Judging from an off-hand remark Elizabeth Warren made while speaking with People Magazine, she seems

[Cal33]

to be reconsidering her previously firm statements about not running for the presidency. This ought to
give rise to the hopes of some Warren fans. I sure feel good about it. There ought to be others.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/would-warren-really-run_b_6051424.html?utm_hp_ref=elizabeth-warren

[NYC_SKP]

1. Warren can take it away from Hillary. She can take it right away like Obama did.

Hillary has name recognition and bucks, but she doesn't appeal to a broad base.

Warren, OTOH, can speak to the middle class, the disenfranchised, people in both parties and, most importantly, to the independents and registered Republicans who are not happy with the status quo.

Warren has no baggage and has passion that's evident and appealing to the greatest number of voters.

Given the ground game and organization that Obama had, and some good ads, she'll take it from Clinton!

[Cal33]

2. Yes, I agree with you. Warren certainly has great appeal with the grassroots. Proof: She raised

$43 million when she was running for the Senate -- almost all from the grassroots.
This is the most money ever raised in senate-race history. She does appeal to
the masses because she is working for the middle-class and the have-nots.

It's about time somebody did. I feel that if she does become president, there is a
strong chance that she will reverse the political trend which has been going more
and more to the right since the past 40 - 50 years. If anyone can make the trend
turn left, she is the one to do it.

[ladjf]

3. I believe that you are correct. She has more and better

communication skills than Ms. Clinton. And, her broad knowledge base gives here an edge.

[Cal33]

5. Brains, integrity and a strong passion to raise the whole country up from the gutter. What a

combination!! Many instinctively know that here, finally, is someone we can safely trust!
She is a winner.

[NYC_SKP]

6. All one has to do is imagine them in a one on one debate.

It would be a trouncing, the real deal versus someone well-practiced in saying the right thing with very little authenticity to back it up.

[Cal33]

7. I'd rather not have them debate. I think it possible that Elizabeth, out of courtesy, might not

want to say negative things about Hillary -- after all, they're both members of the same party.

[former9thward]

8. Ahh, we have debates during the election.

In the same party...

[Cal33]

15. wouldn't it be nice, if Hillary, for whatever reason, wouldn't run? :)

[NYC_SKP]

21. That would require a quality that she lacks.

So we will have to fight, I reckon!

[former9thward]

23. Honestly I would rather not have either Clinton or Warren run.

I do not favor people eligible for social security to run for president. I want some younger blood and younger ideas in the job.

[Cal33]

27. Warren's ideas are "young" enough for me. I wish some young people I know had them the way

she does. Being young in spirit could be more relevant than being young in years.

[LawDeeDah]

31. I want to see her in the debates.

Would be fantastic entertainment, especially if she was up against Warren and Sanders. I think I would pay my t.v. to watch that.

[NYC_SKP]

9. Good point. Maybe responses to a survey...

Of course that could go bad too depending on the questions asked.

[pablo_marmol]

10. I agree. Clinton would have *much* less problem going negative than Warren.

Liked this from the article:

And unlike Clinton, Warren is a woman who made it in politics on her own, and not as half of a couple whose husband was president first.

Oh ZING!

[Cal33]

16. Yes! That point hit home with me, too. People just admire her for her guts in raising points

that few others would dare to do -- challenging and calling out the big bankers, making them
squirm during investigations.

It's quite possible that if she became president, the corporate big wigs on Wall Street would
hate her and treat her more badly than they are treating Obama now. She wouldn't hesitate
in going after those big gangsters.

[LawDeeDah]

32. She would have a really hard time too.

And the first thing she couldn't pull off because of obstruction or the many reasons that things don't always go well in Washington, many will turn on her and stab her in the back and call her names like piece of shit.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

39. Exactly

Some people already wrote off President Obama- in 2009- when the size and scope of the Republican obstruction machine was getting into gear and he had to start making compromises to get his agenda through (i.e. public option). The same people would write off/abandon Warren (or Hillary or whomever) the instant they have to shift from campaigning to governing and continue to stay home in midterms, thus keeping the cycle of Democratic Presidents and Republican-dominated Congresses (after the first 2 years) alive and well.

[azureblue]

13. I see

A Clinton / Warren ticket, with Clinton as President, and Warren a very active VP, like almost a co - presidency..

[Samantha]

14. I was thinking about asking this question on DU this evening

Is it possible Clinton might ask Warren to consider running with her? It clears up the confusion over Warren's statement this week, words to the effect, "it is amazing the doors that might open...." People excitedly wondered if she was walking back the "I am not running for President" statement -- which she has uttered a myriad of times.

The next day, however, Warren made that same latter statement in an interview on MSNBC. One might think he or she could reconcile these two statements with the thinking that Clinton has asked Warren to consider running with her. What a stellar move if Hillary has done this! Two strong females running on the same ticket would excite many Americans. Additionally, Hillary would preempt the problem of Warren running as number two for someone like Bernie Sanders.

I am not fully a Hillary convert, but if this is in the works I would have to salute her political smarts in that maneuver.

What do you think?

Sam

[Cal33]

17. I would like a Warren-Clinton ticket, yes. A Clinton-Warren ticket would mean a

prolongation of the corruption that has been gradually increasing for the past
half-century. This nation is already in the gutter. We need to start trying to
get out of it, not go further in.

Actually, it would be hard to see either lady accepting second place. Their
views on how our country should go are so radically different -- they are
almost direct opposites. Cramming their differences into one sentence, Clinton
is for expanding Wall Street, while Warren is for reining the giant Al Capone in.
She has asked the question if there were any big bankers in jail, has she not?
And more than once.

[NYC_SKP]

24. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! Like mixing oil and water, a cat with a dog, it'll never happen.

First of all, Hillary would never share the limelight and attention of being the first woman in that office with another woman as VP.

Sorry, but I think she's an egomaniac.

Second, their points of view are so divergent that it just wouldn't and couldn't work.

Warren as President, Clinton can be a Senator or something if she wants.

[AndreaCG]

26. That would be my choice too.

I think things are different from 2008 as Hillary's tenure as SOS left people not obsessed with Benghazi largely thinking she did a good job. I'm not sure we here are totally reflective of all democrats. And certainly not independents. (No they can't vote in the primaries but they could contribute $ to her)

[brooklynite]

20. "Warren can take it away from Hillary".....

Remind me when Obama endorsed Hillary Clinton before running against her?

[marlakay]

42. She can do it but the question is does she want to put her family through it?

Hillary folks as she well knows will be pulling out all the stops and going after any even slightly negative thing about her or anyone in her family.

I would love for her to run but would feel sorry for her and her family the whole time knowing what they would do to her.

And what about her husband? We never see him, he would have to get out there to make it work. The last few times we had candidate where you could tell their spouse was not into it, didn't do well in the end. Howard Dean comes to mind, I liked him and his wife but she held back wanting to keep her career. I don't blame her but it might have cost him.

[AtomicKitten]

4. Fingers crossed.

[pablo_marmol]

11. Hold on to the Senate.......

.....and elect Elizabeth Warren?

Dare I dream?

[JudyM]

18. I wish. But she sounded pretty definitive on Diane Rehm's show yesterday (link to transcript)

REHM: And, finally, Senator Warren, lots of Democrats still hoping you'll run for president. Are you thinking about it?

WARREN: I am not.

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2014-10-27/the_risks_of_income_inequality

[demwing]

40. Clearly, this means only one thing...

Warren is done "thinking about it," and has decided to run.

[Cal33]

43. You may be doubtful about it all you wish, but the possibility is there that because of the

possibilities of changes in the political situation -- we still have 2 years to Nov. 2016 --
nobody can foresee what might happen between now and then.

[demwing]

44. I hope she does run

but it's comical to see people wrestle with words to squeeze out meaning that isnt really there.

[brooklynite]

19. The problem with dreaming is that eventually you wake up...

Do you seriously believe that Warren would pitch her change of heart to People Magazine?

I had lunch with her a few weeks ago. She wasn't inclined to reconsider then, and she's STILL on record encouraging that DLC-Third Way Neo-con Hillary Clinton to run.

[Cal33]

22. I suppose you're right, but I think our nation can be prevented from going entirely down the drain

only with people like Warren, Sanders, Grayson.... They have the guts to oppose Wall Street's
kingmakers. But, I still prefer Hillary over any Republican. She would delay the fall of the ax
a little longer, at least.

[LawDeeDah]

29. I'm sure Elizabeth would share her deepest thoughts with you

just because you ate lunch together.

[brooklynite]

33. Wheras you can tell her thoughts from a PEOPLE MAGAZINE article?

[LawDeeDah]

34. Warren is very articulate, she is very clear in thinking and communicating.

If I had lunch with Elizabeth I wouldn't expect to be privy to her plans for 2016 like I wouldn't expect her to give me her PIN number.

[brooklynite]

35. So when she told us she wasn't thinking of running for President she was lying to us?

[LawDeeDah]

36. Not lying. I think Hillary said that at one time, so did Obama.

This does not make them liars. It would be foolish suicide to announce too early and maybe she, Warren, hasn't made her final decision yet but is inching closer to a YES! Why does this frighten so many Hillary people?

[AtomicKitten]

37. I read that Bernie Sanders is waiting for Elizabeth to jump in.

That gave me renewed hope that Elizabeth is seriously mulling it over. Fingers crossed.

[TeamPooka]

25. She would have my vote if she runs. nt

[wyldwolf]

28. Ya gotta love the technique writers are employing to get you guys excited.

It always goes like this:

1. Take a Warren interview or quote where the question of her candidacy is asked.
2. After Warren answers in a way that usually sounds like "Haven't I already answered this? Yeah, whatever, give it a rest, I have other work to do" the writer parses the quote. "That wasn't a 'no!" or "Gee, that was vague, I can draw my own conclusions, anything she's said previously be damned."
3. Repeat the same talking points on Hillary Clinton.
3. Warren supporters: SHE'S RUNNING! I KNEW IT! WOO HOO!!!

[LawDeeDah]

30. I must have missed the news, Hillary is officially running?

I didn't think anyone has yet because it's just too early.

Wishing Warren runs is not so different from wishing Hillary runs, except to the folks that are Ready for Hillary and have her throne polished and ready and no interlopers and disturbances, please! lol

[wyldwolf]

38. No, but Warren has said she is NOT running.

[NYC_SKP]

41. Warren: "I Drink Your Milkshake."