Elizabeth Warren says she has no interest in presidential run

[Cali_Democrat]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) insisted in a recent interview with The New York Times that she does not plan to seek the presidency.

"In the interview, Warren, 64, said twice that she had no interest in running for president, a point her aides amplify privately," reported The Times. "But she said she would continue to focus on economic fairness, saying it is the signal issue of the day."

Still, if Hillary Clinton decides not to run in 2016, David Axelrod, a former adviser to President Barack Obama, said Warren may be more likely to reconsider.

“If Hillary doesn’t run, I bet there will be plenty of folks, particularly on the left, urging her to look at it,” Axelrod said, according to The Times. Axelrod called Warren an "electric figure" among progressives.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/elizabeth-warren-president_n_4016319.html

[geek tragedy]

1. People who don't want the job never get elected as President.

Who does get elected--or even nominated?

People who want it really, really bad, and who are obvious about how much they want it.

[LuvNewcastle]

2. "If Hillary Clinton decides not to run..."

If snow falls in Hell, if bankers become generous, if fundies become Christ-like, then maybe she'll run.

[BainsBane]

3. That's wont stop anyone around here

from insisting she is their choice for President. It didn't stop them when she said this a couple of months ago.

[Chan790]

4. That's nice.

I'm still not supporting Hillary Clinton.

[Cali_Democrat]

5. Hillary won't be the only one running

There will be others. Just because Warren is not interested in running, it doesn't mean that Hillary will be the only candidate.

[FSogol]

14. Martin O'Malley and Brian Schweitzer are both preparing to run.

There will be others.

[HappyMe]

15. Good.

[FSogol]

18. PS. Amy Klobuchar and Joe Biden also visited Iowa over the summer. n/t

[DevonRex]

6. We have to STOP focusing on the presidency. No power there

in economic terms. At least for what we need to get done. Every single thing people complain about here is legislative in nature regarding economic interests. And regarding most things. Congress can rein in most everything people here complain about regarding national security as well. And they can obviously stop anything the president wants to do. So Warren should stay in the Senate.

[NoOneMan]

7. "I am not running for president in four years. I am not running for president in 2008" - Obama

The 2014 elections haven't even happen yet.

[Laelth]

8. LOL.

Now that's just funny! You're pulling out an essay from September 30, 2013 ... for what reason, exactly?

You do realize that Barack Obama was saying he had no intention of running for President three years before his successful 2008 campaign, don't you? Of course you do.

I don't really want to question your motives. That's bad form, but I would ask you to think twice before stomping on us liberals. Hippie-punching is fun, I suppose, but it really isn't necessary on the premier internet forum for American liberal discussion, is it?



-Laelth

[Cali_Democrat]

10. Posting this article is "stomping on liberals"? Posting this is "hippie-punching"?

How do you come up with this?

[Laelth]

11. I am not going to question your motives any further.

In fact, I apologize for doing so above. Only you know why you started this thread.

Peace.



-Laelth

[Cali_Democrat]

12. Yes....my motive was to stomp on liberals and punch hippies!!

[FSogol]

13. I think we should retire the phrase "hippie-punching" every time someone disagrees with somebody.

The summer of love was 45 years ago. Even the youngest hippies are in their 60s and I don't think anyone is encouraging senior citizen-punching.

[Laelth]

17. I don't know.

It's not uncommon to see Democrats on this forum lashing out against their allies on the left. I need a good word to describe that phenomenon. If there's a better one than "hippie-punching," I'd be glad to use it.



-Laelth

[Cali_Democrat]

20. I didn't realize that when I posted this article, I was actually "lashing out" against hippies

and liberals.

Please forgive me.

[littlewolf]

9. too bad. she would be an awesome candidate. nt

[Laelth]

16. Some of us believe that she can be recruited.

Noam Scheiber's recent essay in The New Republic says this:

she is relentlessly, perhaps ruthlessly, maybe even a bit messianically, focused on advancing her policy agenda. Everything else is merely instrumental.

This is what the banking industry and its Republican allies (as well as internal opponents like Geithner) didn’t fully appreciate when they effectively killed Warren’s hopes of permanently heading the consumer agency in 2011. Anyone who knows Warren will tell you she had no particular ambition to be a senator. She decided that the Senate would suffice as a way to agitate for her issues only when Obama stiffed her for the CFPB job—an enormous disappointment after she spent months lining up support among banks.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare

It appears that Elizabeth Warren doesn't care how she achieves her goals. With the right encouragement, she might be convinced that the best way for her to achieve her goals would be by running for President. That's what some of us are hoping, in any event.

I have a thread on the topic here.

Cheers!

-Laelth