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

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'.

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.

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

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.

And those folks don't parse words, right?

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.

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

she would.

Sid

...I was just thinking that I needed someone to make me laugh, today. Dude, you rock.

I love ya Sid!

Hillary Rodham Clinton WILL be our nominee two years hence, and POTUS six months later.

Could happen

...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?

Jeez, and people call *me* a political naif!

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.

In neither case has she made up her mind, obviously.

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

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/

...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.

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?

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.

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.

I just don't need weekly updates.

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

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

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

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

at the moment.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

O'Malley but I worry about national recognition for him.

...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.

-Laelth

Not 2016!

GOTV2014!

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

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

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."

Who knows what she's thinking now?

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.

Tell me, how does your poor wife put up with such oppression?

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

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?

still alive and General Franco is dead!

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/

She's RUNNING. Folks! She's RUNNING!

i think she's pushing the left left.

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.

Thanks.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

...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.

-Laelth

Third way is republican.

There is NO doubt.

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

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

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.

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.

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