Elizabeth Warren, Not Hillary Clinton, Should Be the Next President of the United States

[monmouth3]

<snip>

Also, has anyone ever heard Clinton say anything close to the poignant and forthright statements of Elizabeth Warren on a number of issues dear to the heart of Americans? A 2014 Gallup poll states that jobs, government, and the economy are the most important issues to voters, and with each topic, Elizabeth Warren's words and ideas are superior to those of Hillary Clinton. On poverty, Warren's shot across the bow at Paul Ryan is a prime example of her willingness to attack prominent Republicans on their stances:

Paul Ryan looks around, sees three unemployed workers for every job opening in America, and blames the people who can't find a job... Paul Ryan says don't blame Wall Street: the guys who made billions of dollars cheating American families...Paul Ryan says keep the monies flowing to the powerful corporations, keep their huge tax breaks, keep the special deals for the too-big-to-fail banks and put the blame on hardworking, play-by-the-rules Americans who lost their jobs.

Has Hillary Clinton ever directly addressed a top Republican in such a bold and provocative manner? If anything, she's usually busy defending herself from baseless attacks by Karl Rove or other pundits.

On the issue of Wall Street regulation, Warren introduced a new Glass-Steagall Act for the 21st Century. As a member of the Senate Banking Committee, Warren grilled banking regulators on their role in the financial collapse. According to a Los Angeles Times article, Warren addressed banking regulators in a manner that resonates with the feelings of most Americans:

<snip> More at:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/elizabeth-warren-not-hill_b_5491171.html

[mylye2222]

1. K&R..

I never liked her anymore since she engaged herself ik politics.

[ladjf]

2. I agree. But, I would definitely vote for Clinton if she becomes the nominee. nt

[Baitball Blogger]

6. +1

[NorthCarolina]

15. I hope Warren runs, I'm not anxious to vote again while holding my nose.

In fact, I'm way past tired of doing just that. I know the DLC has always relied on, and been successful with, "who else you gonna vote for?", but I am looking forward to a time where we actually have real choice in elections.

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. This is more a function of the lack of ...

candidates that would represent a "real choice" on the Left that are willing to run in primaries. If anything, the Cantor loss is instructive that the "all powerful DLC "is in the way, is merely a narrative to mask the lack of "real choice" candidates on the Left, and/or the lack of support that these candidates could/would garner.

[Rockyj]

218. People need to completly read this artical to understand...

how important it is to NOT vote for another CORPORATE OWNED Democrat in office again!
AMERICA is NOT a MONARCHY SO WHY VOTE for A CORPORATE OWNED Clinton? NAFTA?

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24121-the-specter-of-authoritarianism-and-the-future-of-the-left-an-interview-with-henry-a-giroux#.U5tLHbtqHQI.gmail

[billhicks76]

226. She Just Lost My Vote

She just took sides against Snowden. Not a surprise. She's closer to Bush than she is to my beliefs. Done. Goodbye.
I love Ray McGoverns editorial today at commondreams. https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/06/13-4

[mimi85]

219. I'd like her to run

however I doubt she'll get the nomination. Not only is she "new" but she doesn't have the prerequisite husband and cute kid(s). I absolutely don't mean to be sexist, unfortunately that's the way politics seem to be. I'm not voting for Hillary, I'll write in Warren or a person yet to be determined. Lots can happen between now and Nov 2016.

I think we should focus on the midterms now and GOTV!

[grahamhgreen]

92. Depends. What is her stance on Iraq... Now?

In my view, we don't need to spend another 6 trillion to wind up in tithe same position 10 years hence.

[ladjf]

96. That's a good point. I voted for Obama over Clinton because

of her stance on the Iraq issue. It was a mistake then and would be if we tried to go in a try to "fix it". It's a bona fide mess. Thanks Bush and your henchmen.

[sabrina 1]

121. Hillary voted for Iraq and continued to vote to fund while in the Senate. That is why I did not

support her in 2008 and won't ever. Sometimes it is a matter of conscience, and knowing as we did, though she claims she didn't, what this war would be like, we opposed it but she supported it. Now, even more than when we were trying to stop it, seeing the years of brutal carnage, the untold numbers of innocent lives lost, the number of US Troops sacrificed, dead, maimed, both physically and emotionally, not to mention the huge numbers who took their own lives, there is NO way I personally could support her. She should have known better. No powerful position is worth casting a vote like that.

[closeupready]

150. And years later, continued denying that she had anything to apologize for.

[sabrina 1]

237. Yes. I frankly have no idea how anyone who supported this horrific crime can sleep at night.

[tomp]

234. clinton lied in her position on iraq.

anyone with two neurons to rub together knew there were no wmd's and knew the risk of clusterfuck would be high. if she says any different she's either lying or two stupid to hold office. and i think we all know she's not stupid.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

252. I'd go with the former. Hillary is highly intelligent, no doubt.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

251. Precisely. Send Bush and "His Brain" Rove over there - they broke it, let them fix it.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

168. Hillary's waiting to see which way the wind is blowing before expousing the Third Way position.

[tavalon]

178. She is Third Way

No need to bring attention to it. I know what kind of queen I'm electing with her, but I'll do it anyway. Hoping, against hope, that she paves the way for Elizabeth Warren. And during her full tenure (HRCs), Senator Warren will be doing the same fabulous job she's been doing in the Senate.

I don't want to see a primary knock down between Warren and Clinton. Warren had it easy with her Senatorial race (relatively) but Clinton knows every Washington dirty trick. I don't want her going after Warren. Then again, Warren needs seasoning and what better than getting pit against HRC?

[Le Taz Hot]

201. Warren had it easy during her Senatorial race?

She was 20 points down and no money in the bank to speak of. She was recruited, started from scratch and her support was truly grass-roots with the vast majority of her donations being of the $5.00 and $10.00 variety. She was running against an incumbent with virtually unlimited monies, Koch and Wall-street backed and she STILL won. She earned every single vote. I don't see how you could possibly frame that as "easy."

Clinton knows every Washington dirty trick because her and her husband have been the authors of same.

[tavalon]

257. Her opponent handed it to her in the end, but no, I didn't mean it that way at all

It was here unworthy opponents to win and he dropped kicked it. But she deserved it, for sure and I was one of the pieces of the grass in that one. Am I thrilled with HRC? No. If she is the anointed, will I vote for her. Yes. I don't want to see Warren go against HRC because HRC is our Maggie Thatcher. I don't want to see Warren go through that. OTOH, Obama made it through, so she could too.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

205. To be honest, after Hillary's shaky rollout this week, she's the one who needs seasoning. Elizabeth's the one who could teach her a thing or two.

[JDPriestly]

215. It's not Warren after Hillary.

Elizabeth Warren was born June 22, 1949.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren

Hillary Clinton was born October 26, 1947.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

It's one or the other.

They won't be nominated on the same ticket either because they are both from the Northeast.

[wyldwolf]

3. Clinton isn't a lock and Warren say she isn't running

A year from now, we could see a landscape that doesn't include either of them. I don't think '16 is going to be cakewalk for anyone.

[Dawgs]

5. Warren has NEVER said that she's not running in 2016. n/t

[billhicks76]

16. Warren Has My Vote

If I had to vote for Hillary maybe I'd do it but I would have to throw up in my mouth as I did. Actually I would vote 3rd party because I live in a safe state where no one but a small % of people would vote for the idiot republican.

[wyldwolf]

34. "I'm not running for president and I plan to serve out my term"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/12/04/elizabeth-warren-i-am-not-running-for-president/

"Warren has NEVER said that she's not running in 2016."

No, but she's pledged to serve out her senate term, which would preclude her from running in 2016.

Is it time for you to tell us what she actually meant?

[pscot]

53. "I plan to serve out my term"

is not a pledge. As we all know, the best laid plans may change according to circumstances.

[wyldwolf]

56. Not a pledge? Oh, I left off part of the quote

"I'm not running for president and I plan to serve out my term," Warren said at a news conference for Boston mayor-elect Marty Walsh, the Herald reported. Pressed further, Warren said she would "pledge to serve out my term."

Yeah, people do change their minds, but we shouldn't pretend she's said anything different at this point nor should anyone insinuate they have some sort of insight into her plans the rest of us don't.

[pscot]

60. Hillary isn't running for president either

She's on a book tour.

[wyldwolf]

65. correct

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

169. She WOULD pledge? So, apparently, she hasn't pledged YET. Some wiggle room there.

[wyldwolf]

179. LOL.

[JDPriestly]

217. Have you read Elizabeth Warren's book?

Because if you haven't, you need to read it before you make up your mind about whether she is running.

She will run if the people want her to run. And we do.

[wyldwolf]

231. I have it but haven't begun reading it. Perhaps you can quote the relevant pages.

"you need to read it before you make up your mind about whether she is running."

See, that's the problem each election cycle when people latch onto their dream candidate. You're stating that she will run when WE make up our minds about it. Where in her book does she state or imply that if me, you, or whoever makes up our minds she is running, that she will?

[Hippo_Tron]

248. Writing a book is a good indicator that she's thinking about it...

But I suspect she ultimately decides against it.

[gcomeau]

58. The "I'm not running for president" part seems clear enough. -eom

[totodeinhere]

98. if that's not a pledge I don't know what is. n/t

[Orsino]

258. We are headed into a debate on the meaning of "is."

Is that ironic, or just sad?

[totodeinhere]

260. You have a point. It's probably a little of both. n/t

[closeupready]

139. Nevertheless, the country NEEDS her. Or a Warren clone.

If things aren't getting better, then perhaps we need to think about drafting her.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

170. Now there's an understatement. I think Elizabeth would be responsive to a draft movement demanding that she run.

[TheKentuckian]

241. Quite possibly but it doesn't matter on a fundamental level. Build the movement and someone will

will fill the slot.

Build and they will come. Ignore the economic and political supply siders, if there is demand, someone will fill the the slot.

Warren may turn out to be her own stalking horse or maybe someone else grabs the baton and runs with it but they must have the space and there is no space created by pledges to take whatever is served because then all that is required is to serve something and we know what something we will get, it must be rejected in large and unflinching numbers.

[shaayecanaan]

222. The country needs her in congress

that is where the problem is. If Congress can deliver reform on health or the financial services industry, it doesnt matter who the president is, as long as he or she is a Democrat.

[tavalon]

181. Warren tends to be a woman of her word and she doesn't tend to use weasily words

Two things that make me admire her so much. I'm okay with her not running this time because Clinton, in her politically weasily (oxymoron? That's what politics has become), has declared her possible intention and if she runs, she is a lock, because we will make her a lock. At least I won't be as naive as I was with Obama. That was silly of me and it hurt. He's been an adequate President. Could he have been great had he finished out his term and another one yet, in the Senate? No way to know, but that's one reason I want Warren to stay where she is. Another is that, as a Senator, she is already kicking ass. Why go from there, to figurehead, though I think she would use the bully pulpit better than some.

[rhett o rick]

185. Why is it so very important to continue to say over and over and over that Sen Warren isnt running?

We all know what she said. We may not agree with what YOU hope she meant or maybe we want her to change her mind, but your going over and over what she said and what YOU think that means, ISNT GOING TO CHANGE MY MIND.

If you want a Democratic victory in 2016, nominate a progressive.

[wyldwolf]

188. Apparently "we all" DON'T know what she said.

"We may not agree with what YOU hope she meant..."

More like "we many not want to face the reality of what she said..."

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

61. Actually, I saw a link someone provided where she did

say she vowed to 'finish her term'. Her term runs to 2018. Since she can't both serve as a Senator and President for the two years between 2016-2018, there is no way for her to do so without breaking her vow to serve as a Senator for her entire term.

I'm not saying she might not change her mind, but it would mean actually retracting some of her prior statements.

[Dawgs]

114. She's still a politician, and with politicians NOTHING is set in stone.

And I'm sure almost all of her supporters would forgive her if she went back on her pledge, which I'm almost certain she will.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

116. Of course.

And I'd certainly vote for her.

[Fred Friendlier]

112. If that's the best you've got, Clinton can start measuring the White House for drapes

You people are clutching at straws, when you could be out working for candidates who are actually running. There is an important election coming up in less than six months, remember.

[Dawgs]

113. We'll see.

I would bet anything that Warren is running.

Doesn't matter how you feel.

[CountAllVotes]

9. You'd think the election was next week

2016 is a long way off and people act as if Clinton is the nominee already!

She is not the nominee already and anything can happen between now and 2016!

Thanks for bringing a sane comment to this surge of Pres. Clinton, Pres. Clinton, Pres. Clinton!!

[Gothmog]

157. Can we get past the 2014 midterms

I am focused on Wendy Davis and Leticia van de Putte

[Cheviteau]

165. If Wendy Davis wins...

...I might start once again telling people where I was born and raised.

[Gothmog]

194. There are a number of people working like crazy so that you can do so

This is not going to be easy but it is worth the effort

[calimary]

211. Welcome to DU, Cheviteau!

Glad you're here! We're ALL hoping you can start doing that as of November! And yeah, I'd love to have Elizabeth Warren in the White House. But because she says she's not running, I will absolutely vote for Hillary Clinton. I don't have that much of a problem with her, and I happen to like brains a lot. And I say that as a voter who went with Barack Obama in the primary in 2008 over Hillary - strictly because she voted for the war and he was against it. Hey, who knows? Elizabeth Warren just grows more and more compelling by the week. Who knows how far she might be able to nudge Hillary leftward?

[truedelphi]

163. Spot on and thank you! n/t

[magical thyme]

14. saying you are not running (now) does not preclude

deciding to run next week. She has never said "I will not run for President," only that she currently is not running for president. It's the game they all play while testing the waters.

Deciding to publish an introductory, autobiographical type book at this point in time suggests positioning for a possible run.

Deciding to actively campaign right now for a strategic 2014 race in another, critical state helps the 2014 race....and also just happens to position one for a possible run.

In the meantime, Hillary's ego keeps slipping through her talk. "You only get to live one life." "I have to do what's right for me. Oh, and, uh, the country too."

[wyldwolf]

38. "I'm not running for president and I plan to serve out my term"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/12/04/elizabeth-warren-i-am-not-running-for-president/

"She has never said 'I will not run for President,' only that she currently is not running for president."

No, but she's pledged to serve out her senate term, which would preclude her from running in 2016.

yeah, she could change her mind. But she indeed HAS said she is not running for president and will instead serve out her senate term.

[corkhead]

73. "I am not running for president. I am not running for president in four years...

... I am not running for president in 2008." --Barack Obama, Nov. 3, 2004

[wyldwolf]

78. what's your point?

I'm responding to someone (actually two people) who flat out claimed she's never said she wan't running for president. And I've repeatedly said in this thread she could, indeed, change her mind.

But anyone claiming she's never said those words or anyone trying to parse those words are just wrong.

[corkhead]

79. No need to get defensive. I am agreeing with you and further adding by example

that someone might even say something more specific than Elizabeth Warren has on the subject and later change that position.

[wyldwolf]

85. I'm not being defensive. Sorry If I appeared to be

[zonkers]

224. My sentiments exactly. On a gut level.... I am just not feeling that

Hillary will be Pres. I just don't feel it.

[UTUSN]

4. I will certainly vote for CLINTON if she is the nominee, but the big lesson of Bill CLINTON was:

We need our Dem leaders to keep their personal lives and target-ness from distracting their and our focus on our Dem agenda. Beginning with his Primaries and onto into his tenure, we had to divert our precious time in (supposed) "power" away from our agenda and into just DEFENDING HIM.

Hillary CLINTON has always been almost as big a target for Rethugs. Notice that I'm not making an ideological argument here, just about focus on our Dem agenda.

At this point I like WARREN lots, but thinking she will be a lightening rod. Otoh, Rethugs will attack whomEVER are our leaders, and we need a fighter and we can't pick our leaders according to who the Rethugs will find acceptable to them.

Whoa, it sounds like I circuitously argued myself back around to not caring whether the Rethugs attack Hillary...

[pnwmom]

20. Clinton was a target for behavior that other Presidents had always gotten away with.

Now Obama is a constant target.

ANY DEMOCRAT in office will be a target of the Rethugs from Day 1. It's their new modus operandi, since they no longer have any interest in actual governing.

Yes -- I see by the end of your post you figured out there is no way for a Dem to avoid being a target, no matter who he or she is. Pretty depressing, isn't it?

[Divernan]

99. Other presidents did not publicly humiliate their wives on an international scale.

Bad enough he cheated on her yet again, but he looked her in the eye and convinced her THIS TIME he was innocent, and got her to go on television and lie in his behalf.

Hillary Clinton (left) wrote in her autobiography that she felt 'dumbfounded, heartbroken and outraged' at finding out husband Bill had lied to her and the public about his affair with 22-year-old Monica Lewinsky (right) - an act that ultimately led to his impeachment in 1998

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2555719/Narcisisstic-loony-toon-What-Hillary-Clinton-REALLY-thought-Monica-Lewinsky-revealed-new-secret-papers-moaned-whiney-women.html

Yes, in earlier, pre-worldwide internet times, many presidents, governors, senators, etc., got away with adultery before, during and after holding office. People in the know politically, as well as many reporters, knew - but it was the old boys-will-be-boys attitude, snicker-about-it-in-the-pressroom, what happens on this side of the Potomac, or in Pennsylvania's case, the Susquehanna, stays on this side, etc. that protected them. Perhaps a century from now, if there are any independent historians, they can compile the sordid account of affairs, mistresses, illegitimate children of US political leaders successfully hidden from the clueless American voters.

People in power in the US have a rather sophisticated, European attitude toward sex - it's a de minimis issue - the important thing is how much money or influence a politician can deliver.

[pnwmom]

100. The media covered up for other Presidents so that the wives weren't humiliated.

Clinton only went on television after the Rethugs, with the medias' help, made this an issue.

[Divernan]

106. That was my point!

Times have changed and the media can't cover up, because any leaks or rumors get on the net and force coverage. And that doesn't give Bill a pass for setting his wife up to be even further humiliated.

[Whisp]

164. Yeh, it was the Big Lie stretched over a very long time.

Bill had numerous affairs, that was no secret so why did he lie like that? Maybe he's a compulsive liar - that could fit quite well.

I would have a bit more respect for him (not much tho!) if he had just fessed up and took his lumps, but no, he had to be circus master for that long while. I've always wondered what was happening behind the scenes during that time when everyone was focused on his crotch, whether some nasty legislation slipped by under cover of Clinton's love life. Lots of those nasty laws happened on his watch and I think the 'don't look there, look over here' saying could apply.

But here he is, struttin' around like a king and his family and Lewinski will have to live with humiliation whenever this story is told.

I really don't like that man, this is just one of very many reasons. *brrr.

[bigtree]

24. don't kid yourself. Whitewater was a republlican invention blown into a sex scandal

. . . that they couldn't even prosecute. They could do the exact same thing right now. Take some bullshit issue they've lied about and trumped up, spend millions investigating someone, and picking an unrelated nit to prosecute.

You goddamn better be prepared to defend, because they don't need a actual scandal to scandalmonger, and that can happen to anyone we're not willing to defend.

[UTUSN]

124. All of us Dems have plenty of experience in defending, to the point of fatigue

Just being wistful hoping for a Dem leader who would not play into the Rethugs' hands to the extent that Bill did, who would be personally powerful enough to call them on their b.s. and kick them to the ditch and STAY ON THE policy agenda. Actually, Hillary was my first choice in '08 to the bitter end, when there was no doubt it was over and that she had run an inside-the-box ineffectual campaign, upon which I gave myself over wholly to OBAMA, and since then I have appreciated that there not been the Bill type of distractions and diversions.

And don't worry, I will be a diehard defender of whomever the authentic Dem of the moment to my last breath. Just need some respite to gather strength and somebody like OBAMA who doesn't give that much occasion for needing defense is a recharger of my battery.

[bigtree]

130. I'm sorry, the only difference I see is that there's little appetite for that anymore

. . . no bipartisan support in Congress for any open-ended investigation into a failed land deal that lost money that would produce some meaningless, completely unrelated lie about a private affair.

No one believes that such an effort to appoint a 'special prosecutor' with an unlimited budget and scope couldn't be blown up in the same way. That's why legislators aren't as willing to concede like they did with Whitewater. All sides know what a wasted effort that is, given the outcome of the impeachment of Clinton that had his popularity actually rise and resulted in his acquittal.

Who believes they need a reason? They'll just make one up if they choose to; just like Vince Foster's tragic suicide and Whitewater.

[UTUSN]

176. I'm seeing 2conflicting points: 1) no appetite, no bipartisan support. & 2)They don't need a reason

I agree that they don't need a reason. I disagree that there is no appetite, since the only thing that has stopped ISSA and the various loonies and 'Baggers is that they haven't, up to now, been able to overcome the rest of the Rethugs outright, which they MIGHT do with all the Gerrymandered districts.

You make it sound that Bill and WEINER and EDWARDS gave *no* openings at all for blowing things up (further). I'm not here to re-defend Bill, I had my fill of that, believe me (I did not defend WEINER/EDWARDS), and not here to re-argue the Bill CLINTON situation.

Speaking for me, it is simply one criteria, along with electability and relatability, I will take into consideration in picking my choice of Dem candidate whether that person's behavior will add distraction to the mix, which will drain our energies over to JUST DEFENDING him or her away from working on our Dem agenda. This is quite separate from whether wingnuts make up scandals and blow things up.

[bigtree]

189. it was a bogus reason and the public and legislators let them know that

. . . the bar is much higher now.

I still don't discount the open-ended investigation that produced the petty lie that had absolutely nothing to do with governance and is completely none of my business if the Pres doesn't want me to know.

[Le Taz Hot]

7. This will get some chonies in a bunch.

K & R for Elizabeth Warren who is not running for you-know-what!11!1!1

[Divernan]

57. And Hillary CAN SO do "poignant." (channeling Bob Boudelang)

She'll get a focus group and her writers on this immediately! I am so sick of her classic political look: Huge smile, lifted eyebrows and finger pointing at some implied buddy in the audience.

[WillyT]

8. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[NCTraveler]

10. I would say the person whom earns the most votes deserves to be the next President. nt.

[DesertDiamond]

11. I totally agree!

[monmouth3]

12. Let me clarify that if HRC gets the nom then she gets my vote. Cruz or whomever they put up is a no

go for me. c'mon Elizabeth, do it for the team!

[woo me with science]

13. Corporate Democrats and Republicans are ushering in fascism.

No hyperbole. This country cannot survive much more of this. No more corporatists and warmongers, period. The Third Way is a deliberate, infiltrating, antidemocratic cancer in our party, and it must be excised. We have to reject candidates like Clinton and demand representation back.

K&R

[Scuba]

47. + Eighty Gazillion

[zeemike]

63. I could not agree more.

Fascism is a merger of state and corporations...and our political leaders seem to be for that.
Time for real change, and I know of no better person than Warren to bring that on...not to mention she is the most articulate and the sharpest of them all.

[corkhead]

82. You are not a true Democrat unless you are for ALL Democrats

I learned that on Democratic Underground

You are not a true Scotsman either!

[Raksha]

144. I couldn't agree more!

Personally, I am even MORE afraid of Third Way Democrats like Hillary Clinton than I am of Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin or the most insane Dominionist teabagger the Republicans can come up with, for precisely that reason. Third Way Democrats fly under the radar, pretending to be progressives until after the election, when they show their true colors. We've all seen it happen more than once, and at some point it has to stop.

I seem to be in the minority in stating that I will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances--but then I live in a safely blue state where a third party candidate isn't likely to be a spoiler. But I would much prefer if she isn't the Democratic nominee, and there's no law saying she has to be.

Re "No more corporatists and warmongers, period. The Third Way is a deliberate, infiltrating, antidemocratic cancer in our party, and it must be excised. We have to reject candidates like Clinton and demand representation back."

[Enthusiast]

146. +1

an entire shit load.

[MisterP]

148. the more a party is destroyed and emptied of actual policy, the MORE they "wave the bloody

shirt"

[Howler]

166. right on the money!

Has usual woo me with science!!!

[pnwmom]

17. Should and could aren't the same thing.

Since she apparently hasn't started to build a national organization, I don't see how she could win.

[Le Taz Hot]

27. It's being built for her. It's called grass-roots populism,

something with which Hillary Clinton is completely unfamiliar. If Warren runs for the nomination, the differences will be stark and NOT in favor of the establishment, Wall-Street, Goldman-Sachs backed Hillary.

[brooklynite]

117. Please share with us...

"Grass Roots Populism" is a nice buzz phrase, but running for President (or drafting someone to do so) requires real people to do real work: writing letters and op-eds, securing political and financial commitments in advance, identifying staff before they're snapped up by another candidate, etc. So far the only effort I've seen is someone designing a "Draft Elizabeth Warren" sig line. If there's a REAL effort, please let us all know; I'm sure lots of other progressives will want to know where to sign up.

[Raksha]

182. Exactly! n/t

[lululu]

18. Uncle Joe Biden should be the next President of the United States

but, failing that, I would certainly prefer Elizabeth Warren over Ms WarLover.

[Le Taz Hot]

22. Would that be the same Joe Biden

who never met a credit card company he wouldn't sell his soul for? The same Joe Biden who made a deal with the Republicans during the Clarence Thomas hearing that ensured 3 more witnesses against Thomas would not testify and therefore ushered in Clarence Thomas, wholely unqualified for the USSC, into the USSC? That Joe Biden?

People need to do less cheerleading and more research.

[totodeinhere]

103. We are not stupid. We know Biden's record already. Of course he is not perfect as no politician is.

But Biden is a much better liberal than Clinton. If it came down to those two I would be for Joe.

[Le Taz Hot]

119. Biden ushered in the new Bankruptcy Bill.

Biden, actually, is no better than Clinton and I would venture to say, even worse. I'll never forget his hand in the Clarence Thomas nomination. No one is expecting perfection and that is the usual, tired, Establishment Democrat wolfcry that, honestly, nobody takes seriously anymore, if they ever did. If I'm going to vote for a Democrat, I expect them to be a Democrat and not just in name only.

[closeupready]

141. Ultimately, that is the primary reason I can't support him.

He helped make the lives of ordinary citizens worse by making it harder to reorganize their financial affairs using the protection of the US government.

Thus, if he were in CHARGE of the US government, I'd be concerned that - in kind - he'd not oppose changing things such that ordinary people are further cast adrift.

[totodeinhere]

160. I think it's ludicrous to suggest that Biden is a Democrat in name only.

He has been a Democratic office holder for better than 40 years. This is the same Joe Biden that pushed President Obama to change his position on gay marriage. Actually, I opposed that bankruptcy bill. But lets wait until Senator Warren has been a Democratic office holder for more than 40 years and see if we can't cherry pick some bill that she supported that we disagree with.

[mylye2222]

23. K&R..

Mrs WarLover. Thas suits her well. I would ad Midd Corporatist.

[bvar22]

140. The Senator from WalMart.

I don't believe the American Working Class can survive another Free Trading, In-Sourcing, Anti-LABOR, Wall Street Bailing, War Mongering, Republican-Lite President.
Would you like some fries with that?

[mylye2222]

143. Yes. Definetly to me Hillary is nothing more than DINO.

[Enthusiast]

147. You would win the bet.

The damage from all that isn't even in yet.

[Metric System]

26. I seem to recall Biden also voted for the IWR.

[totodeinhere]

105. As did Clinton of course. But in a way that charge in unfair since we don't know

how Warren, not a senator at the time, would have voted.

[MannyGoldstein]

29. Biden championed the Bankruptcy bill tha so pissed Warren off

that she went to war against the big banks.

[reddread]

94. if scumbaggery is the qualification

Biden hands down.

[aikoaiko]

19. I'm waiting to see if Warren can get others to follow her in the Senate

Saying things is nice, but getting things done by creating followship is another.

[Le Taz Hot]

66. She got unanimous Democratic support

and three Republicans to vote for the student loan refinancing and Schumer says they'll keep trying to get it passed.

[aikoaiko]

89. Yes, I look forward to seeing if she can get it done.

[bigtree]

21. well, yeah

. . . from that article to her ears.

I would say, though, that we have almost no idea what compromises of what issues she would bend on or differ with the progressive community who so often defines her politics as some opposite pole of Clinton's. I think folks are being as naive about Warren's positions and politics as they were with Obama. I think she'd govern much the same as Clinton, and we know almost nothing of her foreign policy.

Besides, she supports Hillary for president. How confounding is that to this opinion?

[cascadiance]

107. I think she has spoken out on the critical fundamental issues that many Dems avoid...

Yes, there are many issues that we want the progressive viewpoint represented and voted on that even corporate Dems are willing to vote on in our favor such as marriage equality, women's rights, and other social issues like that. Those aren't however the *fundamental* issues that govern how the corporate lobbyists spend their money to buy off politicians. They care more about fundamental issues such as banking and energy company regulation, taxation, forgiving or reducing student loan debt, etc. that hits them hard if voted on the wrong way, and fundamental pieces like how we fund our elections (public campaign financing), run them (perhaps add things like instant runoff voting), or count them (electronic voting with paperless ballots, etc.).

It is on these issues that Warren, NOT Walmart board member and H-1B program supporter Hillary Clinton, has spoken out on in the 99%'s favor, and why when I hear her take strong stances on these issues, I'm less worried about her listening to the people on other social issues. She's mainly focusing on issues that the corporate media and lobbyists want to distract us from in terms of other issues that they care less about, but they use to divide the electorate with to maintain two party control and the illusion that we have a choice when both parties are now being bought off heavily by the same crooks who hardly get financially penalized much, let alone sent to jail where many of them BELONG!

[bigtree]

118. well, she has the economics down

. . . seems like only a fraction of the portfolio needed though (much like Obama held, maybe less)

[TheKentuckian]

239. Economics is the linchpin and fundamentals of politics and by function cannot be a small

piece of the conversation.

There are virtually no political issues that were not either created by economics or are presently driven by them.

I think some Democrats are damn stubborn and foolish about this and being bullheaded about being silly leads to a wiling blindness that allows the needs, hopes, and functional power of the people to be ever eroded and curtailed.

Their is no freedom or progress for those mired in necessity and little political power or time to exert what little there by people struggling to just get by.

There are no serious political discussions that can ignore economics, to do so risks ignoring the woods for a part of a tree to the point that it is far closer to the truth to say politics is economics than to say economics is a section and especially a small piece. Such a statement is beyond naivety and stuck in 8th grade civics to the point of functional ignorance or willful distortion in an effort to mislead from reality.

Shit, this is probably why we fail in key areas, we try to discuss politics while tiptoeing around economics (or outright ignoring them, quite impossibly).

Your small piece perception is a huge distortion of reality. Seldom can one drill down a single millimeter on any subject without hiring money and resource allocation. I know many folks find such boring but it is the meat and potatoes of virtually every issue including race relations, women's health, education, and certainly war and peace.

[cascadiance]

262. She understood the financial crisis better than just about all pols before Obama was elected...

... as this video shows of a lecture she aired before he got elected the first time. It shows someone that understood and still understands the fundamentals of the crisis of what Americans have been facing since the meltdown more than just about any other politician and not only understood it, like arguably many others on Wall Street, but unlike those on Wall Street which infect our government in so many places epitomized by Larry Summers who in her book she notes warned her not to criticize "insiders", she is working FOR us the people, and not the crooks on Wall Street. In addition to providing us the qualification of understanding the economics, she also combines that with demonstrating she's trustworthy more than anyone else in Washington now.

&list=PL8396D53EA016A9AA&index=6

On other issues, with the feeling of trust she gives us that so many other pols, Dems, Repubs and even some independents have a problem with, I TRUST her to fill her staff with those who we can trust to shore up the areas where she's less experienced with those who will do the right things.

The economics are at the core of so many other issues that the corrupt lobbyists really care about, but don't want talked about, because they'd rather Americans get focused on other issues they don't care about and can distract us from these fundamental issues. However you characterize the financial issues as a "fraction" of her portfolio, her unique trustworthy fundamental understanding of them is THE essential quality we need in a leader to bring back an FDR style of leadership that this country absolutely NEEDS now, and quite frankly the world needs to get us going the right direction with climate change perhaps deciding the world's fate in the next decade.

[Mnpaul]

212. I wouldn't call this supporting Hillary

From her recent interview on Face the Nation:

BOB SCHIEFFER: Are you going to endorse Hillary Clinton?

SEN. WARREN: We're not there. This is about the issues on the table right now. We've got to talk about student loans, we've got to talk about minimum wage, we have got to make changes, and we have an election coming up in 2014 where those issues are going to be right on the table. People will have voted and the voters will have a chance to look at how the senate voted.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcripts-may-11-2014-rogers-gates-warren/

[MyNameGoesHere]

25. Except for those pesky voters that get in the way

and choose someone you don't like. HOW DARE THEM!

[libodem]

67. What?

Voters? What are those other things? Those big tent parties where the delegates go representing their states to do something. Hmmmm? My amnesia is acting up again. Primaries? Conventions? Quaint as the Geneva Convention. Oh, those pesky conventions. I'd like to see nominees drafted from the parade of speakers with great ideas. Not a prepackaged prearranged selection who has the money and name recognition. Let the Republicans do it like that.

If you have enough money and pedigrees the Oligarchy sucks you up into your throne. The money spent on elections should be funneled into Headstart. I'm saying why bother. The fix is in.

I'm being a jerk. And a sarcastic jerk. Just so you know that I know my own assholery. But I'm tired of it already.

[Omaha Steve]

28. Sanders-Warren or Warren-Sanders

K&R!

http://www.zazzle.com/bernie+sanders+gifts





http://www.democraticstuff.com/elizabethwarrendemocratbutton-BT62022.html

[PeoViejo]

37. Damn Right!

+1000

[woo me with science]

41. That would give me hope for my country again. nt

[MissDeeds]

54. +10000

Sanders-Warren would be my first choice, but either way, they are my dream team.

[zeemike]

69. Ether way would please the hell out of me.

[Shemp Howard]

84. I really like the Sanders- part

Bernie Sanders is a rare bird. He has solid ethics, and principles. Sanders is one of the least-wealthy members of Congress. What does that tell you? It tells you that he cannot be bought. And he won't leverage his position for private gain.

As for Warren, IMHO she needs more time to listen and learn. Nothing personal there, I just thinks see needs a bit more experience (time-in-grade, if you will) before moving on to the national stage.

[Fred Friendlier]

125. As much as I love my Senator, and my Senator to the North

a Warren-Sanders ticket would be an electoral disaster on the order of Mondale-Whatshisname.

To the reasonable ear, all this bleating about WARREN NEVER EXPLICITLY SAID PRECISELY THAT SHE WILL NOT RUN IN 2016 sounds like a gang of spoiled children whining ever louder in the hope that the grownups will grow tired enough to hand over the candy.

Needless to say, this is hardly an effective political strategy.

[closeupready]

142. Ab. So. Fucking. Lute. Ly.

[aquart]

198. An all northeastern ticket.

Yeah. Sure. Is this fantasy politics? Do we have brackets?

[KG]

30. surely, the dem party can do better than run h. clinton for prez

sadly it seems they won't

[bigtree]

43. the party doesn't vote, individuals vote, individuals run for office

. . . the party can't 'run' Warren. She has to run herself first, much like Clinton is now.

[cantbeserious]

31. + 1,000

eom

[EEO]

32. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans are not educated enough to elect her.

And will likely vote against their own best interests - again.

[question everything]

33. Not without executive experience and proficiency on foreign policy

It will be a long time - if ever - before any party will nominate a freshmen senator, well articulated, but without executive experience and knowledge and involvement in foreign policy.

Having a running mate who is proficient in foreign policy does not cut it.

The sooner DUers will realize it, the less their disappointment will be.

[moonbeam23]

48. HUH?

It will be a long time - if ever - before any party will nominate a freshmen senator, well articulated, but without executive experience and knowledge and involvement in foreign policy.


Doesn't that sound like Obama?? How did that work out?

He got elected twice and he's done pretty well in foreign policy.

Warren's biggest hurdle is her GENDER!

[zeemike]

72. No I think her gender is a plus.

America is ready for a woman president...just like they were ready for a black one.

[totodeinhere]

108. I don't think that her biggest hurdle is her gender. After all Clinton is also a women and that

hasn't stopped her from being the prohibitive front runner.

No I think her biggest hurdle is the assumption on the part of a lot of people that Clinton is inevitable so they had better get on the bandwagon.

[question everything]

167. Yes, but what is his legacy?

Look at what is happening in Iraq, and will in Afghanistan. And Syria, and Egypt and Libya and the Ukraine. Not his fault, but did happen while he is/was in office, so this will be his foreign affairs legacy.

Middle class is still squeezed. Students loans are in the roof. Yes, I know and you know that there is nothing he can do with the party of NO but future generations will see this as an excuse. You really have to know your politics - as most of us on DU know - to excuse Obama but the outcome will speak loud and clear.

No everyone can be LBJ, but having longer relations with Congress, knowing the movers and shakers, schmoozing with them, having more experienced advisers may have helped. Instead he got the ones from his campaign which were whiz at running a campaign and reaching voters, but none as far as running a government.

His setting a "red line" as far as Syria and then essentially saying "never mind" created an image of an inept president as far as foreign affairs go. I don't know whether this was a signal to Putin.

Just like the factions in Iraq, his declaration of a willingness to compromise created the image of weaknesses. Just a fact on the ground.

[joshcryer]

204. It will never happen again.

Obama was a consumer campaign, not one on the merits of civic ability.

[Javaman]

35. Warren before Hillary...

that's my new bumper sticker.

[smallcat88]

36. Warren has to run first

I suspect she will in 8-12 years. We also need to get rid of the Democrat/Republican monopoly on our elections. Both parties are dysfunctional and in corporate pockets. But that's never going to happen unless more people do more than just complain about them. Everyone says they both suck and talk about voting for the lesser of two evils but continue to vote for either and R or a D.

[moonbeam23]

52. Do the math

I suspect she will in 8-12 years

She will be 73-77 years old by then...if you think the repugs are giving Hilary a hard time about her age now...

It's now or never for Warren...

[smallcat88]

59. We've had plenty of old white men

Do you really think Warren would let that stop her if she was determined to run? She's not that fragile.

[Divernan]

101. At age 75? After the US experience w/Reagan's senility/Alzheimers?

Get real! We've all seen how this office ages presidents.

[pnwmom]

102. That's what Nader said in 2000 and that worked out so well.

This is the Democratic Underground, not the 3rd party underground.

[SheilaT]

39. If all anyone ever thinks about is Hillary Hillary Hillary

then no thought is really given to what we should actually be looking for in our next candidate. What qualities they should have, where their experience should lie.

Personally, I think nominating Hillary Clinton would be a huge mistake on many levels, and I doubt she'd win the election. Oh, a lot of people here say that she's been thoroughly vetted because she ran in 2008, but they just don't realize the level of animosity against her out there, outside a relatively small group of Democrats. She brings absolutely nothing new to the table in terms of policy or who'd she have in her cabinet, as her advisors.

Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, truly is a new person on the scene, with little or no political baggage. And it shows in how she speaks out and what she stands up for.

I'm being reminded of conversations my husband and I would have about ten years ago when we were looking down the road at retirement. He just wanted a no winter climate. I kept on saying we need to find a place that has the qualities that will make our lives good ones. For me those things included good public transportation, a college or university because of the many cultural things they bring, good restaurants, a near enough airport if we want to fly somewhere. The kinds of things I wanted to make my life what I want it to be are not dependent on the climate, and personally I have no problem with winter. Good communities to retire in exist all across this country. But if all you think about is not having to shovel snow off your car in the middle of winter, then you'll miss a lot of otherwise terrific places to live.

The same applies to thinking that Hillary Clinton is the only possible person to be nominated two years down the road. It misses a lot of other possibilities.

[Divernan]

51. Well stated! See my link below re Warren already outpolls Clinton.

And you're so right about retirement. I'd always planned to retire somewhere waterfront. But about 10 years ago, long before the recent EPA report, all on my ownsome, I took a realistic look at climate change, rising ocean levels, hurricanes, storm surges, etc., and decided to stay on my little hilltop outside of Pittsburgh. Five minutes to shopping mall, library, post office, doctors' offices, good hospital, and lots of good theatre, restaurants and world class symphony. I just keep a close eye on the 10 day weather forecast, stock up ahead of storms and when bad weather hits, curl up with homemade soup, cable TV, a stack of good books & a fire in the fireplace.

Meanwhile, idiot fellow retirees are cashing in on their main equity/their homes and investing everything in waterfront or near-to-the-ocean homes in Florida. They think they're livin'
their fantasy/dream, but there will be tears before bedtime, as nanny used to say, when the insurers back away from flood prone/surge prone properties and they have no insurance and the waters are creeping up. Already high tide street flooding in places like Miami and Norfolk. Fine for One Percenters who have 4 or 5 other "homes" and can just walk away from the Palm Beach mansion.

[SheilaT]

62. I am sometimes mean enough

that when I read about fires in California or hurricanes in the south, to think that those who moved there and were so smug because they'd escaped the Hell of Winter, deserve it. I've refrained from saying that before this, but there you have it.

There is so much more to life than having to shovel snow off your car in the winter. That's not fun. I know, I've done it. But there are so many other things that matter in life, that it should be only one of a number of things to think about.

Of course, I'm a lot luckier than many people because I'd already lived in several different parts of the country when divorce presented me with the opportunity to move absolutely anywhere I wanted. For a while the fact that I could go absolutely anywhere, was paralyzing. I finally eliminated some otherwise appealing places, looked at both the east coast and the Pacific Northwest before deciding on Santa Fe, where I currently live.

[Divernan]

74. I've lived in Chicago, Baltimore, Milwaukee, LA, Sacramento & Florida

In the course of growing up & post college years/jobs, before settling in beautiful southwestern Pennsylvania (although the beauty is in danger from fracking). So I have no illusions/fantasies as so many have about California or Florida. Based on living in (and loathing) Florida, and my scuba diving adventures, I always tell people if they want a lovely tropical experience, vacation wise, skip Florida completely and hop on over to the Bahamas or the Virgin Islands. I have cousins from Seattle (a city I love) who are happily living what sounds to be a very full life as expats in San Miguel de Allende, Guanajuato, Mexico. To each his own, but some of us are better equipped through having moved around, to make well-informed choices. No place is perfect of course - we each have to balance what's most important to our quality of life.

[daleanime]

68. What's a 'retirement'?

[Divernan]

75. Good point. I'm a senior, senior citizen.

I feel for the younger generations, including my own kids, who plan on working until they drop!

Most of my retirement savings were disappeared into the coffers of the One Percent back in 2008, (I'm lookin' at you Big Banks/Goldman Sachs, and your lavishly paid speaker, Hillary) so my retirement is not as comfortable as I'd hoped, but I do appreciate the fact I have Social Security, Medicare and a small pension.

[mylye2222]

40. I endlessly agree witg thus Op.

Hillary is just a DINO to me. She already proved in the past she would di anything to rise to piwer Including ckashing hand in hand with RW he felliw dems.

[Divernan]

42. From link-WARREN POLLS AHEAD OF HRC & any potential GOP rival

Last edited Fri Jun 13, 2014, 11:56 AM - Edit history (1)

More from the OP's link:

The biggest advantage Elizabeth Warren has over any competition is that she's the "hottest" politician in Washington. According to a recent Politico article, Warren ranks ahead of Clinton, as well as her possible Republican challengers in a Quinnipiac University poll:

When Americans were asked to give prominent politicians a score, zero to 100, of how "warm," or favorable, they feel toward that person, the Massachusetts Democratic senator was the highest-rated of the bunch with a "temperature" of 48.6, according to a Quinnipiac poll out Thursday...

Clinton was in second place at 47.8...

While some polls might favor Clinton, the fact that Warren is relatively new to the Washington scene (compared to Clinton's decades of experience) speaks volumes. The actual poll is also enlightening, in that it states Warren ranks higher than any potential Republican rival as well.

[totodeinhere]

110. But that poll is not a presidential poll. Get back to us when there is a poll

that shows respondents saying they prefer Warren over Clinton to get the nomination.

[Divernan]

122. & you get back to us after HRC declares!

[totodeinhere]

156. Well Warren hasn't declared either but that doesn't stop people from pushing her. n/t

[woo me with science]

255. She will blow any corporatist away.

We are still being lied to about what the country really wants...despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It's all they have.

Thank you for posting this.

[Laelth]

44. k&r for Elizabeth Warren. n/t

-Laelth

[workinclasszero]

45. Well Elizabeth Warren has said

more than once I believe that she is not running for the office. I guess I don't get why people keep saying she should be prez when she has no interest in the job but...

So I will support whoever gets the democratic nomination, be that Hillary or whoever.

[Le Taz Hot]

71. She's speaking in the present tense.

Warren is not running, neither his Hillary and neither is anyone else. Warren has NEVER said: "I will not run in 2016." It's all politispeak and one must listen carefully.

[jopacaco]

46. She has my support

I would eagerly vote for Elizabeth Warren. I will vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee but I will not be happy about it.

[Scuba]

49. Kick for EW.

[mylye2222]

50. So if Sen. Warren is for real AHEAD

Why this Intox to put on everyone s brains Hillary is the favorite hummm?

Another Carville manoeuver? ????

[KansDem]

64. Works for me...

[NYC Liberal]

70. If it's Hillary vs Elizabeth Warren in the primaries, I will vote for Hillary.

Both would make fantastic presidents and I will happily vote for either in the general.

[hollowdweller]

76. Why I Don't Want Warren

I sort of feel like the populist message is just getting thru to people. The is nobody who puts that message out as good as Warren.
I think Sherrod Brown for instance is great but he does not seem to be able to get himself into the spotlight enough to push it like Warren.

Warren is president and immediately the GOP takes us out to the weeds and draws her off topic attacking her. We have trouble with ISIS the Russians etc and foreign policy takes half her time.

I think she'd be a great president but until the populist message takes root to a greater degree I think she needs to be there to water it herself.

[raindaddy]

91. Populist Message?

While Warren is "watering" the populist message in the Senate what's Hillary going to be watering in the White House? Her relationship with Wall Street, telling them how "foolish" Warren's anti-Wall Street rhetoric is?

If our expectations of the Democratic party have become so low as to relegate what was once the core value of the party to be watered in the Senate because we're afraid the Republicans are going to take us "out to the weeds" it's time to bury it's carcass and start from scratch.

I don't mean to be overly blunt but we deserve a party that not only represents our interest but is willing to fight like hell for them.

[BrainDrain]

77. HRC is a LOSS..period.

Big money pol..nothing more...and a whole lot less. Warren scares the crap out of everyone who holds power and money most dear. Something HRC will NEVER-EVER do. The hell with HRC. She won't have my vote under any circumstances.

[mylye2222]

81. she would nt had mine if i could vote either

Remember who first that nonsense Obama is Muslim thing....

[wyldwolf]

87. "Remember who first that nonsense Obama is Muslim thing...." Who?

According to the Los Angeles Times, false rumors saying that Obama was secretly a Muslim started during his campaign for the United States Senate in 2004 and had expanded through viral e-mails by 2006.

[HooptieWagon]

80. I'd support Warren. HRC is too busy...

... giving speeches to Goldman-Sachs and dodging sniper fire to be president.

[mmonk]

83. Dropped in and saw this. K&R.

[Glaisne]

86. No

She belongs in Congress as a senator rather than as president. She'll have a much longer career and far more influence and impact. Getting her to run for president is a way to cut short her career and influence. I'd rather see her become a Ted Kennedy rather than president.

[Beacool]

88. Yeah, sure, whatever.........

"If Democrats are smart, they'll nominate a candidate who can win the swing states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and Wisconsin."

As if Hillary couldn't win these same states. She did win the first three during the primaries and she currently polls ahead of any Republican in all of these states. Warren is less than one point "hotter" in a Quinnipiac poll? As opposed to polling in the single digits in every single poll taken so far and that is enough to win the WH?

Anybody who thinks that 2016 will be like 2008 is delusional. We are going to have to fight tooth and nail to win the WH after 8 years of Democratic rule and Obama polling in the low 40s (unless his polls shoot up by then).

[StevieM]

131. 2016 will be difficult, but I still think we will win.

Last edited Fri Jun 13, 2014, 09:26 PM - Edit history (1)

First of all, the Republicans may well nominate an idiot like Mike Huckabee.

Second, the economy recovers more and more with each passing year. The GOP House slowed us down with all their spending cuts, ending unemployment extension, and constant threats of a debt default. But the passage of time, and good policies from the Administration's first two years, has slowly but surely allowed the damaged economy to heal. So unless there is a recession I expect Hillary and other Democrats to run on the fact that we undid the disaster that we inherited from them eight years earlier.

Third, I think voters will want the steady and stable hand of Hillary, rather than the GOP promise to lead us in a revolution. I think a minimum wage increase and student loan reform will go over much better than privatizing social security and undoing health care reform.

The Republican strategy to win is to disenfranchise voters, by voter suppression and gerrymandering.

[7962]

207. Your first sentence says it all, even without the name Huckabee in it (i doubt he runs)

"the republicans may well nominate an idiot"
From every one I've seen, '16 will be an EASIER victory than '08. Whether its Hillary or Warren or Schwitzer.
If they nominate someone who is in tight with their base, the other 75% of the country wont like him. If they nominate a more moderate person, the base will take their ball and go home and whine about him not being "conservative enough"

[StevieM]

208. When your best options are Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker and Chris Christie

your party is in bad shape. When these hardcore conservatives are portrayed as moderates, your party has become extremist to an unbelievable degree.

[Gamecock Lefty]

90. Lean Left!

I like both Clinton and Warren - like them both a LOT!!! I'm voting for whomever can win! Supreme Court nominees is my #1 issue!!! We need the court to lean left!

[Thinkingabout]

93. What position is Hillary currently holding to be in a pisition of announcing where she is on any

Subject? Warren is serving as Senator, should be discussing different positions. Hillary has not declared she is running for anything. Do not judge her on positions she has not given her position and for the fact Warren is stating positions, you will be comparing apples to nothing. Wait until the time comes or at least research and find what Hillary has accomplished in her life, there will be some surprises awaiting.

[Zorra]

95. Yes. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

97. While I like Warren's economic platform ...

I am not yet ready to declare her the better choice as the Democratic Presidential nominee. I still need to hear her position(s) on the other 70% of what constitutes the Office of the President.

[Jamaal510]

183. I was thinking the same thing myself.

There was a Thom Hartmann video of one caller basically describing her and Sanders as perfect examples of populists. So far, though, I haven't heard too much about where either of them stand on the social issues. Virtually all of what I hear about are how progressive they are on economic issues. And even among economic issues, neither of them have really strayed too far away from the President's agenda or from the normal economic platform of the Democratic party. They've both been on board with the health care and with Obama's jobs bill that he wanted to pass, but couldn't.

[mike_c]

104. yes yes yes...

Yes!

[brooklynite]

109. Too bad Elizabeth Warren disagrees with you...

Elizabeth Warren: I hope Hillary Clinton runs for president

Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she hopes Hillary Rodham Clinton runs for president in 2016 — the latest in a series of declarations of support by the Massachusetts Democrat, who some have speculated could seek the Oval Office herself.

"All all of the women — Democratic women I should say — of the Senate urged Hillary Clinton to run, and I hope she does. Hillary is terrific," Warren said during an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week," noting that she was one of several senators to sign a letter urging Clinton to run in 2016.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/27/elizabeth-warren-i-hope-hillary-clinton-runs-for-president/

[mylye2222]

111. Maybe is she afraid by the Clinton team and all the dirty tricks they are able

To lauch at her if she would say the contrary.

[bigtree]

123. I can't decide if you're just too ignorant to know better

. . . or if you know well what you're doing here.

[brooklynite]

126. So Elizabeth Warren ISN'T a fearless new fighting force for progressive ideals?

She'll cave if the pressure gets too strong?

[mylye2222]

133. its rather a mattee of caving than of self préservation.

Protecting yourself dosnt mean you are a coward. And Warren has already proven her political strengh by fighting corporatists.

To some Hillary supporters. So when you are not on HRC side you are a troll. How reductive......

[brooklynite]

153. I've never criticized anyone for -not- supporting Clinton...

That's why we have Primaries. I DO think Clinton will be a great President (like Elizabeth Warren does...). My only criticism is that the anti-Hillary brigade seems absolutely asleep in trying to get Warren/Sanders or any other acceptable progressive to run.

[Utopian Leftist]

135. And the reasons why

Warren hopes that Clinton will run, are probably plentiful. They may include:

1) That Warren knows she will wipe the floor with Clinton in any debate, just the way the Democrat always wipes the floor with the Republican in debates: because we are the side who favor the FACTS instead of the fantasy world! Clinton is not a Republican, but her "Third Way" organization is Democrat in name only.

Why, on a progressive board such as this, is it even a contest, let alone a bitterly-debated one? For that matter, why do any so-called progressives want to vote for a Third Way, "centrist" candidate for President when there is someone available who actually stands a chance of affecting real change? I'm honestly confused about that.

[brooklynite]

151. "Why, on a progressive board such as this, is it even a contest"

Perhaps because this is a DEMOCRATIC Board and DEMOCRATS nationwide like Hillary Clinton?

As to your first point, you seriously think that Elizabeth Warren WANTS Clinton to run, when having Clinton NOT run would make the race even easier? Add to that, how would Warren explain away her comments that Hillary would be great as President?

[Utopian Leftist]

190. Warren is very shrewd, watch her, you will see.

And any shrewd Democrat must pay respect to Hilary Clinton, especially for being the first woman to have come so close to being the Democratic Nominee. But also for her other accomplishments.

Remember: who votes in the primaries? Isn't it usually the committed Democrats like ourselves, who are on the progressive edge? The left has become shrewd in many ways. We together stopped Larry Summers from being Obama's appointment to the Fed. I think Warren will have ecstatic support among progressives. And they are the ones who vote in primaries.

[brooklynite]

192. You're welcome to dream about a Warren candidacy...

...but when she doesn't run (and I know her finance person -- she won't), please don't come back crying that "THEY" kept her from running. You had a chance to make a effort to persuade an interested progressive to run, and you chose to do nothing.

[Zorra]

238. Our only hope is that this means that HC has privately confided in EW that she's going rogue. nt

[fbc]

115. If we keep voting for Wall Street puppets, Democrats will continue to nominate Wall Street puppets.

[mylye2222]

120. K&R.

Not only is she a complete Wall street lover but shes Ready to ally with the worst RW distorts for polical expédient

[liberal N proud]

127. Since Warren will not be running by her own accord and IF Hillary becomes the nominee...

Who do you suggest we vote for?


I will NEVER vote for a republican!! NEVER!!!

[mylye2222]

136. Third left parties. like Greens or Sanders party. ...

At least we express doubt before primary season rather than showing fake support. .... unlike the DLCers back in 2004. ........

PLEASE LIZ......RUUUUNNNN!!!!!!!!

[liberal N proud]

161. And you WILL get a republican/teabagger President

There is no third part strong enough to take control of the agenda.

Vote 3rd party, get republican!!!!!!!

[Le Taz Hot]

171. NOminate Hillary,

also get Republican in the White House. She'll lose.

[Utopian Leftist]

128. America has a lot of problems

We need to learn to prioritize them. And the economy is really the over-riding issue, isn't it? I mean, yes, Global Warming is going to be the genocide of this Century if we don't do something IMMEDIATELY to fix it. But the truth is that if we weren't so obsessed with profits, the bottom line and shareholders, we would not be creating more pollution in the first place. If, as Al Gore has promoted recently, we were to create a new kind of capitalism: one that has the benefit of the public as its bottom line, rather than profit, would that not change EVERYthing? Do you know how you end war? Forever? You end POVERTY! For what the world spends on war in eight days, world poverty could be eradicated completely. And when you pull people out of poverty, most of them no longer have any desire for war. Poverty breeds ignorance and that breeds hatred.

America is ready for a truly progressive candidate: Elizabeth Warren. Now, of course she can't promise she'll bring down capitalism but if you've heard the fire with which she speaks, you know in your heart that she will do her damnedest to make sure that never again will we put profit before fairness and the rights of the people to live in peace with the land and with each other!

[awoke_in_2003]

129. you have to run to be elected

I don't care for Clinton, but if she is the nominee I will vote for her.

[KamaAina]

132. Perhaps. But she's not running.

Of course, Ed Lee did say he wasn't running for mayor of SF; he is now the incumbent.

[DrBulldog]

134. Agree.

Her book told us she still really lives in her top-1% entitlement bubble just like Obama does, no matter that she's a Democrat ...

What this country needs right NOW is WARREN-GRAYSON ! Wow. That would blow my mind . . .

[closeupready]

137. COMPLETELY agree.

Elizabeth is the one who deserves it. K&R

[cpamomfromtexas]

138. I'm all in if she runs

[pampango]

145. The nice thing about being a Democrat is that all of our potential nominees are better than ANYTHING

the republican party can offer. My favorite candidate often does not win the presidential primary but whoever does is always light-years ahead of the alternative. (Their debates are such a clown show of posturing and avoidance of serious policy debate.)

If there were just a "pampango" Party I would be assured of getting my favorite candidate on the ballot every year. Until my wisdom is properly recognized and rewarded I will probably continue to vote for the Democratic nominee even it he or she is not my first choice.

[fbc]

149. Really? Are Clinton and Romney really that far apart? I don't think so.

[pampango]

154. It sounds like Romney wants to run again. You may get (another?) chance to vote for him.

Were Obama and Romney that far apart?

[MFM008]

152. i presume she is a person of her word

she has said she will not run multiple times. Wishing does not make it so.

[Le Taz Hot]

206. Nooooo

She said, "I am not running for president." She has never said, "I will not run for president in 2016."

I know the Third-Way "Democrats" wish she would just go away but wishing does not make it so.

[Amonester]

155. What a "job"... Always under attack from all sides 24/7, 364.25/4 or 8...

Internal & External sides...

Punches never cease...

When the punches are not coming from the Inside, they come from the ME, Russia, China, NK, SA, World Economy, et al...

Anyone interested?

[Beacool]

174. Yes, and in their dream world the person who has almost null experience in politics

would know how to run the country because she expounds on populist views. Well, let's first see how much she can accomplish in the Senate.

[AzDar]

158. K & R

[Android3.14]

159. I'll probably vote for Hillary

But I have zero confidence she can win, or lead, or represent the people of this nation. If she runs, enormous numbers of Republican Hillary haters will come out of the woodwork (far more than the closet racists in the Obama elections), zero Republicans will vote for her, too few independents will choose her, and then there will be many Democrats who just can't stand her DINO Walmart sucking BS and will stay home.
It's a losing choice, worse than choosing a restaurant with healthy food and the only choices are McDonald's and Burger King.

[Metric System]

162. Unicorns for YOU, and YOU, and YOU! UNICORNS FOR EVERYBODY!!!!

[LiberalLovinLug]

172. I wish she would run too

Warren would make a terrific President. Much braver than the current one, and Hillary is even more tied to big business than Obama. Although I should add that Obama also sounded progressive until he entered the White House. But somehow I believe that Elizabeth would hold onto her principles.

But she probably would be target #1 by the corporate press if she did choose to run. Much like Howard Dean, they would find the first tiny faux pas and blow it up into a mountain of a "scandal", then run headlines and on-air discussions like "Is Elizabeth Warren Presidential material after .....?" "Has Warren just lost the election by ....." "Can anyone now stop Jeb Bush?"

[cantbeserious]

173. + 1,000

eom

[supercats]

175. I Agree 100%

I have been saying this for some time now. Also I have decided that no matter what I will not vote for Hilary even if she's running against Paul Ryan, because they would govern pretty much the same(though I wouldn't vote for him ever). Granted Ryan would be more oppressive but that might be what this country needs to finally wake up and rebel. I do want to state that I want Elizabeth Warren to be the next President.

[tavalon]

177. Well, yeah, but it's not going to happen

And I will vote for the queen. The last time we pulled a rising star out of the Senate too early, it didn't go as well as it could have. Would it have gone better had Obama been more seasoned? Hell if I know, but I know that HRC has been through the fire and while she is third way, I'll still vote for her. It will pave the way to something, someone, mentioned above. Long view.

But yeah, Elizabeth is a long, cool drink of water. She doesn't play politics, she steps right over that whole crapfest.

[loyalsister]

180. She has a lot more flexibility in the senate

The president's hands are tied in so many ways. It wouldn't be long before she would be hated here. Republicans wouldn't magically disappear, and to think she would be able to get votes for her agenda that Hillary couldn't is naive.

[Dems to Win]

184. Rep. Barbara Lee is my first choice

As long as we're dreaming, I'll put forth the name of the woman I'd love to see become our first female president.

The ONLY representative strong enough and wise enough to vote NO to endless war in the aftermath of 9/11. The ONLY ONE to vote NO on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force enacted a few days after 9/11, the same law still authorizing the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and on and on and on.

Barbara Lee for President! Demand the BEST for our beloved country!

[MohRokTah]

186. I see no path to a nationwide victory in a general election for Elizabeth Warren.

I can see no way for her to win on a national level.

[TiredOfNo]

187. Let's be practical. We need a tough President and Elizabeth Warren is too new and untested.

As appealing as she seems, Elizabeth Warren in not tough enough. In order to get things done in Washington a President must have connections, influential friends and wealthy benefactors. Otherwise, he or she will be no more effective than Mr. Obama has been.
Don't get me wrong. I like her and I think she would try to do the right things as has Mr. Obama, but in the current Washington environment she would be eaten alive just as Mr. Obama has. It is not the good ideas or intentions that win the battles, it is the tough action and the confidence and willingness to butt heads with opponents. What we need is another Lyndon Johnson. He was scary and mean and the Republicans (and Democrats) were afraid of him (figuratively and literally.) The closest thing we have to him is Hillary Clinton. You have to admit, she is scary and I believe the Republicans are so afraid of her because they know she will not be pushed around.
Elizabeth Warren is much more valuable to Democrats in the Senate. Maybe one day she can rise to the same level of statesman as Ted Kennedy.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

191. Warren needs to be on the economic team of the White House where she'll be better able to do stuff

I really do want her to endorse someone though.

[bigwillq]

193. I'd rather have Warren than Clinton

But I would like Warren to stay in the Senate a bit longer.
But if Warren ran in 2016, I would vote for her. I would not vote for Clinton.

[Pharaoh]

195. Firmly agree

Warren should run. I would love to see a Sanders/Warren ticket........

[ozone_man]

196. She's trying to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act that Clinton eliminated.

Granted it was Bill, but I think the Clintons have done enough damage. The safeguards that FDR installed were eliminated resulting the 2008 financial disaster. Let's have some real change, and Obama was not it.

[MirrorAshes]

197. I'll vote HRC for the sake of the SCOTUS

But only for that, and I won't be happy about it either.

Warren/Brown would be my ticket.

[c588415]

199. Pres. Hillary R Clinton 2016!

[emsimon33]

200. I agree. I do not trust Clinton to be anything but a puppet of the 1% & corporations

as her husband was and as Obama is.

[Bluenorthwest]

202. I'm skeptical, she was a Republican during the Reagan era, and many of her boosters seem to also

favor anti gay religious figures, which is a tradition among the 'Reagan Democrats'. I've never heard Warren explain how she slept at night supporting a racist, homophobic President and Party as she did for so many, many years. Reagan was a coward, a liar and a sham, Warren remained a Republican all through his Presidency. Think about that. I know I have.

[Metric System]

210. Why aren't Warren supporters demanding answers to these questions?

[Mnpaul]

213. Warren has answered them

STEPHANOPOULOS: And I was just wondering, what drew you to the GOP and why did you leave?

WARREN: I was originally an independent. I was with the GOP for a while because I really thought that it was a party that was principled in its conservative approach to economics and to markets.

And I feel like the GOP party just left that. That they moved to a party that said, no, it's not about a level playing field, it's now about a field that has gotten tilted. And they really stood up for the big financial institutions when the big financial institutions are just hammering middle class American families.

You know, I just feel like that's a party that moved way, way away.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-sec-jeh-johnson-sen-elizabeth-warren/story?id=23471456&singlePage=true

[Metric System]

228. I'm specifically referring to social issues, not financial issues.

[Bluenorthwest]

232. Bogus non responsive 'answers' like that make my case, not yours.

I have to assume those who dig her are too young to remember Reagan or too conservative to oppose him and his vicious, deadly policies which Warren found 'principled'.

[Mnpaul]

235. Maybe you could point out

Which Democrats spoke out against those issues at that time? And while you are at it, you can also show proof that she supported Reagan at all. She stated she voted for both Democrats and Republicans.

[JI7]

249. John Kerry in his first year in the senate introduced a bill banning discrimination

against gays in the work place which was in 1985 .

on race issues democrats have mostly been supportive, especially against republicans since lbj.

[Raksha]

221. I've thought about all that too, and it's the main reason I support a Sanders/Warren ticket

rather than the other way around. I'm skeptical of any Democratic candidate who was ever a Republican at any time, especially during the Reagan years. The only candidates that are acceptable to me at this point are those with a PROVEN progressive track record. It's not that a Warren/Sanders ticket wouldn't also be acceptable, but she would definitely have some explaining to do.

[chrisa]

242. That was also 30 years ago. So much time.

[Babel_17]

203. Too early for me to say

I'd like to see how Warren handles herself in the primaries.

[GeorgeGist]

209. I like Warren but her lack of executive experience leaves her short ...

in my opinion. Hillary is too Republican for my taste but seems far ahead in executive skills.

In short, I don't think either one would make an effective left-center President; but Hillary is probably more likely to accomplish her agenda.

[MFM008]

214. shes not running

[defacto7]

216. She is on top of my list

if she ever does run.

[marble falls]

220. Absolutely. But I will vote vote for Hillary if she gets the nod. There's not one GOP candidate I...

I would even consider for even a second.

[billhicks76]

227. She Lost My Vote Ray McGovern

Id rather throw up in my own mouth than vote for her. She is closer to Bush than to my beliefs. The enemy that pretends to be your friend is still the enemy and she can take her war vote and go home. How she treated Ray McGovern was despicable. You are voting for a republican if you vote for her. Ray McGovern nailed it today as Hillary not suprisingly came out against Snowden being the military contractor shill that she is :
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/06/13-4

[marble falls]

233. I agree, Hillary voted with W more often than some Republicans. That said, Romney vs Hillary? ....

Cruz vs Hillary? Christy vs Hillary? Hillary. Hillary. Hillary.

I want Elizabeth Warren. I think Hillary is a politician who votes strategically as opposed to conscience and on a highly personal level.

[billhicks76]

243. If We Nominate Her

Then we deserve our fate pure and simple. If you vote for Hillary then you have no right to complain later.

[Beacool]

236. Ray McGovern was not thrown out of the room by Hillary's people.

He was escorted out by the venue's security, not diplomatic security (she was SOS at the time).

He did get to squeeze every drop of drama out of the incident, but it was not Hillary's doing, nor her people's. You may not like her, but she was not responsible for what happened to McGovern at that event.

[billhicks76]

244. She Didn't Stop Her Speech

Even as the bloodied him. Not her security detail? That is such a sorry, lame excuse but I'm sure there will be a lot of excusing and apologizing for her behavior.

[southerncrone]

223. Yep. A true populist.

She'd get my vote!
K & R

[blkmusclmachine]

225. Clinton/Cuomo 2016

"You don't need no stinkin' choices!"

[brooklynite]

247. Can't...Constitution says Pres and VP have to be from different States.

[riversedge]

229. I would vote for either.

[cstanleytech]

230. IMO unless we can arrange a major shakeup in who controls congress it wont matter who

is president.

[wildbilln864]

240. Agreed and k & r! n/t

[99Forever]

245. K&R

[flvegan]

246. Dennis Kucinich, and neither of them, should be the next president of the United States.

Won't happen as that's not the bought-n-paid-for politician we'll be given to vote for by those that obviously matter more than we do.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.



Because this is DU and needs to be said (because some people 'round here have evicted all their thinking capacity), I'll vote for Clinton (or Warren) as the D nominee.

[fireflysky46]

250. I dont think Warren can muster a majority.

[Vattel]

253. Warren/Feingold

[woo me with science]

254. kick

[Initech]

256. I want to see a Warren / Sanders or Sanders / Warren ticket.

[justiceischeap]

259. I think it depends on who runs and wins the primary

I'm getting cranky about all the talk on DU like Clinton will be the automatic nominee when she hasn't even signaled she's running. She's sent more signals that she likely won't run than she will. Same with Elizabeth Warren. She has stated on many occasions that she has no intention of running for President.

So, instead of just demanding that someone be the nominee, lets see how the process goes, shall we?

[Unca Adverse]

261. Hillary Dickory Dock!

While Liz Warren certainly SHOULD BE the next President of The United States of America,
realistically anyone more socially developed than her would never receive the approbation
of our far more rightest American public.