Well This Is Awkward (Elizabeth Warren at Netroots Nation)

[bigtree]

Last edited Sat Jul 19, 2014, 01:38 AM - Edit history (1)

Davis Bates ‏@davisbates
Well this is awkward. Win/Win? #ReadyForWarren #ReadyForHillary #ReadyForWomen #NN14 #nn14women


from PoliticusUSA

At Netroots Nation, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) had a simple message for Republicans and their corporate backers that Democrats and the left will fight and they will win.

Sen. Warren began by discussing her fight five years ago to begin the CFPB. She talked about how the big banks would hate the financial reforms she proposed. She said that the experts thought they would fail, and they won. She said, “We won, because you got in the fight…You called out sleazy lobbyists and powerful politicians.” Sen. Warren said that the CFPB is proof of how democracy can work in the 21st Century, “If we push back hard, we can win.” She added, “When we united our voices, we can win.”

Sen. Warren said, “We don’t win every time, but we are learning to win.” She added that we can’t win what we don’t fight for. Warren said that many corporations use their money and resources to capture Washington. She said that they want to tilt the rules in their favor and leave everyone else behind . . .

Elizabeth Warren arrives at #nn14 (Netroots Nation -live feed) to waving placards and chants "Run, Liz, Run" — at Cobo Conference / Exhibition Center Detroit Michigan. watch on FB: https://t.co/fPRi8JgK4i



http://t.co/lpitEsjkqh


Emmy Bengtson @EmmyA2
"We can whine about it, we can whimper about it — or we can fight back. I'm fighting back." - Elizabeth Warren #NN14




Andi Zeisler @andizeisler
"Those with power fight to make sure every rule tilts in their favor. That's what democracy is up against." —Elizabeth Warren #NN14



Dave Winer ☮ ‏@davewiner 46m
"The Internet should not be rigged for big corporations." -- Sen Elizabeth Warren pic.twitter.com/SfaCPXbpNl





Robbie Sherwood @RobbieSherwood
"A kid gets caught with a little pot & goes to jail, but a bank launders drug money and no one gets arrested."




from National Journal:

Speaking on Friday at Netroots Nation, a convention for liberal bloggers and activists, Warren got the crowd more fired up than Vice President Joe Biden was able to do the day before. (To be fair, the crowd was in a solemn mood at the time in reaction to the news of the Malaysian passenger plane crash). In her speech, Warren outlined more clearly than other Democrats the social issues that get progressives fired up . . .

"What are our values?" Warren asked the audience, some of whom held up "Run Liz Run" signs. "What does it mean to be a progressive?"

She went on to outline 11 tenets of progressivism:

- "We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it."

- "We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth."

- "We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality."

- "We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage."

- "We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them."

- "We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt."

- "We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions."

- "We believe—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work."

- "We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America."

- "We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform."

- "And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!"

And the main tenet of conservatives' philosophy, according to Warren? "I got mine. The rest of you are on your own."


watch:

[Starry Messenger]

1. I watched on livestream this morning.

It was a great speech. I hope there are some campaigns afoot around the points she raised.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

2. It's nice to see at least ONE Democrat -

espousing Democratic values.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

3. Too bad she ain't running...

[L0oniX]

17. "Democratic values" What does that really mean?

This isn't the Democratic party I thought I was in. Seems that the corporatist, centrist, war hawk, MIC and NSA loving, rich, right leaning, Dinos own this party for the most part.

[dfgrbac]

135. Politics as usual continues!

I agree. The question is how long will Americans continue to put up with politics as usual? The so-called two party system does not work when the "people's party" does not support the rights of the people.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. Good article, until I got here ...

"What are our values?" Warren asked the audience, some of whom held up "Run Liz Run" signs. "What does it mean to be a progressive?"

She went on to outline 11 tenets of progressivism:

- "We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it."

- "We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth."

- "We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality."

- "We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage."

- "We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them."

- "We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt."

- "We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions."

- "We believe—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work."

- "We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America."

- "We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform."

- "And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!"

Love all about that; but 11 Tenets, and not one mention of Civil Rights? So I'll add one:

- "We believe that all persons should have equal access to all the fruits of this great society, and that means fighting to advance Civil Rights, not allowing them to be rolled back."

[bigtree]

6. I'm with you on the importance of civil rights as a 'tenent'

. . . I she narrowed it a bit, but I don't think she's deliberately
excluding anything related to civil rights . . .

"We believe that equal means equal . . ."

Maybe needs to work on fleshing that out . . .

. . . also, 1SBM, this is an abbreviated summary. There was stuff in-between these declarations. I didn't hear the entire address. We need a transcript or video which I expect to pop up later.

[1StrongBlackMan]

133. I just watched the video ...

my concern was validated ... no mention of civil rights (for Black people) ... AND the "We believe that equal means equal . . ." part was in reference to, and in the context of SSM and LGBT Rights.

[bigtree]

136. no, there wasn't any specific reference to black Americans

. . . she did say, however, all Americans. I didn't see the two lines about equality to be limited to women's rights or LGBT rights.

- "We believe—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work."

- "We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America."

first, equal pay. That's generally understood as a women's rights issue.

then:

1. equality in marriage

2. equality in the workplace

3. equality in all of America

That's how I heard and read it.

Now, I do agree that the list is lacking as a manifesto or platform for the party, and it does need some work to make it specific to African Americans and many other concerns like our military posture and other intrusions of our privacy in the name of national security - more if I take time to make my own list.

But, even accepting your very correct and prescient points, I think it was an important and inclusive list and an important one for the party to hear.

[Armstead]

16. Well I think she addressed that

"We believe—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work."

- "We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America."

[zeemike]

38. That seems pretty clear and inclusive to me.

And I give her a big...

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. Yep; but could that be ...

because it includes you, as a named group?

[zeemike]

70. What named group am I supposed to be in?

I am not a woman. investor, or a worker and not denied any freedom that I know of.
The only named group I am in is old and in the way....and no one address us ever as a named group except the right who says we are takers because we get SS.
But as a member if the OAITW group I would say I don't give a fuck if she calls our name as someone she intends to help...our special interest don't matter in the long run because we will not be there to see it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

74. Maybe here ...

- "We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions."

[BrotherIvan]

18. Interesting point

I agree with bigtree that she is putting it out there in the statment

- "We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America."

It also seems as though by breaking it down and insisting upon fair treatment economically, in education, in immigration reform, she is trying to make a whole picture of equality that has not been addressed for some time. It seems as though often a lot of lip service is given to Civil Rights, but the underlying heart of the matter such as economic and social justice, is glossed over. She seems to be doing the reverse, building a strong foundation of underlying equality. I do believe this is the main attraction to Warren because it is not being addressed at all.

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. I guess my peeve is ...

she is specific to a number of named subjects, e.g., women in the workplace, freedom to marry, economic justice, etc.; but generic (to be generous), when it comes to the American Stain of racism.

But as pointed out above, the tenets listed may have been a summary (culled by the OP).

[BrotherIvan]

48. I think it's fair to bring it up

But I do think that part of her popularity is that she talks about the underlying causes of social injustice which is economic fairness, education, and non-discrimination. She even mentions unfairness in incarceration. She is chopping down the limbs of institutionalized racism and inequality. Her main push is economic rather than social because not only is that her specialty, it is fundamental for equality of every race and gender.

I am sick of politicians giving lip service to Civil Rights but not really doing anything about them. To be honest, I don't think the Obama administration has really had a good plan for furthering the cause either other than the optics of the First Family. TPTB dole out social wins when it suits them, but she is talking about taking money out of their massive profits, and that is very dangerous.

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. I agree ...

with everything you have written ... except this:

Her main push is economic rather than social because not only is that her specialty, it is fundamental for equality of every race and gender.

Pushing economic justice will do nothing to address race or gender inequality.

[BrotherIvan]

64. Also interesting

I'd like to read your thoughts on the correct way to accomplish this, as is very important. As we are seeing with so many legislative angles, they are being torn down such as the voting rights act and the Hobby Lobby decision which will go far beyond contraception and is already being used as a way to discriminate. The legislature and the judiciary are completely captured by corporate interests and the first thing they do is strip rights away from people, taking aim at the most vulnerable first.

They break public unions which are include a majority of women and minorities (not touching certain unions such as police and firemen which are traditionally white males). They are limiting access to education for all but a wealthy few. They are doing everything they can to bring the populace to its knees, to be so poor or so far in debt or so afraid of losing a job that we all will just go along. They are blocking all the ladders of upward mobility. They are bankrupting cities and states in an effort to sell off utilities and the commons, to steal pensions and cut services. All of these things keep everyone down and keep a wealthy few in charge. This needs to be addressed, not in lieu of, but in addition to social justice.

But I would very much like to learn more on what you think would work.

[IrishAyes]

124. Yes, and if specifically civil rights was indeed unintentionally left out,

I imagine Senator Warren would appreciate a nice note correcting her oversight. I can't imagine she meant to slight any of us. Though you certainly have a valid point.

[1StrongBlackMan]

130. No, per some DUers ...

the generalized "equal is equal ..." covered it and is enough ... despite it being said in reference SSM and in the larger context of LGBT rights, and despite her specifically naming gender equality. So I should just hush, move on and stop making DU suck by bringing up race.



I agree the EW would not deliberately slight African-Americans, or any traditionally Democratic supporting group and believe the two explanations above, e.g. the OP's editing in what they felt were important; or EW hitting non-economic topics that have been hot in the news.

[IrishAyes]

131. Well, I for one certainly DON'T want you to hush!

Not that you or anyone else needs my blessing or validation either. Regardless, you do have an excellent point. I wish more people would realize and remember that 'an injury to one is an injury to all'. Any form of marginalization violates that principle. People who can't accept any degree of valid correction are full of themselves.

[1StrongBlackMan]

132. Exactly! ...

I would have thought that EW supporters would have been appreciative of what a member of a demographic that she would need to mount a presidential bid had to say ... I guess not.

And you can trust I will not hush up, especially on race issues.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

80. That's a good addition.

I would have also liked to see her address homeland security, domestic surveillance, gun control and foreign adventurism as well, but it seems she stuck mainly to her usual economic message, and tossed in a few of the most talked about issues that aren't directly economic but have been in the news a lot in the last month or so.

[1StrongBlackMan]

85. True ...

Which makes me a little sad, as something that affects me, on a daily basis, is no longer news-worthy.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

87. Well, you know when politicians will notice you again...

When it comes time to make sure you can vote for them. Then they'll be intensely interested in your voting rights.

Is there any organization that specifically targets talented young PoC to get them into political internships and provide political science college scholarships? The ones I can think of are more general in scope, they don't try to send people specifically into politics.

[1StrongBlackMan]

89. None that I know of. eom

[BillZBubb]

82. Her ninth tenet was about civil rights...

- "We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America."

[a kennedy]

113. BUT she did NOT mention race specifically......AND she need to say it.

[Orsino]

5. Get on board, Dems.

Especially you nominee-presumptives.

[L0oniX]

7. Do I really need to say ...words mean nothing unless there is action?

We've had a lot of campaign words before.

[woo me with science]

10. We need to make sure we do not repeat the terrible mistake of 2008,

which was falling in line behind candidates without thoroughly vetting them to be sure they stand for what we assume they do.

Elizabeth, please keep talking about the banks. But we also need to hear from you on the wars, on NSA surveillance, on militarized police, on the war on journalism, and on civil liberties and the Patriot Act.

[L0oniX]

13. +1

[BrotherIvan]

20. +2

Though so far, her voting record and floor speeches are very much in line with her "non" campaign. But it will be something quite different when the media decides they need to redefine her. They will do their best to bring her down.

[BlueMTexpat]

22. LOL - we apparently do not inhabit the same planet.

What on earth are you talking about ... "repeat the terrible mistake of 2008 ..."

So McCain would have been better?

I doubt whether you will ever find a candidate "pure" enough for your high ideals.

Ever.

[FiveGoodMen]

31. In the primaries of 2008

[woo me with science]

69. The poster actually understood that, of course,

but thank you for correcting the faux confusion.

I love your Wellstone avatar.

[1StrongBlackMan]

44. Apparently, not even Warren. eom

[woo me with science]

67. Isn't it interesting that our little Third Way crew

would show up to disparage the simple suggestion that we thoroughly vet our primary candidates...

I find that fascinating.

[1StrongBlackMan]

73. "Our little Third Way crew"? ...

condescend much?

But that said ... wasn't it you that got a misty when EW mentioned populist frames; while, attempting to shout down us'n "Little Third Wayers", suggestion that we vet her on matters beyond economics?

Now, the populist frame is getting you less misty ... Now, you need to hear all the economic details, spoken in a slow, low sultry voice, in order to maintain your mistiness.

[woo me with science]

91. Again, fascinating.

That was nearly incoherent, but you seem to be trying to suggest that I discouraged people from vetting Elizabeth at some point? Like you disparaged me for suggesting it?

Do you have a link to my doing that? Because I'm almost certain I didn't.

[1StrongBlackMan]

95. Okay. eom.

[rhett o rick]

119. I think they would rather see a republican win if their Third Way Democrats can't.

[Number23]

141. Yep and yep. But strangely, I am comforted by this part of your post

I doubt whether you will ever find a candidate "pure" enough for your high ideals.

I don't know about anyone else, but that relieves the hell out of me.

[Enthusiast]

28. +3

We need to hear about every issue.

Yes, the war on journalism. The war on journalism is one of the main tools for tearing the nation down. It would be better termed the war on a free and fair media, one which includes free journalists.

[leftstreet]

104. +4

[rhett o rick]

106. I like your intentions but I don't think we could have vetted Obama better. It's hard

to know when a candidate deliberately misleads you.

[woo me with science]

109. I know it sounds like Pollyanna, given our current situation.

Lying through campaigns has become routine, as has avoiding the most important issues altogether. Maybe we can't address the former, but we can fight the latter, at least.

IMO that's one of the sickest, most disturbing aspects of our current politics: the detaching of party loyalty from issues and the removal of some of the most important issues from public debate and the election narratives altogether.

If this election is going to be about populism...about wresting the country back from these oligarchs and returning it to the people, then this is the time to point out this sick trend in our "representative" elections.

We need to make the avoidance of issues an issue and demand that the candidates speak clearly and in detail about the TPP, the TISA, the NSA, the Patriot Act, the wars, whistleblowing, civil liberties....

At least get the lies on record.

[rhett o rick]

112. I live in Wash the State and our Senators are relative honest IMO. When I asked them

about the TPP, they didn't lie, but they did give me a load of rhetoric. It will be good for the industry in Wash and those put out of work will get free training (paid by taxpayers not industry). Free training is worthless if there are zero jobs.
I think most Americans are living in denial and will have to wait until we hit the wall.

[woo me with science]

116. I agree.

I spend most of my time trying to control my own cynicism, which IMO is based in a hell of a lot of realism right now.

I actively fight it by thinking of how far we've come just in the past several years, thanks largely to Occupy and Edward Snowden and thousands of eloquent internet users.

I think about the fact that I am constantly running across people in the world who seem to get it, and the fact that polls even in our corrupt media consistently show the country rejecting the corporate garbage and rallying behind more liberal and populist candidates and policies.

I think about the fact that the corporate propaganda element on virtually every discussion board I visit, while typically relentless, has also typically been identified as such and is viewed with disgust or considered a laughingstock among the regular membership.

I like to imagine a situation in which Bernie has a chance to run and to speak at length to the nation about policies - surveillance, NSA, civil liberties, oligarchy. All the predictable garbage aside about scary, unelectable socialists, I believe that, focusing on actual policies, he would blow any challenger away, because his views are actually solidly in the mainstream of what the Democratic Party used to be. I wish I didn't believe that the system is so tightly managed as to utterly prevent that kind of conversation and exposure, and that the PTB are so deadly serious about keeping that messaging from happening, that they would do anything....and I literally mean anything...to prevent it.

I don't know what I'm saying here, exactly. Just that I understand the deep cynicism, and I share it. But I think a momentum has been building, and I think it's important to fight like hell to keep building it. We do that by saying these things out loud; reminding the country and the politicians how elections are *supposed* to work in a representative, democratic republic; demanding clear responses and substantive conversations; and pointing out how sick and corrupted our election process has become, when we can't get them.

[rhett o rick]

120. "I spend most of my time trying to control my own cynicism," I agree with everything you

said. I think we are toast unless a miracle happens. That doesn't mean I won't fight every step.

Some here are living in dream land. One of them calls it the "Reality based community". They are heavily in denial and will fight anyone that tries to tell them anything other than their narrow view of the status quo. When life get too hard they grab onto an authority figure and hold on for dear life. They have a hold on Pres Obama and he could end SS and Medicare and they would cheer. I see them as a worse threat than the apathetic. They are actively and very vocally pushing the status quo at the expense of progressive reforms. H. Clinton could pledge to end all taxes on the 1% and they would still vote for her.

Keep up the good fight and don't let the Turd Way Bastards get you down.

[Jim Lane]

129. Warren on NSA

Just pulling one item from your list and doing a quick search: Last fall, Pat Leahy and Jim Sensenbrenner introduced a bill to rein in the NSA. Warren signed on as a co-sponsor, one of 16 Senators to do so.

"Congressional duo launch NSA overhaul bill and urge 'meaningful reform'"

[woo me with science]

8. Thank you, Elizabeth. Now please talk also about civil liberties and spying,

so we know where you stand.

[littlemissmartypants]

9. Where is the right of

women to be full citizens under the law? Did she forget she is a woman?

Feminist fail.
Very disappointed.

ERA NOW.
See you in September.
Remember In November.

[bigtree]

12. I'm not understanding where she failed to mention this

- "We believe—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work."

- "We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America."


I too hope to hear more from her on this, littlemissmartypants. Thanks for calling this out.

[BrotherIvan]

23. She talked about this directly

This article is completely sliced and diced and I'm sure there was a lot more to her speech than reported here.

"We believe that women have a right to their bodies, we will overturn Hobby Lobby!"

She is very, very strong on women's rights. She will be great for that. But to be honest, that is also one of Clinton's strong points as well. As all over the world, she spoke about the rights of women and girls. She always made a point to do so as it is her number one issue and has been for quite some time.

[littlemissmartypants]

84. Thanks for the good news. nt

[BrotherIvan]

86. You might love this video

I got a bit misty, I admit. I just love her calling them on the carpet and standing up to their craziness.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017203051

[littlemissmartypants]

88. Thank you. nt

[Doctor_J]

76. very disappointed????

Did you read the speech, or just do a document search for "choose" and, not finding it, declare this outstanding manifesto unsuitable?

[littlemissmartypants]

79. Leave me alone. nt

[demwing]

111. it's in the article

Comprehension fail.
Very disappointed.

[littlemissmartypants]

114. Thanks for understanding. nt

[Nye Bevan]

11. I welcome them both into the primary race, and would be happy with either as president.

So, af least for me, not awkward at all.

[bigtree]

15. it's just a joke about the hat overshadowing the Clinton cup

. . . and, her rhetoric certainly goes farther than I've heard from Hillary recently.

[Whisp]

14. wow. just wow. The Perfect Candidate.

I believe everything she says. I believe she wants these things for everyone.

[redqueen]

19. I would be so thrilled if she was our candidate.

But I hope people are ready to bust ass this year because a republican congress will fuck everything up no matter who's president.

[BlueMTexpat]

24. Amen.

[bigtree]

33. it's interesting

. . . because all of HER focus right now seems to be on helping Democratic candidates get elected.

[daleanime]

36. Which makes her......

more appealing to me.

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. Wouldn't it be great if ...

Democrats followed the current Party Standard-bearers' (Warren AND HRC) lead and answer each 2016 question with, "Yeah, but 2014!"

[Fearless]

21. Run run run!

[BrotherIvan]

25. I RUN to the polls to vote for her

She is a very exciting candidate.

[Fearless]

26. No one could excite the base like her!

[BrotherIvan]

27. At the same time many are wary

Myself included. Being duped makes one hesitant to fall for it again.

I also think the party will bring her down before she even gets a chance. They love her while she is raising money and stumping for candidates, but I'm pretty sure they won't let her get near power as she won't follow the corporate agenda.

[Enthusiast]

29. To be what she says she is, she will have to willing to die.

That is just a fact. They® would try to kill her.

[BrotherIvan]

32. After the discussion of RFK

Your tin-foiliness is not unwarranted. We have the strongest Oligarchs since the Guilded Age. Unlimited resources for the most part. They can get rid of anyone they want. First they will try to take her down politically, then they will try to harm her. I hope her staff knows this and has a good plan.

But something is afoot. We can't be the only ones to notice she is building momentum. But the attack hasn't come yet. Very out of character. But it is coming.

[bigtree]

34. look at how they treated her Senate campaign

. . . and magnify that 1000%

[BrotherIvan]

35. Yes

Perhaps the Repubs aren't going after her because they know the party itself will take her down. I don't know. I don't have a lot of hope that we can change the course of the country unless something very major happens.

[zeemike]

43. I am sure they are confident that Clinton will be the one.

So no need to dis her right now...besides if she does run and lose, many will be disheartened by it and may not even vote...a win win for them.

[BrotherIvan]

65. I'm not so sure anymore

They actually really really hate HRC because she can demand concessions. I assume that's what happened in 2008 with Michigan and Florida: yanking the chain. They want someone even more malleable. If they could put up a newbie corporate Dem who just loves the spotlight and doesn't care about policy, they would fall all over themselves. That's why I'm very hesitant to put any hopes in an EW run. They won't let her because she will not go with their ALEC-contrived bullshit.

[woo me with science]

97. I'm not sure I agree that they expect Hillary to be the candidate,

or even want her to be. In fact, I'm pretty sure I think they don't plan to run her.

I think the name recognition polls at this point are meaningless and just to push that meme, I think the country is in a place where her DLC/Third Way/corporate/MIC identity will make her poisonous to voters, and I believe they probably have a faux-populist Trojan horse waiting in the wings. I am not even 100 percent sure yet that Elizabeth is not that Trojan horse. Don't get me wrong...I think Elizabeth's eloquence re: the banks and Wall Street is desperately needed, but I also recall that Barack Obama sounded very populist at this point in the game, too. We have not heard nearly enough from her yet for me to relax. I'm hopeful, but still very cautious.

If Elizabeth is what she appears to be, they will have to bring her down. But I agree with you that they have reasons to be very cautious about attacking her. Whichever candidate ends up being theirs, I think they will run in a campaign of faux populism, because that is where the country is right now. They do not want to risk appearing to come out too strongly against the extremely popular opinions she is expressing.

[zeemike]

100. That's a good point.

You don't want to draw attention to a popular message that you disagree with.

But I feel they would much rather run against Hillary because of her baggage, and even if they lost to her they could count on her to not fuck with Wall Street.

[woo me with science]

102. I was editing while you were typing.

I agree that they are aware of her baggage. I don't trust them a lick.

[zeemike]

105. Well you are right to be cautious.

Because we have been fooled before and we can be fooled again.
But at this point in the game we have nothing else to hang our hope on.
Words are all we have and we know how that worked out last time.

[woo me with science]

107. We have words and records and active questioning.

In 2008, there were deliberate lies, yes, but there was also a lot of vagueness and Rorschach statements. And since then it's only gotten worse. We are being trained not to expect any substantive discussion of some of the most important issues of all in campaigns. Hell, even the official 2014 Democratic Party survey of voters on important issues did not MENTION the TPP or the TISA or the surveillance state. The Obama campaign flat-out refused to give its stance on Social Security during the 2012 campaign. The arrogance from both politicians and the media in refusing to get into anything substantive is a national disgrace.

One thing we can do is publicly demand better. We should talk about the importance of knowing where candidates stand, and remind the country of what we have a right to expect from elections in a representative nation.

We have to demand specific and detailed answers on policy. Bernie so far is the only potential candidate I'm aware of who is on record on virtually all of what I consider the most important issues. That's why he's in my sigline for now.

I know it sounds naive; every aspect of the process resists it. But we have to make THAT an issue. We have to be noisy about demanding this. It won't be easy, because the MSM resists it with every core of their purchased being. But honest candidates will want to reach us with that information.

[zeemike]

117. "We are being trained"

Now that is a fact...and in more ways than one...trained to lower expectations, trained to be fearful, trained to be partisan, trained to comply.

Honestly I have read science fiction stories like this, but I never thought I would live to see it.
It's going to be a brave new world we leave our children to live in...I only hope the young people figure it out and take action.

[Fearless]

49. It's not up to them. It's up to us.

[BrotherIvan]

51. I applaud your enthusiasm

And I agree, if we can prove we actually do get to choose who governs us, then it will be a great day indeed. Sorry to be so cynical.

[Fearless]

52. If not us then who will bring about change?

[BrotherIvan]

54. I don't know that it can happen at the national level

I do not believe it can happen within the current system at all. If Citizens United were overturned, perhaps. But I think it must come from the community level or even the state level as we are seeing with Vermont and California. On the national level, there is always fighting against corporate money and stupid Republicans. All the energy is lost in the fight, and none is given to actually governing. So nothing changes.

I am very disappointed in how Republicans, who are the minority party at this point, are still able to get their way. Democrats just throw up their hands and make excuses. But their lack of opposition is very telling. We've seen six years of these shenanigans, and still no game plan? I think that's why so many are drawn to EW: at least she seems willing to fight. Right now, that's pretty much all I can ask.

[Fearless]

57. If we don't try then we can't succeed.

[1StrongBlackMan]

53. Hate to be a kill joy; but ...

While Warren has liberals and progressive excited, I'm not seeing a lot of excitement among the most reliable segment of the Democratic base ... African-Americans.

[Fearless]

58. Do you have data to back up that statement?

Otherwise it's just silliness.

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. I have not been able to find any favorability polling ...

of African-Americans on Warren; however, does anecdotal evidence count? I send a goodly amount of time around other African-Americans and have not noticed much excitement among African-Americans for Warren.

And how arrogant of you to call my opinion "silliness" ... as if you know a damned thing about African-American sentiment, political or otherwise.

[Fearless]

62. Opinion isn't fact

I said the statement is silly if there if no data to back it up. I would never call you silly for having the opinion. When people hear her they agree with her. She needs to put her voice out there more and more and I am confident that she will continue to see support from all walks of life.

[1StrongBlackMan]

63. Have you look at any favorability polling of African-Americans on Warren? ...

Then how can your argue against my anecdotal experience? Isn't that equally fact-less based "silliness"?

[Fearless]

66. She worked hard to show support for all minority groups during her Senate campaign...

Here is a link to her African-American group:

http://elizabethwarren.com/groups/african-americans

As for evidence, there are no polls currently asking that question, which is why I said it was silly to claim that she didn't have support of African American voters. She is a Democrat and Democrats have reliably carried the African-American vote for more than seventy years! There is no evidence to suggest that if she ran, she'd be the first Democratic presidential candidate not to carry African-American voters. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination will have majority support of African-American voters, because by and large they know that the Republican party is out to get them.

You may ask, would Hillary bring out the African-American vote better. To which I also suggest that there is no data matching the two against each other for the African-American vote. So, how can one say, as you did, that Warren would not have the vote with any certainty at all. You made the claim, the burden of proof lies with you.

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. I said ...

While Warren has liberals and progressive excited, I'm not seeing a lot of excitement among the most reliable segment of the Democratic base ... African-Americans.

Which is wholly different from saying that African-Americans won't come out for Warren.

BTW ... Look at the picture at the link to her African-American Group. Notice anything curious?

[Fearless]

75. To which photo do you refer?

And if they will come out for her, then there's no issue here.

[1StrongBlackMan]

81. The picture at the ...

African-Americans For Warren link.

For your consideration and edification:

(Another pundit's) idea that liberals killed the Clinton candidacy of 2008 and could do the same in 2016 if they backed Warren or another credible challenger. But while liberals were a necessary part of the Obama insurgency, they weren’t sufficient to stop the Clinton machine. To wit, self-identified liberals were just 39 percent of all Democrats in 2008, followed by moderates (38 percent) and conservatives (21 percent). Or you could just look at Clinton’s record in the primary, where liberal opposition couldn’t block her victories in New Hampshire, California, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Massachusetts, and Arizona.


Clinton’s problem had less to do with liberals and more with African-Americans, who formed a critical share of the Democratic primary electorate. Scheiber points to this in a footnote, but it’s worth a full take. Put simply, a Democratic presidential candidate can’t win the primary without substantial support from black voters, who tend to vote for the establishment choice. Accordingly, it’s when African-Americans back a challenger that the establishment candidate falters, which is to say that if Hillary Clinton had kept a decent share of the black vote, she would have become the Democratic nominee, regardless of liberal disdain for her candidacy.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/liberals_support_hillary_clinton_african_american_voters_will_give_her_the.html

But read the entire linked article ... It has much more.

[Fearless]

92. Which of course makes sense

The African-American vote is the most secure voting bloc in the Democratic Party aside from the LGBT vote (again for obvious reasons). If Warren wins the nomination then she will win the African-American vote during the general election. For her to win the African-American vote she has to get more than Hillary, most likely. The problem is that the African-American vote went largely to Obama in the last primary (for obvious reasons he should be best able to understand them and their needs). So, there is no reliable evidence that Hillary would take the African-American vote when given a choice between the two. There is no means for comparison. Both need to state their case and the African-American voters will make their decisions based on that. I personally feel that Elizabeth Warren would make a much better case. She was much more vocal about the mortgage crisis, holding Wall St. accountable, providing inexpensive education to our youth, and many other populist issues whereas Hillary was mostly silent on these progressive economic issues (as she is not an economic progressive) and focused more on social issues where she is more in line with liberal view points. The issue here is will Hillary be able to prove she's an economic progressive more than Warren can prove she's a social progressive. I tend to believe the latter. Elizabeth Warren stood up continuously for women's right to choose, equality in the workplace, and LGBT rights. Her only challenge is that Hillary is better known. She needs to put herself out there... which she is doing by stumping for candidates for the 2014 election... Going to places Hillary never goes... West Virginia for instance to upset Mitch McConnell. She is also a clearer public speaker... able to get her message across in simple terms that everyone understands and works well with sound bite MSM news reporting. She may currently be the strongest person in Congress in that way, akin to Kennedy, whose seat she now resides in.

EDIT TO ADD:

Using exit polls in Warren's 2012 election campaign... She beats incumbant Scott Brown amongst African-American voters: 86-14%

Beating even Kennedy in 2006 who won the African American vote: 80-20%

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/senate/exit-polls

[1StrongBlackMan]

93. First ...

Please do not advance the "tribal" myth ... the vast majority of African-Americans did not support Candidate Obama for "he's one of us" tribal reasons. In fact, Candidate Obama trailed Candidate Clinton, among African-American voters, until relatively late in primary season.

Secondly, as the article I linked to indicated, African-American voters tend to favor the establishment candidate ... and that would be, HRC. So to argue Candidate Warren and Candidate Clinton would start all square among African-America is a ahistoric fiction.

Hillary would take the African-American vote when given a choice between the two. There is no means for comparison. Both need to state their case and the African-American voters will make their decisions based on that. I personally feel that Elizabeth Warren would make a much better case. She was much more vocal about the mortgage crisis, holding Wall St. accountable, providing inexpensive education to our youth, and many other populist issues ...

None of which rank high among issues of concern for African-American voters:

74% think society isn’t doing enough to support young men and boys of color.
Almost two-thirds say they are better off financially than they were five years ago, but 82% are concerned that Whites still make more than Blacks for doing the same jobs.
52% see the media portrayal of African-Americans as generally negative.
60% of respondents agree we are making progress in providing access to health care.
Almost 1/3 are concerned that their children are not getting a quality education.
44% said they knew someone who had committed suicide or was killed.
Seventy-four percent say efforts to reduce crime and violence in their neighborhood is losing ground or staying the same.
30% said “improving the creating more jobs/good paying jobs” is a top issue of concern.

http://www.ebony.com/life/the-state-of-black-family-survey-987#axzz2xefJN5qf

I really recommend that you read the OP linked here: candidate falters, which is to say that if Hillary Clinton had kept a decent share of the black vote, she would have become the Democratic nominee, regardless of liberal disdain for her candidacy.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/liberals_support_hillary_clinton_african_american_voters_will_give_her_the.html

[Fearless]

96. WHOA WAIT JUST A SECOND THERE

I said that African American voters DID support President Obama!

The rest of what you put in the last post is irrelevant.

I NEVER said he didn't. That would be stupid.

To quote from my last post: "The problem (for Hillary) is that the African-American vote went largely to Obama in the last primary (for obvious reasons he should be best able to understand them and their needs)."

(Bold and antecedent added to clarify.)

[1StrongBlackMan]

98. Yes, African-Americans did come out for Candidate Obama

in a big way ... However, that support started ticking up only after his first-place finish in the Iowa caucuses. Prior to that, HRC enjoyed a near double digit lead over Candidate Obama.

[Fearless]

99. Because they didn't know him.

But then again they definitely came out in the Iowa caucus to give him that victory as well.

Chicken before the egg? Or egg before the chicken?

[1StrongBlackMan]

101. Okay. eom.

[JDPriestly]

30. Elizabeth Warren is mainstream America.

She will win. We just have to get her to run.

Hillary seems tired and overly intellectual compared to Elizabeth Warren.

[Mnpaul]

108. Warren can take complicated issues and explain them

in a manner that most can understand. Don't go into long winded explanation, cut to the facts. Al Franken is doing this as well in his campaign ad.

[JDPriestly]

121. Great.

Last edited Sat Jul 19, 2014, 12:02 AM - Edit history (1)

Look at the bios on Al Franken and Warren. Franken is a comedian. To succeed, he had to speak clearly, succinctly and express complex thoughts in very few sentences. He had to do that to keep his job. He is a natural and experienced at talking straight.

Then Elizabeth Warren: teaching law at Harvard to young adults. Some of the most brilliant, well educated and critical young adults in America. She also had to speak clearly, succinctly and express complex thoughts in simple terms. She also had to do that to keep her job.

Two winners in my view. And we have more of them in the Democratic Party. Have you read Elizabeth Warren's book, A Fighting Chance? I love it.

[Ccarmona]

37. We Also Believe

in a fair, non-political, and impartial judicial system where judges make decisions based on the rule of law.

[safeinOhio]

39. EW for VP

add the voice of the progressive side of the party to the ticket and hope she can add our voice too. Even if she does not run or get on the ticket, her voice IS making a difference. Keep talking about those issues.

[BillZBubb]

83. Why settle for second place?

She has a shot at the top if she wants to make the run.

[Cryptoad]

40. You tell em Sister!

[jimruymen]

42. yes…...

finally, someone we can believe in

[Moostache]

45. 100% Absolutely!!! SIGN ME UP, COUNT ON ME, LET'S GET TO WORK!!!!

She went on to outline 11 tenets of progressivism:

- "We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it."

- "We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth."

- "We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality."

- "We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage."

- "We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them."

- "We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt."

- "We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions."

- "We believe—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work."

- "We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America."

- "We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform."

- "And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!"

And the main tenet of conservatives' philosophy, according to Warren? "I got mine. The rest of you are on your own."

I am sold 100% for that as the Democratic Party platform...it reflects nearly every one of my core beliefs. The only missing in my eyes are provisions for a) a ban on working as a lobbyist for 10 years after leaving public service, b) publicly funded elections and c) term limits across all branches of the federal government of no more than 12 years in any single post (you could conceivably still be a 48-yr career politician, but it would require that you served 12 yrs in the house, the senate, the white house and on the SCOTUS).

Put THAT platform to a vote and I will pour my heart and soul and life into achieving it...give me another warmed over corporate lap dog candidate and bullshit platform that sells out the interests of the middle class and the poor to the banksters and fucking lobbyists and I have better things to do besides pound the pavement in hostile areas trying to GOTV. I want REAL values and a candidate who actually BELIEVES in those values instead of being lied to or used as a tool to gaining power.

Run, Liz, run!!!!!

Warren - Sanders 2016

[emsimon33]

46. Feet on the street trumps $$$$$

Especially if those feet belong to passionate and informed people.

[xchrom]

50. du rec.

[Spider Jerusalem]

56. The focus on personalities rather than policies is part of what's wrong with US politics (n/t)

[Hekate]

59. Fact: a POTUS can't focus the way a Senator can. Warren is focused like a laser right now. ...

As POTUS, however, she'll have the children from Central America at our borders, the failing infrastructure of the US, and wars all over the world to keep an eye on. Plus a recalcitrant Congress.

Good luck.

I think she's swell, but I'm with the residents of Massachusetts who say: Why the rush to vacate her seat in the Senate? Is there a Dem of equal caliber guaranteed to win -- or will the seat fall to another Republican, the way it did the last time?

As a resident of California I am overjoyed that there is in the Senate one person who is so effectively focused.

That said, if she's the nominee for POTUS I will vote for her gladly.

[Starry Messenger]

71. I like her where she is too.

I'd actually love to see her as Labor Sec. for a Democratic administration, rather than President, just for the reasons you state. But I'd hate to lose her in the Senate.

[sheshe2]

110. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hekate!

[americannightmare]

72. As long as the following is the law of the land...

"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1

Warren and all progressives should be working to elect more progressives (not DINO's) to the House of Representatives. It won't do us any good to have a true progressive such as Warren as prez if the purse strings continue to be held by conservative sociopaths. Unless she's willing to be impeached by signing executive orders to stimulate the economy a la 1950s infrastructure projects (i.e. interstate highway system).

[LiberalLovinLug]

77. Some might say Hillary is a little jealous of her popularity with grassroots Dems

But I'd say Hillary is more than pleased...as long as Warren sticks to her word and won't run.

Warren will no doubt bring out the left wing of the party and students, as well as the anti-Wall Street segment of small r republicans to the polls for Hillary in '16. It may be the difference in a great mandate for her, or even a simple win if Fox News and the other wingnut blowhards create enough confusion with the gullible "moderates". Then Hillary can just do whatever her corporate overlords want her to. All she has to do is never allow herself to be pinned down to answering if she believes the same as Warren. Easy Peasy.

[oldandhappy]

78. AMEN!

We cannot win what we do not fight for in this world. I choose to fight. Not in the sense of beating up people, but in the sense of constant letter, emails, posts -- a barrage of messages to let people know there is someone out here who cares about people -- the real people -- flesh and blood people.

[abelenkpe]

90. This is what every democrat should be saying

And fighting for. Love her!

[blkmusclmachine]

94. It's Hillary's turn, dammit!!!

[MirrorAshes]

103. No one is entitled to the nomination.

Picking a candidate based on a perception that it is owed to them is a terrible way for a party to function. If Hillary is the better candidate, she needs to put in the work to prove it.

[wyldwolf]

115. what's awkward about it?

[Doctor_J]

118. I will wait to see who Jaime Dimon endorses

He's the dude who runs the country anyway

[BlancheSplanchnik]

122. I love that list: what it means to be progressive.

Great to show people who think the parties are the same, or who "aren't sure" about "those Liberals". I'm thinking of people I've talked with...not the foaming at the mouth racists or misogynists, but people who are a little less rabid....yeah, I think those are points that could be heard.

[calimary]

123. This should be the Democratic Party Platform at the next national convention.

PERIOD.

[IrishAyes]

125. Well, I love HRC and Warren both.

Either would suit me just fine, thank you everyone. I'm disinclined to fret. If both should run, luckily my state primary's late enough in the game that I should have a pretty good idea which one has the better chance of winning the WH. That's the one I'll vote for; no apologies. I've never considered it good for the country to hold my breath and pout because my favorite Democrat lost a nomination to another Democrat, especially one I like just about as well. They may be different, but each has a strong side.

[villager]

126. "We can't win what we don't fight for!?" Has somebody alerted the White House?

n/t

[Doctor_J]

138. They're fighting like hell for TPP and corporate schools

They fought like hell for corporate healthcare. They know alright.

[villager]

140. Good point.

Alas.

[supercats]

127. The 11 Tenets Of Progressivism...

Outlined by our next President Of The United States!!! We need to make this happen!!!

[bigtree]

128. update: video in op

[leftyohiolib]

134. great acceptance speech

[Chathamization]

137. The 11 tenets are rather lackluster; 9 of 11 are just boilerplate Democratic positions

Not that there's anything wrong with boilerplate Democratic positions, but one would hope that a progressive leader would be pushing for things that aren't accepted by the party already. At least 10 of the 11 are Clinton's positions; the only one I'm unsure about is the first. I like Warren, but this isn't really exciting (then again, eh, it's Netroots so it doesn't matter that much).

[Aerows]

139. I'm from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party

and I will get on my knees and beg her to run for President of the United States of America, because she would be a phenomenal one.