Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 11:56 AM Jul 2014

She's DEFINITELY, ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY not runn... um... uh...

That difficult woman from Massachusetts continues to be difficult:

Washington Post: Elizabeth Warren could end the presidential speculation today. She has chosen not to.

In a new interview with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), ABC's Jeff Zeleny does something a journalist should have done a long time ago: press her on her use of verb tense.

Noting Warren's stock response to whether she will run for president is "I am not running," Zeleny makes the completely valid point that such a statement is quite a bit less than Shermanesque.

Here's the video, and here's the exchange:

ZELENY: You've said 'I am not running.' Is that still your answer today?

WARREN: I am not running.

ZELENY: I noticed it's in the present tense, though. 'I am not running.'

WARREN: I'm not running.

ZELENY: Does that mean you've ruled out running, or all you'll say is, 'I am not running'?

WARREN: I am not running for president.

An awful setback for the Resistance-is-futile-so-don't-even-think-about-it crowd. Darn.
92 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
She's DEFINITELY, ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY not runn... um... uh... (Original Post) MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 OP
I think they should leave her alone. She says she is not running and I take her at her word. hrmjustin Jul 2014 #1
Politicians parse words extremely carefully. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #13
exactly. Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #17
So you're essentially saying Warren is a typical dissembling politician. nt Cali_Democrat Jul 2014 #23
No need for the redundancy. JackRiddler Jul 2014 #31
No, I think she's a pretty extraordinary one. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #36
No. Warren is not running. She has not yet decided whether she might run. It depends. JDPriestly Jul 2014 #57
But Warren's a Harvard Law School Professor MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #26
Even that would be too diaphanous... LanternWaste Jul 2014 #37
Yup, what I've been saying - oh, and by the way, I am not running either. InAbLuEsTaTe Jul 2014 #61
People have the right to try to persuade her. JackRiddler Jul 2014 #14
and all of this is also true. Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #22
I wish to all that is holy Aerows Jul 2014 #28
Clap for Tinkerbell!! Clap as hard as you can!!...nt SidDithers Jul 2014 #2
ohcrap... Wait Wut Jul 2014 #3
LOL! nt onehandle Jul 2014 #5
I thought Tinkerbell was inevitable. JEB Jul 2014 #48
Awesome! JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #52
Daummmm! sheshe2 Jul 2014 #58
is this the thread for the day? snooper2 Jul 2014 #4
So, you're telling me geek tragedy Jul 2014 #6
Oh, Please! Roy Serohz Jul 2014 #7
are you sure about that crystal ball of yours? Might want to shine it up a bit. ... lol Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #18
"If you'll just come with me....." Roy Serohz Jul 2014 #20
Unless she decides to back Liz W. instead awake Jul 2014 #35
...and a setback for the fantasy world "maybe she'll change her mind" contingent... brooklynite Jul 2014 #8
Why introduce facts and logic into the conversation? LordGlenconner Jul 2014 #10
Who did Warren endorse? MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #12
For the hundredth time... brooklynite Jul 2014 #15
So your claim is based on "urging to run" = "endorse"? MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #25
So she "didn't endorse" in the same sense that she "didn't say she wouldn't run"? brooklynite Jul 2014 #29
Yes. MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #32
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is not... brooklynite Jul 2014 #33
For the hundredth time... Mnpaul Jul 2014 #76
I see no inconsistency... brooklynite Jul 2014 #80
That is your opinion Mnpaul Jul 2014 #85
One again, I have NO objection to Warren (or anyone else) running brooklynite Jul 2014 #86
Someone who wants to run will pick up the mantle and run with the ready made supporters. TheKentuckian Jul 2014 #30
Any good politician with national ambition would be considering the presidency. Orsino Jul 2014 #9
amen to this. Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #16
that is ludricrous dsc Jul 2014 #21
You mean "never ran," or are a mind-reader. Orsino Jul 2014 #87
None of them ever had any desire to be President dsc Jul 2014 #88
OMG!!! She's running!!! zappaman Jul 2014 #11
As much as I'd like to see her on the debate stage, it's not happening. conservaphobe Jul 2014 #19
Manny, she's clearly stating she's not running for President Zorra Jul 2014 #24
I have a standing policy of not voting for anyone from Mass. in a Dem. primary bluestateguy Jul 2014 #27
FWIW... MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #38
What IS matters less than how things are perceived bluestateguy Jul 2014 #39
Adelson and the Kochs lost, because they suck MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #40
This one's for you Manny... DonViejo Jul 2014 #34
To all you people sadoldgirl Jul 2014 #41
My pick... Agschmid Jul 2014 #43
I've already reached out to Brian Schweitzer brooklynite Jul 2014 #49
He would be my second choice after Warren. n/t Laelth Jul 2014 #77
My concern is 2014! sheshe2 Jul 2014 #60
She must be annoyed by all this... Agschmid Jul 2014 #42
No, I don't think so sadoldgirl Jul 2014 #44
And, what NONE of the of the possible candidates do: support someone else. brooklynite Jul 2014 #51
Perhaps. MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #45
What part of NO MEANS NO, don't you get Manny? She should change her mind to please you? KittyWampus Jul 2014 #46
...but that was on Tuesday..... brooklynite Jul 2014 #50
Hmm... as it happens, last night my wife said "No!" MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #55
Clearly you hate women Dragonfli Jul 2014 #90
The tyranny of Librul values MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #92
In elections in the United States Dragonfli Jul 2014 #89
In other news Abe Vigoda is whistler162 Jul 2014 #47
She's not running ...now ...just like Hillary is not running ...now. L0oniX Jul 2014 #53
She's supporting another Presidential candidate now, just like Hillary is....er, um, wait a min... brooklynite Jul 2014 #54
Whoa. WHOA. She's running. Nye Bevan Jul 2014 #56
i really don't think she's running, but the speculation pushes the left to the left...that is good. spanone Jul 2014 #59
What you are saying is Ms. Warren is just another lying politician... Spazito Jul 2014 #62
Was she elected on that basis? nt MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #63
Yes n/t Spazito Jul 2014 #64
Link please? MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #65
Link to what? Spazito Jul 2014 #66
Candidate Warren pledging to serve out her term in the Senate if elected. nt MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #67
LOL, your posts are funny in a strange kind of way... Spazito Jul 2014 #68
Your link doesn't support your claim. MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #69
Well, Manny, it's like satirists, those who have to explain it's satire aren't satirists... Spazito Jul 2014 #70
The idea of her running certainly causes a negative reaction Union Scribe Jul 2014 #71
Please point to ANY post where someone has said she SHOULDN'T run... brooklynite Jul 2014 #72
k&r for Elizabeth Warren. n/t Laelth Jul 2014 #73
I don't think Cersei is gonna like that tense at all. AngryAmish Jul 2014 #74
k&r for no more republican canidates PowerToThePeople Jul 2014 #75
Chained CPI is DEFINITELY, ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY going to become law. tridim Jul 2014 #78
Only 18% of the Bush tax cuts were repealed. MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #79
Probably, the third way Dems relentlessly keep pushing it every chance they get Dragonfli Jul 2014 #91
We had an encounter with Jeff Zeleny out here in little old Iowa rurallib Jul 2014 #81
It was a video, the link's in the OP MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #83
It depends on what the meaning of the word "am," am. nt Buns_of_Fire Jul 2014 #82
Skwisgaar ams confused tridim Jul 2014 #84

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
13. Politicians parse words extremely carefully.
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 12:36 PM
Jul 2014

As was pointed out, there was a very simple way for her to make absolutely sure everyone understood her if she actually has ruled it out. Simply expand 'I am not running' to 'I am not running, and I will not run'.

Then they could 'leave her alone'.

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
31. No need for the redundancy.
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 01:49 PM
Jul 2014

There are many matters on which even the best of politicians might need to dissemble. They all have wonderful families, believe in the beauty of work no matter how meaningless, think soldiers "serve" the nation, and worship sky-gods very devoutly, I hear. That's the level of the political culture and there's no escaping it for those who run. Playing around with aspirations for higher office is a legitimate form for this.

By this logic, Hillary has not announced but acts like she's running. Aha! She's dissembling!

More fundamentally: This is supposedly a democracy. People can ask for things, even if they don't get them.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
36. No, I think she's a pretty extraordinary one.
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 02:21 PM
Jul 2014

But yes, even as an extraordinary one, she's still a politician.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
57. No. Warren is not running. She has not yet decided whether she might run. It depends.
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 11:52 PM
Jul 2014

That's what it means. She has not yet made up her mind.

Many, many Americans want her to run.

I will not vote for Hillary. I do not want that on my conscience.

Hillary didn't just make a bad call on the Iraq War. She was informed and warned by Code Pink that the war would be a mistake.

Hillary did not do her homework on the Iraq War. Hillary voted to please the mighty and powerful in America on the Iraq War. She is sloppy in her work. Very sweet. But sloppy. I don't want her in the White House.

I don't always agree with Obama, and I think he is clueless about economics, but he is a stickler for detail, not a micro-manager, butt just very careful about important details.

Hillary would not have voted for the Iraq War among other things if she were careful enough about details to be the president. She does not ask enough of the right questions.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
37. Even that would be too diaphanous...
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 02:45 PM
Jul 2014

Even that would be too diaphanous. She needs to make it clear that regardless of what happens in the near future-- in the U.S. or elsewhere, whatever the dire circumstance, whatever the need, whatever the desire, and whatever changes of mind may come in the future, she will not run.

Although I'd hazard many would still infer from that what they desire... as I often see many people making the wish the father of the thought.

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
14. People have the right to try to persuade her.
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 12:37 PM
Jul 2014

She's a politician. Not as fragile as you suggest. She'll be fine.

brooklynite

(94,489 posts)
8. ...and a setback for the fantasy world "maybe she'll change her mind" contingent...
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 12:08 PM
Jul 2014

...because it's another day (or 2 or 10 or 30) spent dreaming of a Warren campaign rather than making a serious effort to find someone who actually wants to run.

A reminder that, in addition to saying she's not running, she's also saying she supports another candidate. Do you seriously think she'll change her mind AND run against the candidate she's endorsed?

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
12. Who did Warren endorse?
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 12:33 PM
Jul 2014
ZELENY: Does that mean you've ruled out running, or all you'll say is, 'I am not running'?

WARREN: I am not running for president.

brooklynite

(94,489 posts)
15. For the hundredth time...
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 12:46 PM
Jul 2014
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/

brooklynite

(94,489 posts)
29. So she "didn't endorse" in the same sense that she "didn't say she wouldn't run"?
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 01:48 PM
Jul 2014

Talk about twisting language...

Please point to an instance of ANY political candidate encouraging someone else to run for office and THEN deciding to run against them.

brooklynite

(94,489 posts)
33. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is not...
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 02:11 PM
Jul 2014

i.e. Elizabeth Warren IS not planning to run for President and she IS encouraging Hillary Clinton to run instead.

Mnpaul

(3,655 posts)
76. For the hundredth time...
Fri Jul 25, 2014, 07:59 AM
Jul 2014

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/

brooklynite

(94,489 posts)
80. I see no inconsistency...
Fri Jul 25, 2014, 09:43 AM
Jul 2014

...between encouraging someone to run for President and not formally endorsing them until they actually start; but I DO see an inconsistency between encouraging someone to run for President and then deciding to run against them.

Mnpaul

(3,655 posts)
85. That is your opinion
Fri Jul 25, 2014, 01:47 PM
Jul 2014

but even in the interview you quoted, she twice refused to endorse Hillary. Warren can see that third way policies don't lead in the direction she believes we need to go. She turned away from the Republicans for the same reason.

Ever hear the phrase the more the merrier?

brooklynite

(94,489 posts)
86. One again, I have NO objection to Warren (or anyone else) running
Fri Jul 25, 2014, 01:52 PM
Jul 2014

I'm simply not twisting logic to come up with a reason to believe she WILL run.

Right now, I probably agree with Warren more than I agree with you. For example, we both agree that Clinton should run for President and would be great.

TheKentuckian

(25,023 posts)
30. Someone who wants to run will pick up the mantle and run with the ready made supporters.
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 01:49 PM
Jul 2014

Demand motivates supply when there is plenty and there are plenty of politicians and wannabe politicians.

Offered supply need not dominate ones thinking.

Shit, I have fixation or even particular predilection for Warren. To be honest, I worry something is more being projected on her rather than self illumination. Frankly, I wonder if she is liberal at all and many people are perceiving her as such simply because the spectrum is entirely lost it and she just stayed right where she was a generation or so ago.

The thing is I'm not seeing much, if anything that wouldn't be perfectly acceptable in the Republican party 30 or 40 years ago, opposed openly by only the fringe and the fringe of the fringe in the conservative party.
Based on her positions so far, there is nothing "leftist" or anti - capitalist but rather common sense rules of the road and transparent transactions stuff BUT everyone else has lost their fucking minds to the point where there are Democrats saying these things make her too liberal to vote for (though they are very hard pressed to articulate why).

Not that some damn sense isn't a significant upgrade but the limitations of just some sense are not insignificant just as the limitations of just sane pop up in deeply troublesome ways every day. Rational beats delusional but can still carry you far from course and so a measure of realism needs to be in the mix with someone with so many positions to discuss other than in the wheel house, with such a thin track record, and who was pulling the lever for the dumpster fire coalition well into adulthood and why (integrity and success of the markets).

In these times if you are an unflinching capitalist then you are dangerous because you have a religion that dominates your public actions. You can be a capitalist but if you haven't flinched and considered and reconsidered yet then you are not thinking deeply enough and are having reflexive reaction to the stimulus and probably wilfully ignoring most of history in favor of a fake but privileged point of perception.

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
9. Any good politician with national ambition would be considering the presidency.
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 12:11 PM
Jul 2014

I just don't need weekly updates.

dsc

(52,155 posts)
21. that is ludricrous
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 01:08 PM
Jul 2014

to name some ambitions politicians that have never considered the Presidency, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangle

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
87. You mean "never ran," or are a mind-reader.
Sat Jul 26, 2014, 09:18 AM
Jul 2014

Or have a different idea of what "national ambitions" might mean.

dsc

(52,155 posts)
88. None of them ever had any desire to be President
Sat Jul 26, 2014, 09:20 AM
Jul 2014

expressed in any way, shape, or form. Pelosi wanted to be Speaker first, last, and always.

 

conservaphobe

(1,284 posts)
19. As much as I'd like to see her on the debate stage, it's not happening.
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 12:54 PM
Jul 2014

Our bench is deep. The shoe-in is more than capable. We'll be fine.

bluestateguy

(44,173 posts)
27. I have a standing policy of not voting for anyone from Mass. in a Dem. primary
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 01:42 PM
Jul 2014

It's a curse to be from that state and guaranteed loss in November.*

*not interested in hearing about JFK, Ok? It was 54 years go.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
38. FWIW...
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 04:45 PM
Jul 2014

Do you see any substantial similarities between Dukakis and Kerry, where Warren is *very* different?

bluestateguy

(44,173 posts)
39. What IS matters less than how things are perceived
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 04:59 PM
Jul 2014

Kerry and the Duke were smeared as effete liberal elitists. They did not fight back.

I'm sure EW would fight back, but I also think she would overwhelmed by the deluge of money that would be spent to defeat her. She would not have the advantage of incumbency as Obama had. This is a post Citizens United world we live in, like it or not.

You think Adelson and the Kochs spent a lot to defeat Obama? Imagine how much they would spend to bury Warren, who is considerably more anti-corporate than our current president.

I'm sure she would make an game effort, but it doesn't do much good to when your opponent is speaking ten times louder and ten times as often on the airwaves.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
40. Adelson and the Kochs lost, because they suck
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 05:08 PM
Jul 2014

They found out that with enough money, you can convince Americans that powder blue is white. But you can't convince them that powder blue is black. Attacking The Wall Street President as a Socialist was just #%^*ing stupid.

Likewise, Warren will define herself, clearly, as what she is. She does it in few words, in part because she actually has a point of view. If the Republican (or Democratic) oligarchs go after, they'll end up on the floor with missing teeth - you can check with Larry Summers and the Third Way crowd for details, they've tried.

sadoldgirl

(3,431 posts)
41. To all you people
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 05:17 PM
Jul 2014

who believe in HRC's presidency already: Who is your candidate, if she does not want to run????

brooklynite

(94,489 posts)
49. I've already reached out to Brian Schweitzer
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 09:29 PM
Jul 2014

...by which I mean, I actually REACHED OUT to Brian Schweitzer and set up a private meeting in Charlitte to talk to him. I suspect that, if all I did was write blog posts, I would have had fhe same access.

sadoldgirl

(3,431 posts)
44. No, I don't think so
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 05:23 PM
Jul 2014

She does what all other possible candidates do. She waits for the results in 2014.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
45. Perhaps.
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 05:37 PM
Jul 2014

But I think that people usually achieve what she has by viewing these things as opportunities.

 

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)
46. What part of NO MEANS NO, don't you get Manny? She should change her mind to please you?
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 05:43 PM
Jul 2014

When a woman says "no", it really means "make me"?

Elizabeth Warren Continues To Push Back On 2016 Rumors: 'No Means No'

Alex Lazar
The Huffington Post
07/22/14 12:08 PM ET

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) once again denied that she has her sights on the presidency in 2016, according to a Boston Globe article published Tuesday.

"I'm going to give you the same answer I have given you many times," Warren told the newspaper. "There is no wiggle room. I am not running for president. No means no."

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
55. Hmm... as it happens, last night my wife said "No!"
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 10:31 PM
Jul 2014

But I insisted.

She had to work late on a project, and I knew it wasn't my turn to empty the dishwasher, but... I appreciated that she wanted to uphold her end of the bargain, but I just had to help out. She watched silently, helplessly, from the computer as I emptied the thing.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
92. The tyranny of Librul values
Sat Jul 26, 2014, 10:50 AM
Jul 2014

Since Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country, she feels like she'd be a pariah if she did the right thing.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
89. In elections in the United States
Sat Jul 26, 2014, 09:48 AM
Jul 2014

Political drafts are used to encourage or pressure a certain person to enter a political race, by demonstrating a significant groundswell of support for the candidate. A write-in campaign may also be considered a draft campaign.

It is not illegal, wrong, misogynistic, and certainly not analogous to rape as you appear to imply.


This should really not have to be explained to a regular poster on a political discussion board.

Tell me, are your views regarding the "Ready for Hillary" people similar to your views regarding those ready for Elizabeth Warren?

brooklynite

(94,489 posts)
54. She's supporting another Presidential candidate now, just like Hillary is....er, um, wait a min...
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 09:53 PM
Jul 2014

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/

spanone

(135,816 posts)
59. i really don't think she's running, but the speculation pushes the left to the left...that is good.
Thu Jul 24, 2014, 11:55 PM
Jul 2014

i think she's pushing the left left.

Spazito

(50,260 posts)
62. What you are saying is Ms. Warren is just another lying politician...
Fri Jul 25, 2014, 12:45 AM
Jul 2014

who will say whatever they need to say for political expediency. I disagree with you, I believe her when she promised the people of Massachusetts she would finish her term.

Spazito

(50,260 posts)
66. Link to what?
Fri Jul 25, 2014, 01:15 AM
Jul 2014

Nice try, major fail. Your post has the link inferring Ms. Warren is a lying politician who says what is expected for political expediency and, it seems, you agree with it.

Spazito

(50,260 posts)
68. LOL, your posts are funny in a strange kind of way...
Fri Jul 25, 2014, 01:24 AM
Jul 2014

she affirmed her commitment to serve out her term in December, why would she do that if it was understood by those who voted for her that she had no intention to do exactly that?

Here's a link since it seems to be of such import to you, you even participated in the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024132800

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
69. Your link doesn't support your claim.
Fri Jul 25, 2014, 01:32 AM
Jul 2014

You claim she promised, prior to election, that she'd serve out her term. I don't recall this.

Please provide a link from *before* her election pledging to serve out her term.

Thanks!

Spazito

(50,260 posts)
70. Well, Manny, it's like satirists, those who have to explain it's satire aren't satirists...
Fri Jul 25, 2014, 01:38 AM
Jul 2014

they are inadequate wannabes. Voters expect the candidates they vote for will represent them for the term they are running for, it doesn't have to be spelled out. You may vote for politicians who you expect to toss your vote to the side for political expediency, most don't.

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
71. The idea of her running certainly causes a negative reaction
Fri Jul 25, 2014, 01:45 AM
Jul 2014

with some, doesn't it? I doubt she'll run, but I hope for plenty more of these threads as they whip the establishmentarians into a beautiful froth.

brooklynite

(94,489 posts)
72. Please point to ANY post where someone has said she SHOULDN'T run...
Fri Jul 25, 2014, 07:33 AM
Jul 2014

...or was troubled by the possibility that she would.

All the responders to these threads have done is comment on the people who seem to be ignoring every sign she's given that she won't run, but will be the first to complain that she was "stopped" from running by the "Establishment" when reality finally hits.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
79. Only 18% of the Bush tax cuts were repealed.
Fri Jul 25, 2014, 08:37 AM
Jul 2014

The rest? They were made permanent. It's good to be rich in America today.

'Cos that's the outcome Obama wanted, yes?

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
91. Probably, the third way Dems relentlessly keep pushing it every chance they get
Sat Jul 26, 2014, 10:04 AM
Jul 2014

One of these times the Republicans will except the generous offer, I am certain Clinton will continue to push for it as well if she is elected and it is not implemented before 2015.

rurallib

(62,406 posts)
81. We had an encounter with Jeff Zeleny out here in little old Iowa
Fri Jul 25, 2014, 10:57 AM
Jul 2014

We had a rally for Obama care before it passed. We had @ 300 in a small building on a school night. Zeleny was there. He even interviewed Mrs. Lib after the rally. 300 in Iowa on a school night in a non-election year is huge. Zeleny's article ripped us from one end to another, misquoting the rally leader for a capper.

So, to me, if Zeleny writes it, it is horse shit.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
83. It was a video, the link's in the OP
Fri Jul 25, 2014, 11:02 AM
Jul 2014

I do share your irritation with the press - I've found them to be treacherous on more than one occasion.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»She's DEFINITELY, ABSOLUT...