be a great Senate Majority Leader too
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 12:09 AM
Mar 2016

Could you imagine?

 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
12. +100. I'll bet she regrets, now, not throwing her hat in the ring,
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 05:28 PM
Mar 2016

in light of Hillary's weakness. I certainly would have been behind her 100%.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
13. I think she was given a talking to by the leaders of the Party. They told her
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 05:45 PM
Mar 2016

it wasn't her turn and they wouldn't help her if she ran. Bernie was aware of that but he didn't care.

I would hate to see her wasted as VP. She would do great as Treasury Sec.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
47. I am sure they told her that if she ran against HRC she wouldn't get any super-delegates.
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 07:55 PM
Mar 2016

Maybe the promised her a good appointment. Not that she should trust them.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
14. One election at a time. What we need, first and foremost, is a GOOD President
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 05:52 PM
Mar 2016

who will work for all of us, not just a few.

 

Gwhittey

(1,377 posts)
17. Warren
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 06:33 PM
Mar 2016

As United States Secretary of the Treasury under Bernie. If god forbid HRC gets in do you think if we start a kickstart to raise a couple million dollars we could bribe err I mean donate to get it done?

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
49. Hell no. I bet Goldman-Sachs and the Banksters already have people in mind for Clinton's
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 07:58 PM
Mar 2016

cabinet. I have nightmares of an "Alan Greenspan, I'll Do Better This Time", sequel.

white_wolf

(6,238 posts)
23. What's her record like?
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 06:40 PM
Mar 2016

I know she's anti-war and supporting Bernie, but I've heard she has some conservative leanings. I could be wrong though since it was the Clinton camp I heard it from.

padfun

(1,780 posts)
27. I think if Bernie picked Tulsi as his VP,
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 06:51 PM
Mar 2016

she would be the next President. And I think Bernie is going to do only 4 years.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
31. And what is your reasoning...
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 06:58 PM
Mar 2016

For qualifying gender?

I have seen Warren called every name in the book here. Even as far as saying she fits better with the Republican Party today. She wouldn't last a second with Sanders supporters. Dare I say she is pragmatic.

Second, when did Sanders win the nomination? He has lost more elections than Clinton has been in.

MidwestTech

(170 posts)
32. OK THAT I can agree with
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 07:01 PM
Mar 2016

LOL I damn near tore you several strips off.
We need a competent person in office. One who is capable, intelligent, compassionate but can make the hard decisions.
race and gender need not be factors.
I don't care if the next 40 presidents are old white men as long as they can ensure prosperity for everyone, any gender, skin color or ethnic background.

We were all so balls to the walls hardcore 8 years ago for a first X president that BOTH major candidates ended up actually being nothing but Milquetoast republicans.

I don't care that Bernie is 73 and jewish... he's a compassionate person who has over FIFTY YEARS of being that person in his personal and political life!

I don't care that Elizabeth Warren is a woman... only that she's an amazing person, dedicated to helping others, and quite competent at it.I don't care that Hillary is a woman.

I care that I can't see much daylight between her and a traditional republican. A few slivers of conscience do not a progressive make.

Ferd Berfel

(3,687 posts)
33. 8 yrs of Bernie in teh WH and Warren in the Senate
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 07:08 PM
Mar 2016

would be awesome.

Hell, Jesus might even wanta come back after THAT!



leftcoastmountains

(2,968 posts)
37. I think issues are far more important than
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 07:27 PM
Mar 2016

whether we have a female president.
Elizabeth Warren would be great.

Dustlawyer

(10,493 posts)
40. K&R!!! You definetley want the first woman President to be a good one, not marred by exceptional
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 07:39 PM
Mar 2016

scandal or under investigation for Federal crimes. What kind of message would that send? Warren would be a great one for sure!!!

earthside

(6,960 posts)
51. President Gabbard?
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 08:19 PM
Mar 2016

If Sanders picked Tulsi Gabbard (or another woman) as the vice presidential nominee and the convention approved, she would be the most likely first woman president.

Now, I think Bernie is a likely one term president ... out of his personal choice.

So, I would love to see a woman president of the United States, but one who achieved that by merit and not by marriage.

If Sen. Sanders has a woman vice presidential nominee candidate, we will see our first woman president within the lifetimes of most American alive today.

Dem2

(8,166 posts)
56. She rocked on Rachel tonight
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 12:20 AM
Mar 2016

Loved how she ripped the Republicans a new one on the Senate floor over their obstructionism and extremism - Rachel showed nearly the entire speech.

Utopian Leftist

(534 posts)
62. If only we could clone her . . .
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 03:06 PM
Mar 2016

she could be Bernie's Veep, a Supreme Court Justice, and the Senate Majority Leader, too!

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»We need a female presiden...