Elizabeth Warren’s Biggest Donors Say She’d Be ‘Out of Her Mind’ to Run for President

[brooklynite]

The Daily Beast:

She “lit up” a gathering of liberal activists earlier this month with a barn-burner of a speech calling on Democrats to push back hard as thousands of attendees waved signs and chanted “Run, Liz, Run!” Her every denial that she will not run for president is parsed down to the verb tense for evidence that the door is open even a crack. She embarked on the kind of nationwide book tour that candidates-in-waiting always do as they drum up interest for a potential bid, and a “Ready for Elizabeth” draft movement is preparing to launch satellite chapters in states and cities around the country.

But if Elizabeth Warren does in fact reverse her repeated denials of interest and decides to run for president, she will have to do so virtually alone. That’s because almost to a person, her earliest and most devoted backers do not want her to challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

“If Elizabeth called me up and said, ‘I am thinking of running for president,’ I would say, ‘Elizabeth, are you out of your goddamn mind?’” said one New York-based donor who has hosted Warren in his living room. “I really like Elizabeth, but if Hillary is in the race it just makes no sense.”

This conversation was echoed again and again in more than a dozen interviews with big-ticket Democratic donors in Warren’s hometown of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and in cities that operate as ATMs for the Democratic money machine, like New York, Washington, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Over and over again, the message was the same: Stay in the Senate, Liz, stay in the Senate.

(disclosure -- the Warren supporter referred to is a friend of mine, and I've been in the aforementioned living room. My wife and I are part of the "big ticket" supporters group but were not interviewed for this article)

[JustAnotherGen]

1. Kick it up

Two recs are not enough

[merrily]

2. Three things:

But, first, my personal disclaimer:

If Warren does run in a primary, I am not sure she'd get, or not get, my primary vote. I don't like the crystal ball game, so I am not spending the thought it would take me to come up with my favorite primary candidate until I know there will be an authentic Democratic primary and who the candidates are. The only thing of which I am certain now is that, if Hillary runs, she will not get my primary vote.

So, if you want to see this, or any post, of mine as pro-Warren or anti-Warren, I don't know how to help you see reality.

That said:

1. It's no coincidence that big donors to Democrats (or big bundlers) are trying to selle exactly the same message about Warren that the Party has been trying to sell, that message (still) being: Warren should stay in the Senate.

If Warren is the nominee, though, the donors and the DNC will support her. Meanwhile, big donors have no more right to decide who the nominee will or will not be than the DNC does. It should be the call of Democratic voters who bother to vote in the primary, full stop.

2. The enthusiasm for Warren should tell someone in power in the Democratic Party, even in other political parties, something I would very much like them to hear. (Whether they will admit to heaing it is a separate issue.)

So, regardless of where Warren or Sanders or anyone to the left of Hillary "should" or should not stay, I am very much in favor of showing enthusiasm for anyone at all to the left of Hillary, but especially for Democrats to the left of Hillary. If you see yourself as to the left of Hillary, this is your time to stand up. What you do in the poll booth at primary time or general is a separate issue.

3. The reason supporters of Warren or any other candidate "parse" the denials of candidates is not because primary voters are silly or fanatics or desperate or anything else. It's because so many politicians have been and are so notoriously coy at best, or downright dishonest, about whether they will run or not. Best case, their thinking "evolves" based on family matters, voter enthusiasm, DNC support, donor support and a host of other considerations.

Among many others, I distinctly remember Senator Elect Obama saying on national TV that discussion of a possible 2008 Presidential run was not warranted because he hadn't yet even identified the location of the US Senate cloakroom. Within a matter of months, it was pretty clear he was running. And, on the Daily Show, Stewart and Hillary turned her own coyness into a comedy routine. So, if y'all want us to stop parsing, stop lying to us or playing coy. (I do favor genuinely evolved thinking, though.)

[octoberlib]

54. You hit the nail on the head with this.

Meanwhile, big donors have no more right to decide who the nominee will or will not be than the DNC does. It should be the call of Democratic voters who bother to vote in the primary, full stop.

[brooklynite]

93. Where does the notion that they are "deciding" come from?

I see regular complaints that the DNC or Third Way or the 1%ers or some other strawman is "forcing" Hillary Cinton onto the Democratic Party and "denying us a choice" of a "real progressive".

Go back through every thread you can find on Warren (or Sanders) vs Clinton and try to find a post that says Warren (or Sanders) shouldn't run. You won't find it. You WILL find posts that either person wouldn't be strong enough to win the General Election, which is a perfectly valid position to hold. You're welcome to endorse, fund, work for and vote for any candidate you want. SO ARE WE. The reality of our political system is that running for President is expensive if you want to be competitive, and you need to be reaching out -now- for the financial support you'll call upon when you decide to run. Many deep pockets Democrats were happy to support Warren's Senate campaign, but many of us are also signed up for Hillary Clinton looking forward to 2016.


If you want someone else to vote for who isn't thinking about running already, you first need to get that acceptable candidate to run. Warren has been as emphatic as anyone that 1) she doesn't want to run and 2) she WANTS CLINTON TO RUN. You're welcome to dream that she'll change her mind, but when you wake up from the dream don't blame the Clinton supporters for your failure to draft someone else.

[octoberlib]

137. All I really meant by my post is that

Last edited Wed Jul 30, 2014, 06:51 PM - Edit history (1)

this is an example of why we need campaign finance reform. The big money donors choose the candidates we get to vote on with their donations. I have nothing against millionaires and billionaires who support higher taxes, regulation etc and we have a lot of them on our side. People like Soros, Nick Hanauer and yourself. There are even more wealthy people that aren't on our side, though. The fact that most of the money comes from a small pool of big donors means they have more influence over candidates and the way they vote. The influence needs to be spread around.



As far as Hillary goes, I'll vote for her if she's the candidate not in the primaries , though.

[brooklynite]

142. I have to disagree...

Deep-pockets funders are helpful, but they don't skew the choices. Howard Dean was great at getting young people to make small donations, sufficient to be a major voice in the Primary; his problem was that he couldn't translate contributions to votes. Barack Obama was a master of getting small dollar contributors to come back again and again.

[whathehell]

180. and I'm afraid I have to disagree with you..

"Howard Dean was great at getting young people to make small donations, sufficient to be a major voice in the Primary; his problem was that he couldn't translate contributions to votes".

No, that wasn't his problem..His problem was he was too progressive

for the Democratic Establishment, not to mention the Repukes,

and so they went full speed ahead to take him down -- Remember

"the Dean Scream"?...That was edited to block OUT the background

noise Dean was shouting over, and played over and over again to

give the impression that he was "nuts" or "out of control" or something.

[brooklynite]

188. Except that Dean had already LOST the Iowa caucus...

...and organizationally he was falling apart in New Hampshire (I was there to see it).

If it makes you feel better to believe that the only way your candidate could lose was because of political shenanigans, knock yourself out. I've worked for enough losing candidates that I've learned to separate my hopes and dreams from my view of the real world.

[whathehell]

203. Obama lost the Iowa caucus to Hillary, I believe..

You might be right, but I don't need to "make myself feel better"

in either case. You might want to lose the snark, though.

[A Little Weird]

191. I agree with you

It's unfortunate, but I think Clinton is inevitable.

[Art_from_Ark]

206. Hillary was "inevitable" in 2007

Mario Cuomo was "inevitable" in 1991.

[TBF]

3. Polls indicate anyone running against Hillary

has an uphill battle. Whether repug or dem. She has higher recognition than the current VP.

Elizabeth, although most of us like her better, does not have the name recognition and she is about the same age.

My question is whether you considered supporting O'Malley? Younger and progressive. Maybe he is stronger in the VP category?

[merrily]

6. Well beyond this point in the 2008 cycle, polls indicated Sen. Obama was nuts to challenge Hillary.

O'Malley has more name recognition than Warren or Sanders?

BTW, Hillary calls her positions progressive. So, telling me someone is progressive is not going to do much for me. Assuming age is not what I base my vote on, why should I support O'Malley?

[TBF]

10. I don't know that much about him honestly -

just that he's younger, progressive and may be a candidate.

As a socialist none of these people thrill me that much. My interest is in getting a candidate who will do the least damage to working folks.

With NAFTA and current support for TPP, that doesn't spell Hillary to me. But then again she is great on civil rights issues and seems to have a lot of support.

I dunno. I personally like Julian Castro from here in TX. I just wondered if the big donors gave any thought to someone like O'Malley or went straight for Hillary.

[merrily]

21. I won't vote based only on age or the term "progressive."

Again, most or all Democratic politicians, including New Democrats, say that they are progressive. Certainly, none describe their policies as regressive. So, I have no clue how to use the term "progressive" to distinguish between or among candidates.

Outside of the Teddy Roosevelt era, when it meant the left wing of the Republican Party who supported TR over Taft and female suffrage, I don't have a clue what the term actually means. (And even TR was for Taft before TR changed his mind about not standing for re-election.

Much worse, I think the lack of an agreed modern meaning is exactly why modern politicians use the term. We all read into it whatever we wish (or maybe whatever we wish for). It's like the lead character played by Peter Sellers in the movie "Being There," only that character did not foster the deception (that we know of).

To answer your specific question, I think the big donors (and bundlers, like brooklynite says he is) and the people who run the party, many of whom are the very same people, have not given much thought to anyone but Hillary since the 2008 primary.

[dsc]

121. MD

ended the death penalty, increased taxes on the rich, instituted gun control measures post Newtown, and has taken in refuges from the boarder, and instituted a dream act all under OMalley.

[razorman]

20. I do not think any Dem will run in the primary until

Mrs. Clinton announces her intentions, one way or the other.

[rhett o rick]

59. I am hoping Sen Sanders will run as a Democrat in the primaries. He can't defeat

the big corp-money machine that H. Clinton/Goldbags-Sachs has, but maybe, just maybe Sen Sander's message will get out to the public.

[razorman]

102. It might even put him in the running for VP, or perhaps a cabinet post,

if he wants it.

[rhett o rick]

162. He would be wasted as a VP. nm

[razorman]

208. Most people are.

[MoonchildCA]

108. He has pretty much said that this is his reason for contemplating a run

--to be the progressive voice in the election. He can help steer the message.
To do that, and join in the debates, he would have to run as a Democrat.
I'm pretty hopeful that will happen.

[merrily]

75. Well, that is the idea that they've been trying to sell us for over 2 years.

I sure hope you're wrong. That would mean that, out of 350 million USians, give or take, Hillary gets the only primary vote. That would suck scissors.

[razorman]

104. Hard to say. But, at the moment, it appears that the nomination

is Hillary's for the asking. The general election is another matter. Regardless, I believe that while there are many Democrats who would like to try for it, they do not want to challenge her. If she voluntarily drops out, for whatever reason, it will be a free-for-all.

[merrily]

109. Perhaps it appears that way mostly because everyone has been saying so for over two years at

least all Democrats with a megaphone.

[merrily]

25. FYI, I had to google O'Malley to try to find out what his positions actually are.

The first thing I found/read about O'Malley were his remarks about how the US should be helping immigrant minor who O'Malley says are fleeing death (and may well be fleeing death):

His remarks, made at a Democratic Governors Association event in Nashville, prompted suggestions of hypocrisy from the White House, which leaked word to the media that O’Malley had opposed locating a shelter for some of the unaccompanied children in a conservative county in Maryland.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/us-should-help-children-fleeing-death-omalley-tells-nebraska-democrats/2014/07/26/ad0de37a-1519-11e4-8936-26932bcfd6ed_story.html

I am not one to take anyone's word at face value, including the word of a building at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Just emphasizing that the term "progressive" can be in the eye of the beholder.

On the other hand:

As Governor, in 2011 he signed a law that would make certain undocumented immigrants eligible for in-state college tuition on condition;[2] and in 2012, he signed a law to legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland. Each law was challenged to a voter referendum in the 2012 general election and upheld by a majority of the voting public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_O%27Malley

[loyalsister]

124. He is also ahead of the pack in repeal of the death penalty

Recent events seem to be helping to create an environment where we can have a credible national conversation about it.

The fact that his political career has been progressive in terms of starting at the bottom working in the field > city council > mayor > governor appeals to me because there's a chance that he may be able to relate those of us who lead ordinary lives. The fact that he was mayor of a city with a large African American constituency also interests me.

I read that his parents met at Democratic headquarters. Seems a little like a Kennedy-esque background without the privilege.

I am intrigued by his candidacy and think that at the very least he could offer a valuable voice to a primary. I find it interesting that he led Hillary Clinton's campaign in MD and has explicitly stated that he is laying the groundwork for a presidential run.
I'm looking forward to learning more about him.

[merrily]

141. That's good too, but I don't think he is ahead of the pack.

Massachusetts, to name only one, did away with the death penalty decades ago.

http://www.nodp.org/ma/s1.html

It was one of the "liberal" things Poppy's campaign/Republicans used against Dukakis, asking if Dukakis would oppose the death penalty, even if someone raped his wife. (Dukakis had a reputation of doting on his wife, but he said, even then, he would oppose the penalty.)

Of course, no matter which answer Dukakis gave, they were going to use it against him--and they did.

Recently, there was a move to re-institute the penalty for rape and murder of a minor, an even harder case. However, if you believe the state should not murder, the decision does not change, no matter what. Speaking only for myself, I'd rather die, even if it does take two hours to kill me, as recently happened, than spend all my remaining years in prison, but I realize our mandatory appeal system is based upon the opposite preference. Also, I don't face the choice in reality, so it's easy for me to say.

Anyway, O'Malley does seem worthy of more attention. Thanks for mentioning him.

[loyalsister]

154. I meant that he's ahead of the pack in his thinking about it in contrast to potential candidates

I sympathize with your perspective, but a situation in Missouri has convinced me that there are criminals\inmates who have redeeming qualities. Dennis Skillicorn used his time in prison to write. He wound up earning some money from it and used it to create a scholarship fund for students whose families had experienced violent crime. He led an effort to create a prison hospice.

Sadly, he was executed before the actual shooter. He made no claim of innocence in the role he did play and felt that it was appropriate justice that he should spend the rest of his life in prison. He did want to continue to contribute to the common good, and did exhaust all possible appeals of the death sentence. He was a truly exceptional individual in the way he handled his fate.

Maybe we would see more of that if inmates were not endlessly fighting to live and had some sense of possibilities for reclaiming their humanity as people who have good intentions.

[merrily]

161. Ah, I cannot disagree as I don't know who the potential

candidates are yet, or what they think about capital punishment. If Warren is a potential candidate, though, I am guessing that her reaction to your comment would be similar to mine, given how long she has lived in Massachusetts.

I sympathize with your perspective, but....

But? If you think you disagree with me you don't understand what I posted.

I never said that convicted killers cannot do anything productive while serving a life sentence, or anything remotely like that. Or that convicted killers have zero redeeming qualities. I would never say either of those things.

I acknowledged that my view is not reflected as a majority view. I specified that my preference was personal to me, not reflected in the majority view, and might not hold, even with me, if I actually had to face the choice in real time.

Unless you have some way of knowing me better than I know myself, I don't understand where you think you disagree with what I actually said.

Sorry if I seem cranky, but it seems I have spent most of my posting time today defending myself against things I never said anything like. At some point, it's exhausting and definitely not fun.

[loyalsister]

189. In a sense I met what you explained as a sort of "non perspective"

in the sense that you aren't living the experience. I meant that I can see how a person might prefer death to life in prison. I described an example of a remarkable situation that few of us imagine could even exist. To me it says that there is a lot of gray area and potential for unexpected positive outcomes.

[merrily]

192. Not how your post read at all, so I conclude it is a justification that you

constructed after being challenged.

BTW, are you "living the experience?" If not isn't your perspective also a "non perspective" by your own standard? If your perspective is also a non-perspective, why disagree with my statement--my statement about my very own personal preference, no less.

The one and only perspective I spoke of was my personal preference for a dealh sentence; and I specified from the start that I was not actually faced with that choice (aka "not living the experience&quot and might change my mind if I actually had to choose. So, even with your attempted explanation, I still don't know what in my post you've been disagreeing about.

And, btw, I don't consider my statement about my personal preference a non-perspective (whatever that means). I've lived the experience of being me for a good time; and I have given this a lot of thought before today. But, no matter what, there was nothing in my post that you had any basis to disagree with, unless you think you know me better than I know myself.

Seems as though no amount of careful wording or disclaimers suffice on message boards. Posters feel compelled to disagree, no matter what your post says or how it is worded.

Maybe posters have to go to bed without supper if they fail to disagree or admit at any point that maybe they were mistaken; and I just didn't get the memo.

[loyalsister]

196. "Posters feel compelled to disagree, no matter what your post says or how it is worded."

Apparently so. I used "Non perspective" to describe a vantage point from which a person can not possibly see or understand essential elements of the experience. My point was to highlight a situation where those elements apparently add up quite differently from what we might expect.
The point is that making that intellectual assessment is perfectly valid. I have trouble imagining a condition where I could feel any sense of personal satisfaction behind bars. But, apparently it has happened. My understanding is based on my outside suppositions and assumptions rather than a perspective informed by an accumulation of experiences that are mostly beyond my imagination.

Is it really that offensive to consider that possibility that lacking that perspective might prevent someone from understanding the experience and beliefs of someone who does possess the most essential relevant knowledge?

[merrily]

205. Yup. You sure seemed compelled to disagree and it seems you continue in that mode, no matter what.

It's ironic that you try to point that back at me. I have not disagreed with you once. I have only pointed out to you again and again and again that my Reply 141 about the death penalty gave no one, including you, any rational basis for disagreement. So, you are only using a boomerang that is on its way right back to you because it does not apply to me in this exchange.

My Reply 141, my very first post about whether I would prefer the death penalty to a sentence of life in prison said:

Recently, there was a move to re-institute the penalty for rape and murder of a minor, an even harder case. However, if you believe the state should not murder, the decision does not change, no matter what. Speaking only for myself, I'd rather die, even if it does take two hours to kill me, as recently happened, than spend all my remaining years in prison, but I realize our mandatory appeal system is based upon the opposite preference. Also, I don't face the choice in reality, so it's easy for me to say .

Yet, you've been disagreeing with that statement again and again.

Initially, you disagreed with me on the basis that people convicted of murder could still have redeeming qualities and could still do good after being sentenced to lief. However, my reply to your first "disagreement" pointed out that I had never said anything remotely to the contrary and never would say anything to the contrary, so you had nothing to disagree with me about on that score.

After I pointed that out, you changed your story about why you were disagreeing with me to the fact that I had never actually faced the choice between the death penalty and a life sentence.

After you changed your story about why you were disagreeing, I reminded you again and again that I had acknowledged that in my very first post on the subject (Reply 141, which is quoted in part above) But, no matter how many times I have pointed that out to you, your reply says you are justified in "disagreeing" with me because I've never actually faced the choice.

So, yes, you have seem downright compelled to "disagree" with me, even though I said nothing at all that you've actually disagreed with. And yes, no amount of disclaimer or careful wording seems sufficient because my Reply 141 specified the personal nature of my response and also specified that even my personal response might be different if I were actually facing that choice. And I have reminded you of both those things every time you purported to disagree with me. So, I stand by all my prior posts to you on this subject, from Reply 141 right on to the end of this post.


You'll excuse if I don't reply to your next justification. After about four or five times of saying the same thing over and over, it's just gets silly and tiresome.

[Vattel]

184. O'Malley sucks. No respect for fourth amendment rights when he was mayor of Baltimore.

[wyldwolf]

166. "Elizabeth, although most of us like her better"

Who is this 'us' you speak of?

[TBF]

170. Well clearly not the DLC crowd.

[wyldwolf]

171. well clearly not the Democratic Party crowd

[SoCalDem]

185. and in Dec of 2007, the race was to be a knockdown-drag-out brawl between

Hillary & Rudy Giuliani... how'd that run out?

[TBF]

187. Did you read the entire message or just

the headline?

Although your response gives away the answer ...

[SoCalDem]

190. Yes I DID read it..

My take on the whole thing, is that Warren is still an unknown..and this early in the
"game", no one really knows what will eventually happen..

Hillary could fall madly in love with her grandchild and decide she's done with the bullshit..

Money-men(women) will always back the person they think is the front runner, and they will yank back their support as soon as it looks like that person is fading..

All I know for sure is that someone will be inaugurated in January of 2017... all I hope is that the person has a (D) by their name in the press.. I so wish it could be Warren, but only time will tell

[Volaris]

4. My take on all of this is as follows...

What we would want from a Warren Presidency we just ARE NOT likely to get, unless there's a dozen more Warren's in the Senate, and a hundred or so in the House.

[merrily]

8. What would we get from any Presidency, including Hillary's, that we are not likely to get

unless there are sixty more Warrens in the Senate and at least a hundred more in the House?

That will probably not happen again in any of our lifetimes (and the idea that it happened under FDR ignores reality anyway).

So, what is your recommendation? Why should I vote in a primary for any Democrat other than the one I really prefer for President to other Democrats?

[PowerToThePeople]

5. What is more crazy?

1) Elizabeth running in 2016

2) Or casting a vote for HRC in 2016?

For me, the answer is obvious, #2 is the insane option.

[merrily]

22. If Warren does not run in 2016, or loses the primary to Hillary, Warren will

likely cast a vote for HRC in 2016. I am not sure what that does, if anything, to your model. I just thought I'd mention it.

[PowerToThePeople]

29. Her vote is hers alone

Myself, I will not cast a vote for a war mongering fascist.

[merrily]

35. I will not vote for Hillary for that reason, or for the reason that she

played the race card in her 2008 primary campaign, or for her corporatism.

However, I was reacting to your words that voting for Hillary would be insane.

[PowerToThePeople]

87. I do not place party over values

I do not agree that voting for a war mongering corporatist (fascist) will advance the values I believe in.

[NCTraveler]

65. You have no clue what the word "fascist" means.

Please look it up in order to use it correctly in the future.

[PowerToThePeople]

77. I know exactly what it means, thank you.

Many do not, and that is why we have the government that we currently do.

[NCTraveler]

83. Then you understand you used it incorrectly.

That was my bigger point. We seem to be on the same page.

[PowerToThePeople]

86. You are very wrong

And you very well know it.

I am done talking to you, NCIgnored.

[wyldwolf]

167. 'you are very wrong but I'm not going to defend my position you meanie!!'

'... I'm going to ignore you lalalalalalalala'

[merrily]

169. Neither poster in the exchange defended or supported his or her position.

[wyldwolf]

172. only one of them was challenged to then shut down the conversation in response.

[merrily]

174. Challenged with no analysis or other support for the challenge. So? Your point is?

BTW, a statement about putting someone on ignore does not shut down a conversation. It was the other poster's choice not to reply that ended the conversation.

It is obvious that it's the poster's position that you don't like, not the lack of support or the statement about ignore or the end of the conversation.

[wyldwolf]

177. of course it does

Putting someone on ignore ensures one party will not see the other party's responses. Someone clearly didn't want to defend the silly notion that Hillary Clinton is a fascist so chose to end the conversation.

[merrily]

182. No, it doesn't, unless the other person chooses not to respond.

The poster who says he or she is putting someone on ignore has no way of preventing a response. That is the choice of the other poster. It was the absence of a response from NC Traveler that ended the conversation, or would have ended it, if you hadn't posted. (not that the conversation in question was much of a conversation anyway). That is so self evident, I cannot believe you are denying it.

Clearly, neither poster wanted to defend or support his or her position or NC Traveler would have posted support for his or her position in his or her first post challenging Power to the People; and Power to the People would have posted support as soon as he or she was challenged.

But again, it is transparent that it is Power to the People's position on Hillary that prompted you to mock Power to the People, not the rest of the bs.

[PowerToThePeople]

175. "You don't know what you are talking about."

"Yes I do."

"No you don't."

"Yes I do."

It was a lame convo that I did not care to participate in anymore. There were other interactions prior that you can not see here. It was not a single event or post which lead to my action. I have close to a dozen ignored posters, most of which do not ever do anything but liberal bash and propagate the corporate line. My DU experience is worlds better without having to wade through all that junk.

[Cresent City Kid]

7. I'd love to have President Warren

but we need good Senators. I'd like to see her take the leadership role there.

[merrily]

11. Spoken like a good DNC type.

Given both the 60 vote cloture rule and the almost uniqueness of Senators Warren and Sanders, please explain why it is more important for a leftist to have Warren in the Oval Office and heading the DNC?

[MADem]

17. The majority leader is elected by the Senators in the caucus.

Harry Reid is extremely popular because he is extremely effective.

It's unlikely she would challenge him, and if she did, she would lose.

She has a leadership role. She's a freshman Senator, chairing banking. She's doing a lot of good in that position.

[cascadiance]

60. That's like saying Ted Kennedy should not run for president because we needed him in the Senate...

... and therefore he shouldn't run for president. Well he left the Senate, albeit suddenly, and albeit with Scott Brown there for a short time, but ultimately, a person like Elizabeth Warren stepped in to his slot and has done a great job. If we can get someone like Elizabeth Warren elected president, perhaps we'll get someone in that leadership position to exercise good progressive values for the first time in many of our life times, and then ANOTHER person like Elizabeth Warren will get the chance to be a part of the Senate. I'd like to GROW the number of progressives in the presidency and in congress rather than have the real progressives just stay where they are!

It's like having a real good boss at a company you work at. If he gets a chance to be promoted to a VP level or even to being CEO and you know that this is a good thing for the company at large, you will support it, even if it means you might have to get used to working for a newer immediate boss. If you don't help him get that promotion, then the company might in some cases go downhill, and ultimately he also might get dissatisfied with his opportunities not being offered to him there and move on to another company and you get left with a lot less. We need to think about what works for the whole country.

Much as I really love my current senator Merkley and will be campaigning like hell for him to win this fall, if he ultimately makes this campaign button a collector's item as being reusable in 2016 as Ms. Warren's running mate then, I will be so happy to see him be a part of that team and open up the door for another real progressive here in Oregon to take his spot in the Senate!

[merrily]

78. If the DNC/DSCC wants populists in the Senate, that is who will run for the Senate.

If they want Third Way types, that is who will run.

In Massachusetts, they had little to lose and a lot to gain by giving Warren the nod for Kennedy's seat.

[cascadiance]

80. I guess then Merkley, who is a populist really shouldn't have been "blessed" by them to be there now

Yes, the DNC/DSCC tries to push their types of "third way" candidates to run, but note that they still don't do it brazenly and say that Democrats want corporatists instead of populists. They have to SNEAK those who answer to them in under the GUISE of being "populists" or "progressives" to get them in power. That's because they know the people WANT populists to represent them. If we work hard, we can make sure in states like Oregon and Massachusetts that a chain of populists stays in charge in key positions there. If we don't try to get aggressive in getting more populists and progressives in to congress in general, we will always be stuck with having "no one with experience" to run for president, etc. or the like down the road. We shouldn't just "take what they give us". We need to demand that those in power be those that we want in power.

[merrily]

178. I said their decision governs the matter either way. Other than that, I agree with most of your

post, except that I don't think who runs is up to us. Not to those of us who don't have several million to spare, and rich friends to ask for more to to boot.

We need to demand that those in power be those that we want in power.

Been there, done that. Things got worse. If I truly believed my demands moved the needle, I'd do nothing but demand 24/7. BTW, what do you consider "demanding?"

The stakes are so high financially and in every other way. IMO, the idea that all we need to do is make our wishes known or make demands is not realistic. Grant you, silence doesn't work, either and I have never been silent. Just can't be. However, I am not kidding myself either.

I don't know the details of how Merkel became a candidate, but I do know how Warren became one.

[PoliticAverse]

9. 'You have to be a little bit crazy to run for president'

Hillary Clinton, who lost in the 2008 Democratic primary to eventual President Barack Obama, insists she hasn't decided whether she'll seek the nomination again in 2016.

Why?

“Well, you have to be a little bit crazy to run for president, let me just put it like that,” Clinton said during an interview on PBS' "NewsHour" on Wednesday. “You have to be so totally immersed and so convinced that you can bring something to that office.”

Read the rest: http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-you-have-to-be-crazy-to-run-for-president-133129063.html

[merrily]

13. And a lot egotistical. But how does that help one distinguish among primary candidates?

[conservaphobe]

12. Taking back the House is more important in 2016 than investing in a longshot.

For POTUS, we'll be better off placing our bets on the 2:1.

[merrily]

15. Taking back the House is a separate issue from the Presidential primary.

Let's not conflate.

And there are more Democrats than Hillary and Warren. If you want to convince us, you are going to have to tell us why we should vote for Hillary above all other Democrats.

[conservaphobe]

18. I don't care about convincing anyone.

She's going to win the primary.

If something happens and she does not win the nomination, I will vote for the person who defeats her.

I don't worry about it as much as some seem to do. It's pretty simple.

[merrily]

23. Yup, simple.

[JustAnotherGen]

82. I'd like to pull that deadline in

To this November.

[MADem]

14. Will the "Rip A Highly Effective Senator from her High Profile Banking Chair and Make Her

Run (and LOSE) the White House" Brigade make an appearance in this thread?

I'm not a "big ticket" type (all I have are small tickets) but I drive lotsa small tickets like myself to the polls and I am in touch with them. And since Warren is our Senator, we do have a point to make.

Now, it may be that we've gone through SIX Senators in the past few years (Kirk, Brown, Warren, Kerry, Cowan, Markey) when previously we've had a great deal of stability (John Kerry was a very SENIOR junior Senator), but we don't LIKE that kind of turnover. We also regard a promise--or a pledge--as an actual, no-shit, promise/pledge. And she PLEDGED to finish out her term.

Most of us take her at her word--and I think she is a smart woman, and she wouldn't risk alienating her big ticket supporters. Yeah, she's "in" now, but she's gotta run every six years. I think the only reason we'd give her up easily is to serve as Fed Chair or Treasury Secretary.

[merrily]

16. Not surprisingly, it already did make more than one appearance in this thread.

[merrily]

27. In your opinion, which bills became law that would not have become law w/o Sen. Warren?

[MADem]

28. Gee, no one made that distinction when it came to Senator Clinton.....

Funny how that works.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025310002

[merrily]

34. YOU were the one who just claimed that Warren was a highly effective Senator who should

stay in the Senate. That is what prompted my question to you. Nor did my question imply either leftist bills or rightist bills, so I don't get why you thought your link relevant to my question about your statement.

I don't even have a clue what distinction about Hillary you are talking about. Nor do I recall anyone saying in 2008, as you and others have been saying about Warren, that Hillary was such an effective Senator that leftists would be better off if Hillary stayed in the Senate, rather than run for President. So, funny how that works, too. That is the statement in your post to which my question pertains.

[MADem]

36. It's funny how Clinton gets raked over the coals for her vote, but no one says a

peep about this vote.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025310002

Just doesn't seem like equal treatment to me.

HRC has particular leadership skills that make her more effective as an executive. She knows every world leader. She knew them even before she set foot in STATE. She was her husband's closest advisor for most of his term. She knows how the Executive Branch works and she knows how to deal with the legislative and judicial branches.

There is no learning curve. There is no contest.

[merrily]

37. Hillary's vote had nothing to do with my question to you, though.

As I have already explained, my question was prompted by, and related to, only your comment about our being better off if Warren stayed in the Senate because Warren is a highly effective Senator. So, I asked which bills got passed because of Warren that would not have passed anyway, a question you somehow turned in your own mind as comment on some vote of Hillary's, rather than answering my question.

Since you've dodged the question twice now, how about answering it once? For the third time, you claim that Warren is a highly effective Senator and therefore we are better off if she does not run for President. In support of your own statement, kindly tell us: Iin your opinion, which bills became law because Warren was a Senator that would not have become law otherwise?

[MADem]

44. I agree with the donors quoted in the article.

If their justifications are not enough for you, you'll never be convinced.

It won't matter, though, because she won't be running.

Your hypothetical question is pure nonsense, too, and you know it. Which bills are you talking about? Do you want me to go through every bill pending?

That's not going to happen.

Why don't YOU talk about the vote at the link, hmmm?

But if you really want to know what bill becomes law because Warren was a Senator, it's this one--the one that she co-sponsors and pushes through, that's which one. It can be on any topic--that's her call.

If she's not there to draft it and work it, it goes to committee, where it dies. That IS how stuff works on the Hill.

Happy now?

[merrily]

85. I asked you a question about supporting your very own statement.

I did not pose a hypothetical or ask a hypothetical question. I don't think that word means what you apparently think it means. Either that, or despite three tries in plain English, you don't understand my question.

It can be on any topic--that's her call.

Really? What bills of hers get past a cloture vote and then go on to get the votes of 51 or more Senators is simply her call? How very inconsistent with all the excuses from loyalists I've read on this board, including you, since I started lurking.

Am I happy that you cannot point to a single bill that would not have passed if Warren were in the White House instead of the Senate? Not really. I think the party's attempt to sell that we will all be better off if Warren stays in the Senate is not guided at all by that consideration. And bs seldom makes me happy.

[MADem]

89. At 12:09 I told you I was done.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5311675

[merrily]

101. Yet, at 12:21 you posted to me again. And your point is?

I have posted to you several times that I am done replying to you, whereupon I do not reply to again on that thread or subthread. But, you have always replied to me after I said I was done.

This time, for the first time that I am aware of, you said you were done first and, also for the first time, I was the one replying to that type of post, rather than you. At least I thought it was your final post. It has been mine, whenever I told you I was done. So, I assumed it was yours, too.

But, you replied to me again anyway knowing I was well aware that you had already said you were done.

And your point is?

[JaydenD]

49. Those are very good questions.

I haven't thought of it like that before - or did I miss something and in 2007 people were saying that Hillary shouldn't run because she is such an effective Senator - or was she an effective senator, does her running meaning she wasn't and wouldn't be missed?

I suppose the main difference this round would be is that a fair number of people truly believe that it is Hillary Clinton's 'turn' and the same things don't apply in those special cases.

[merrily]

97. Thank you. Were it no for MADem's accusing me of doing something I was not

doing, I would never have raised those questions, either.

No, as far as I can recall, no one raised that in 2008 about either Hillary or Obama. In fact, as far as I can recall, never in my lifetime have Democrats said that voters on the left would be better off a Democratic Senator did not run for President, but remained in the Senate instead. Yet, that is what DNC types on and off this board have been saying for quite some time.

I suppose the main difference this round would be is that a fair number of people truly believe that it is Hillary Clinton's 'turn' and the same things don't apply in those special cases.

I don't agree that that is the main difference this time. I think it's about the same schism within the Democratic party that has existed since before Lincoln, namely, relatively conservative Democrats vs. relatively liberal Democrats. It was highlighted after McGovern's loss, when the cons first tried to institute super delegates to override Democratic primary voters if they went liberal, and and after Mondale's loss, when they succeeded. (As if the only reason McGovern and Mondale lost was that they were more liberal than the conservadems--and more liberal than the Republican candidate.)

The difference since Mondale, the DLC and Bubba is that the hold relatively conservative Democrats on the politic but who bothers with things like that? ians within Party as a whole is almost 100%. The last several nominees to 2008 were the ones that the DLC had endorsed. The Progressive House Caucus is shrinking, in part with help from the Party itself. AFAIK, there never was a Senate Progressive Caucus (though there was a Senate New Democrat caucus). Senator Sanders still belongs to the House Caucus.

And maybe another change is a further firming up of the belief that it doesn't matter what the Democratic Party does or does not deliver to its "lefter" voters because "the left has nowhere else to go." Why shouldn't they be confident of that? After all the left was pretty openly criticized by Obama and Rahm during Obama's first term and Obama got re-elected anyway. And Obama still speaks of liberal Democrats as "my friends on the left," just as he speaks of Republicans as his "friends on the right.

FYI, "the left" is Communist, not his fellow members of the Democratic Party. They are ones in the US who are to Obama on the left as Republicans are to him on the right. But who bothers with things like that anymore? In political discourse, truthiness seems to be all that really matters.

[Hekate]

168. +1 MADem. Senators can accrue great power over a long career. nt

[Scuba]

19. Apparently none of her "biggest donors" have names.

[MADem]

39. You might want to re-read. Are you suggesting the reporter is falsifying this account?

There were a few who were willing to be named AND quoted:

“I think she is outstanding. She is articulate. She is persuasive. She can hit a piece of bullshit from a hundred yards away,” said Victor A. Kovner, a Manhattan lawyer who hosted Warren for a fundraiser way back in 2011. But, he added, “I will be supporting Hillary in 2016. No question about that.”

“I am not sure what value it would bring to have her run,” said Wayne Shields, CEO of the Association for Reproductive Health Professionals, who, along with Warren’s husband, hosted Warren at his house earlier in her Senate candidacy. “She would be such a target for conservatives, it may end up having a paradoxical effect on Democrats.”

“I hear the chatter, but I also hear what Elizabeth Warren is saying, and she has been pretty firm in answer to that question,” said Dennis Mehiel, a New York-based donor who hosted Warren early on in her Senate campaign.

And if the answer to that question ever changed?

“I love Elizabeth. But I go back a very long way with Hillary.”

[merrily]

43. IOW, three rich men who support Hillary for Pres. think Warren should stay in the Senate.

Also, you could have saved yourself the trouble of bolding. It is irrelevant which Hillary for Pres. enthusiasts supported Warren for the Senate, as did the DNC. For President, they are supporting Hillary over Warren. No surprise that they think Warren should stay in the Senate.

[MADem]

50. Excuse me--you might want to read what the person speaking with me said.

And since I wasn't even talking to you (I was responding to Scuba), you can perhaps worry less about my formatting and spend more time looking at the question I was answering before you insert yourself into the conversation.
,
The argument was made that the donors were not identified. This was not accurate--three were, and they spoke at length. This article is all about rich WARREN donors who will not go with her should she decide to run for President (which won't happen). Why? Because those same wealthy Warren donors are also Clinton donors.

That IS what this thread is about, it's the OP, for heaven's sake--if you think it is "irrelevant" you shouldn't even waste your time discussing the point.

[merrily]

57. Oh, I did read the post to which you replied and you were the one who worried about formatting.

I just pointed out that what you bolded was not as significant as your bolding tried to suggest it was.

BTW, it's a message board and we are all adults. I don't have to sit at the dinner table and be quiet unless I am spoken to directly. And I can point out a fallacy in the implication of significance your bolding attempted.

Funny, you often tell me, or try to, what I should and should not post, even what I can and cannot post.

I am of the belief that you get to decide the content of your own posts, not the content of both yours and mine. So, I will continue to ignore your directions about that.

[MADem]

84. You apparently didn't read the entire conversation contextually, though.

Sorry that my formatting troubles you so, but I can't be bothered with this kind of snarking. It's too nice a day and I'm uninterested in your sniping at me.

I can't help but be amused that you're griping about what you claim I tell you what you should post, when all I was doing was responding to YOUR squawking about how I formatted a post that was not even addressed to you.

So, gee, maybe you need to stop telling ME what to do, hmmm?

Yeah, we are all adults--and I am going to do the adult thing and tell you to go have a nice day. There's no point continuing this conversation. Have the last word if you must.

[merrily]

88. Yes, I did read. Never told you how you should or could post, either.

There's no point continuing this conversation.

Yet you did, even though my prior post already addressed every "point" you raised in your Post 84.

Have the last word if you must.

How ironic. Until now, I am the one who would say that I would not be replying to you any further on a particular thread or sub-thread; and you're the one who has always availed yourself of the last word (and then some). So, as between the two of us, I guess you're the one most often "must" have the last word. But, for once, sure, I'll have the last word. BTW, it's not yours to give or withhold, anyway.

[Scuba]

96. None were named in your excerpt. Seems important enough that you might have included ....

... their names. The fact that they're Hillary supporters may explain it.

[MADem]

160. I do not understand what you are talking about. There ARE names in the excerpts I provided.

This is not my thread. I am quoting (with names included) from the link provided at the OP by the person--NOT ME--who started this thread. You can try taking that up with brooklynite--who does attend these sorts of fundraisers--and see where that gets you. That's who initiated this thread.

The people interviewed in the piece are Warren "big money" donors. That ALSO was made quite clear in the excerpts that I provided. Not sure how you missed that. Let me list them once again for you.

I cited these names in post 39 -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5311407

...Victor A. Kovner, a Manhattan lawyer who hosted Warren for a fundraiser ...

....Wayne Shields, CEO of the Association for Reproductive Health Professionals, who, along with Warren’s husband, hosted Warren at his house earlier in her Senate candidacy...

... Dennis Mehiel, a New York-based donor who hosted Warren early on in her Senate campaign....

To be clear, in case you are confused, "hosted Warren for a fundraiser" means that these people had Warren at her house and they raised large donations that were bundled to support her campaign. These Warren supporters are making it clear that they are happy to support Warren for the Senate, but not for national office. They will not back her if she decided to go back on her word and run for President. That is what the OP article, linked above, is all about. It's a good read and an easy one too. You might want to look at it before you continue on.


Where do you think Warren got the "shopping list" of donors? Hello? HILLPAC? Those Congressional PACS don't just give out money, they give out advice and connections and introductions, too. That's how a Massachusetts Senate candidate might come to be fundraising in New York and other places...

[Scuba]

164. Sorry, I was referring to the original OP (careless me). My apologies.

[MADem]

186. No worries! nt

[think]

24. Hmm. A TPP crafting corporate conservadem or a progressive people focused candidate..

[MADem]

30. A candidate who cannot win, vs. a candidate who can.

That's it, in a nutshell.

[jeff47]

58. Just like some senator in 2006 who couldn't beat Clinton in 2008.

Had a funny name too.

[MADem]

92. They weren't sharing the same big money donors to the extent that these two are.

Pretty much all of EW's megabucks donors are HRC supporters from way, way back.

Where do you think EW got the names?

Why do you think EW signed that letter from all the women in the Senate?

[jeff47]

94. Why do you insist we not have a 2016 primary?

I have no idea if Warren will run. Or if she'd win over Clinton in a 2016 primary. Point is we have a process to determine who our candidate will be. Attempts like this thread to short-circuit that process are bad.

Also, the same inevitability arguments were being made in 2006. They failed. So it's really, really, really stupid to use the same inevitability argument in 2014. "This time for sure!!!!" Unless you're trying to imitate Bullwinkle pulling a rabbit out of his hat.

So if this argument is a demonstration of the campaign intelligence of Team Clinton, we desperately need a different candidate. Because apparently Team Clinton has learned jack shit from their 2008 loss.

[MADem]

100. Why do you insist we have a primary with Liz "Ain't Running" Warren?

She's not the only debutante in town. Bernie has suggested he might make a show of a go of it. So have a few others.

But Warren has "pledged" to finish her term. Her term ends two years after the Presidential election. The math does not work.

Why do you insist that she's not speaking the truth when she says that she will finish her term? (See, how do you like that kind of accusatory questioning?)

And what's with the gratuitous insults? Team Clinton is stupid (that was where you were going with the "intelligence" snark) and doesn't know jack shit, eh? That's how you have a conversation? That's how the "intelligent" people talk?



Hmm. Maybe you need to check your mirror when you start mouthing off with those sorts of insults. Your lack of civility suggests that you don't have anything to add but more fury.

I'd suggest you take some time to read what the Senator has had to say about this topic, and then you'd see that she's not up for it.

[jeff47]

107. Reading. Try it!

Then you might not look quite so dumb.

Let me quote the very first paragraph of my post. Perhaps this time you'll actually read it.

I have no idea if Warren will run. Or if she'd win over Clinton in a 2016 primary. Point is we have a process to determine who our candidate will be. Attempts like this thread to short-circuit that process are bad.

So claims that I'm demanding we anoint Warren are blatantly idiotic.

Hmm. Maybe you need to check your mirror when you start mouthing off with those sorts of insults.

No, I'm quite comfortable that Bullwinkle the moose is not a good strategy for winning a presidential election. The fact that Clinton's camp is using that strategy means calling them stupid is not an insult. It's a fact.

[merrily]

105. Your knowledge of donors and the inside workings of the Party is convenient.

Where do you think EW got the names?

The DNC, with which Warren had discussions before contacting donors?

Why do you think EW signed that letter from all the women in the Senate?

Whether Warren wanted to run for President or not, whether Warren wanted Hillary to run for or not, Warren had no realistic option but to sign that letter if she wanted to continue any kind of career in Democratic politics. All else is sheer speculation.

[brooklynite]

119. You're being insulting to Elizabeth Warren.....and to me.

Warren, in your view is a 98-pound weakling who's unwilling to stand up to pressure from the big, bad DNC? She doesn't want Clinton to run but "had no choice" but to sign the Senate letter? How little you think of her character (and how exactly do these traits speak to her ability to be a good President?).

And as for "the names", she MIGHT have gotten them from DSCC (which cares nothing about who runs for President) but more likely she got them from personal contacts, professional fundraisers and other political connections. And that's why your second point is insulting. You insinuate that "the DNC" (error: the DSCC) can pick up the phone and call me or Victor or any of the the other deep-pockets supporters and "order" us to cut off a recalcitrant Senator or cough up for a uninspiring loyalist. You clearly know very little about campaign funding. I get personal calls up to and including the Senators themselves, and I'm very good at saying "no" if that's what I think is best. We make up our own minds about Senate races, and Warren is smart enough to know that we can't be held over her head by the Party; but she's also smart enough to know that we make up our own minds about Presidential candidates. Since she and I both -agree- on a Presidential candidate however, it's not a big issue.

[merrily]

173. Baloney, but nt

[brooklynite]

193. Well spoken!

So you agree that Warren is caving to political pressure?

[merrily]

194. ....

[Marr]

98. And yet, she didn't.

Hillary Clinton has already lost a national primary, even with the benefit of a massive Wall Street budget.

We need a viable candidate, not an extremely well-funded loser.

[MADem]

148. Clinton is a viable candidate. nt

[Marr]

149. She's already lost a national primary.

Can she run? Of course. But for her fans to insist she's some kind of supremely viable candidate is absurd. She has high name recognition, but so does Dick Cheney. She isn't particularly popular.

[MADem]

156. Not sure what your point is, there.

No second acts in your world?

I'd say plenty of Presidents proved you wrong. Hell, Dick Nixon proved you wrong. So did William Henry Harrison. And Grover Cleveland. Oh, and let's not forget Thomas Jefferson. Andrew Jackson, too. And those were general election candidates. Let's see, who was a fairly recent President who lost a primary? Saint Ronnie of Raygun? Didn't he challenge Ford for the nom in 76? Why yes, he did--and it didn't end his career now, did it?

That was a bit weak, that rationale.


She may not be popular with YOU, but she's popular. And she's popular with people who actually get off their behinds and VOTE, not with the crowd that talks about it.

Your bias blinds you to the facts on the ground.

[MannyGoldstein]

111. True: Clinton's never won a tough political battle

While Warren has won several - CFPB, beating the most popular politician in in MA to become Senator are two off the top of my head.

So I take it that you're Ready for Warren, now that you're focusing on people who can win?

[MADem]

147. Apparently you didn't watch the Clinton-Lazio debates.

You didn't pay attention as she worked her way into positions of authority in the Senate, and got Robert Byrd, prepared to hate her, eating out of her hand. You didn't tune in when HRC was getting browbeaten by GOP asswipes in Congress, and swatting them back like flies. You must have been dozing during her time as SECSTATE.

Those were tough political battles...but see, she made it look easy. That's what a pro does.

And you must have slept through that nastiness Warren endured with the "Pow Wow, The Indian Boy" crap coming from the Brown camp, the "You didn't build that" hyperbole, and the trouble she had finding her footing in the first debate--and Brown was an incompetent opponent who thought all he had to do was call her "perfesser" and wear a barn coat.

She wasn't always cruising to victory. She struggled before Brown went too far. I doubt a national opponent would make those mistakes that Brown made, either.

All that ugliness would be horrific to see on a national level--it would make swiftboating look like a day at the beach.

But no worries, we won't be seeing it. Sorry, Manny. Senator Warren is a woman of her word. She will continue to ably represent the Commonwealth as she has pledged to do.

I should think you'd be pleased--I find it odd you want to send her on a suicide mission to the national stage, because she'd be trounced handily no matter how much money was thrown at her.

She gives a great speech, but she isn't as good a debater, And no one outside the Bay State, progressive salons, and DU knows who the hell she is. No one knows her family, either. I know you believe otherwise, but your beliefs aren't born out by facts on the ground.

You're the only one who hasn't signed on to that reality.



It'll come, in time.

[Enthusiast]

70. +1

[Baitball Blogger]

26. So, in other words, they're buying her with their donations so she'll stay put?

[merrily]

31. Oh, fer pity sakes. Just be convinced, willya?

Not long after 2008, I was seeing "Tell Hillary you want her to run in 2016" ads on the internet. Next, every single Democratic commentator I heard on TV was saying the nom was Hillary's if she wanted it. Not only that, but, if she ran, no Democrat would even challenge her in a primary.

Clearly, we were supposed to be convinced (again) that Hillary was the inevitable nominee. Now, just get with the program and fall in line, willya?

[Baitball Blogger]

42. The heavy hand becomes more visible with each passing year.

[merrily]

48. Ya think?

Some time ago, on this board, the OP identified himself as a significant DNC bundler who was going to try to convince someone whose name had already been bandied about as a potential challenger to Hillary from the left to run if Hillary decided not to run.

That potential candidate has since befouled himself, but that is besides the point. The point is, the OP never claimed to be about getting a bunch of good Democratic primary candidates, whether Hillary ran or not.

In the same thread, I believe, or one near that same time, he also denied that the DNC had anointed anyone for the 2016 nom.

[Baitball Blogger]

52. Here's the source of my sadness.

There are players in every pond. When local and state politicos see these games being played on a federal level, you can best believe that they repeat them at every stage of the game.

[brooklynite]

103. Since this apparently refers to me, let me respond...

1) I am -not- what is defined as a "bundler". I am a deep-pockets "funder" who gives personal cash (from my wife and me) to deserving candidates in competitive races; some are more liberal that I am (for example, Warren and Grayson); some are more conservative. All of them are a better choice than the Republican running against them.

2) I would strongly dispute that my goal isn't to get "good Democratic primary candidates". The problem is that you and I have a different idea of what constitutes one. My wife and I supported Hillary Clinton in 2008 because we thought she was the best candidate the Democrats could run. 17 million other Democrats agreed with us. I suspect many of them will be back to support Hillary if (as I suspect she will) she runs in 2016. That said, IF Clinton doesn't run, I'll still throw my early support to Schweitzer, KNOWING HE CAN'T WIN, but seeing the value of highlighting our strength in the populist West.

3) I repeat my assertion that DNC isn't playing favorites in the Presidential nomination, because I know several members and I have an understanding of what DNC does and what it doesn't do. I'm sorry if Dennis Kucinich never attracted more than a fringe following, and Howard Dean (surprise! gave him some early support in 2004 before settling on Kerry) couldn't manage his campaign well enough to actually turn out voters, but there's no grand conspiracy to keep "real" Democrats out of the running. They just have to do what everyone else does: raise money, obtain endorsements and get people to the polls.

[merrily]

126. "Apparently?" My apologies. I thought calling you the OP positively ID'd you for everyone

to whom my post was visible, including you. I would not dream of speaking about the OP in code on the OP's very own thread.

As for whether you are a bundler, maybe your prior post said bundler, maybe it said major fundraiser. I don't think the distinction is sufficiently significant to the point of my post for me to google, but feel free to find your prior post if you wish.

I would strongly dispute that my goal isn't to get "good Democratic primary candidates". The problem is that you and I have a different idea of what constitutes one. My wife and I supported Hillary Clinton in 2008 because we thought she was the best candidate the Democrats could run.

Yet, with a 50% shot and all your contacts, you and your wife chose the losing candidate on 2008. Doesn't seem to give you any pause, though. Kudos?

Because I buy into "early money is like yeast," though not necessarily into all EMILY's list or Malcolm do, I decided around October 2007 that I'd best start donating. I chose to donate to Obama in 2007 and thereafter, almost to the election day, solely because I thought he was the likeliest one in the Democratic primary field (as I discerned it in the fall of 2007) to win the general.

With zero contacts inside the Party and zero inside info, I was not mistaken.

I don't know if either of those realities means anything, except that your nose for who is likeliest to win the primary (and maybe the general) is definitely not infallible. Not saying mine is, just saying yours definitely is not. I am not sure that is criterion that I will use to decide my primary vote this time, but I sure won't decide my vote based solely on your opinion.

I'll still throw my early support to Schweitzer, KNOWING HE CAN'T WIN, but seeing the value of highlighting our strength in the populist West.

I think wanting to highlight him despite his comments about gays being effeminate--as if being effeminate (i.e., more like a woman than like a "real" man) were a bad thing anyway is a poor choice. .

Surely, the Democratic Party has other candidates in the West it can highlight. I think both he and the Party would best be served by letting lie comments that were not all that far removed from those a Republican prone to putting his foot in his mouth might make. And the Democratic Party has been trying very hard, especially since Akin, to see itself as the Party of women. That's been serving it fairly well, too. I don't think raking up Schweitzer's comments about gays and effeminacy (and therefore about women) is going to help the Party in any sector of the nation.

However, that, of course, is up to you and has zero to do with the comments in my prior post about your post about asking him to run if Hillary doesn't. Actually, your current comments about Schweitzer whose name I had deliberately omitted in deference to both him and the Party, seem potentially inconsistent with your prior comments.

And, yes, I know you think liberal cannot win elections or at least that you are among the purveyors of that meme. And yes, we do disagree on that. Poll people on policies without labeling the policies as Democratic or Republican, or as liberal or conservative, and they go for the liberal policies, often by over 70% of people polled from ALL parties, including parties to the right of the Republican Party. It's only when the propaganda machines of one party or another start up that they get people to change their minds, at least temporarily.

Have no clue why you are talking about Kucinich or Dean. I did not back either of them, though I am not necessarily proud of those decisions on my part. I just thought there were plenty of reasons, having less than zero to do with whether their policies were liberal or not, why they would not win the general. For just one example, I thought Kucinich's sighting of aliens alone might be used very effectively against him in the general. For another, I sensed he did not have the support of his own party, though, of course, I can't prove that.

As to whether the PTB in the party have favorites or not, I simply don't believe they don't. As to Hillary in particular, there has been way too much unanimity literally years before any meaningful polling could be done, for me to conclude otherwise.

[brooklynite]

132. in response...

Yet, with a 50% shot and all your contacts, you and your wife chose the losing candidate on 2008. Doesn't seem to give you any pause, though. Kudos?

Oh, snap! You certainly taught ME a lesson...

FWIW, I had switched to Obama after Super Tuesday when I re-evaluated the state of the race and decided that Clinton had issues with the way she was running her campaign (I CONSTANTLY re-evaluate all the races I support); that said, she ended up getting nearly as many votes as Obama, and only one of them could win. Now if Warren could convince me that she would be as competitive nationally AND that she wanted to run, I would would consider that as well. In the meantime, I'll stick with the fact that we BOTH think Clinton would be a great candidate.

Poll people on policies without labeling the policies as Democratic or Republican, or as liberal or conservative, and they go for the liberal policies, often by over 70% of people polled from ALL parties, including parties to the right of the Republican Party

This is why I don't pay attention to "generic" polls: generic is never the candidate. I don't care how many people say they support liberal policy "A" (you might be surprised how many of them I support as well). Support for a policy in a poll doesn't equate to depth of support for the policy or support for a candidate advocating that policy. I'm inclined to believe from experience that Eastern Liberals have less of an ability to be competetive; doesn't mean they can't overcome that problem, but it's something I'll take into account.

As to whether the PTB in the party have favorites or not, I simply don't believe they don't.

The reason I'm not religious is that I don't take things on faith. I KNOW the staff and members of the DNC, DSCC, DCCC and DGA, and I know how they work. About the only area where they play favorites is in preserving incumbents. The reason you've heard so much about Clinton is (ready for the surprise?) a lot of people actually like her, a lot of politicians recognize the strength of her political operations and she's good copy for the media.

[merrily]

150. I never intended to try to teach you any lessons, just pointed out that

your prior Presidential political decisions were wrong, yet you seem totally confident that you know better than most or all who post here about who can win and who cannot and why. By definition, that is not anyone I try to teach any lesson to about that issue, even assuming I were in a position to teach. And switching to Obama AFTER Super Tuesday was not exactly prescient. ("Oh, snap?" Is it 1996 again already?)

Now if Warren could convince me that she would be as competitive nationally AND that she wanted to run,

Based on the posts of yours that I have read to date, I don't think there is any way that Warren or anyone could convince you that Warren could win.

This is why I don't pay attention to "generic" polls: generic is never the candidate.

Huh? What do generic polls about candidates have to do with the price of tea? I never pay attention to generic polls either. Polls about your preference as to policies are not interchangeable with polls about generic candidates.

Support for a policy in a poll doesn't equate to depth of support for the policy or support for a candidate advocating that policy.

Maybe, but it doesn't equal impossibility of a liberal becoming President, either. So, what's your point?

I think if, someone promised peace, affordable, quality education, medicare for all, etc. and messaged that well--showing a realistic possibility of implementing those things, that candidate would have a damned good chance of winning any election. I know your opinion is different, but all that is is differing opinions .Your comment about generic polls is not back up for your opinion.

The reason you've heard so much about Clinton is (ready for the surprise?) a lot of people actually like her, a lot of politicians recognize the strength of her political operations and she's good copy for the media.

As I said, I don't believe that. Will Rogers said something like, "I don't belong to any organized political party. I am a Democrat." And there is truth in that.

I assure you that Hillary is not the most popular Democrat in my lifetime to run for President. Yet, I have never in my lifetime heard Democratic pundits, strategists and politicians, even MSNBC anchors declare, to a person and in one voice, over four years before a Presidential not only that will Hillary unquestionably be the nominee but that no one would even bother to run against her "if" she chose to run. Among other things, strategists have no percentage in doing that, unless someone is orchestrating.

Sorry, you can tell me that all that has been about nothing more than Hillary's vast, unprecedented (and non-existent) unprecdent likeability from now until doomsday, but I am not buying it. It doesn't pass the smell test. Not saying that you don't believe that yourself. Just saying I don't believe that is the reason and I never will.

It's pretty to clear to me that we are doing nothing but trading our respective strongly-held opinions' and neither of us is offering much beyond our respective opinions.

I don't want to be dismissive of you. It's just that I don't see that anything productive or enjoyable is very likely to come from continuing this kind of fact free back and forth between the two of us; and I would rather spend my posting time other ways. So, I am ending my part of this particular back and forth here. Maybe another time on another thread, and hopefully even another topic.

[brooklynite]

157. Final response

your prior Presidential political decisions were wrong, yet you seem totally confident that you know better than most or all who post here about who can win and who cannot and why.

I was under the impression that this was a political blog where we ewere each invited to express our opinions. You can take my experience and ideas any way you want to.

As I said previously, nobody on the pro-Hillary side is saying Warren shouldn't and certainly not that they wouldn't vote for her if she was the nominee. My opinion is that Clinton will still be a better candidate. Elizabeth's Warren's opinion is that she'd be great. But perhaps you're smarter than both of us?

Based on the posts of yours that I have read to date, I don't think there is any way that Warren or anyone could convince you that Warren could win.

Believe what you want.

I think if, someone promised peace, affordable, quality education, medicare for all, etc. and messaged that well--showing a realistic possibility of implementing those things, that candidate would have a damned good chance of winning any election. I know your opinion is different, but all that is is differing opinions .Your comment about generic polls is not back up for your opinion.

I'm pretty sure Dennis Kucinich advocated all those positions. How did it work out for him?

It's pretty to clear to me that we are doing nothing but trading our respective strongly-held opinions' and neither of us is offering much beyond our respective opinions.

I have no problem at all with the fact that we disagree on most things; nor do I have a problem with anyone who chooses to support and work for a Warren campaign. Where I dp have a problem is with the endless anti-Hillary voices who pine for Warren but make no actual effort to get her to change her mind, and who seem prepared to yell "'they' wouldn't let us have a real progressive candidate" when that dream candidate doesn't appear.

[merrily]

158. "Final response" I would hope so, given that I said before that I would not

be trading opinions with you on this topic any further. So, I assumed you would either have no further response at all or that your next response would be your final "statement" of our respective opinions. However, if you wish to carry on and debate yourself, I have absolutely no problem with that either. "Liberty Hall" as one of my profs used to say.

[Enthusiast]

72. Yes it does.

[Baitball Blogger]

116. I guess we're in the pre-election stage.

To qualify to vote, must bring big money.

[Enthusiast]

163. I would outlaw money of any amount in elections.

Wish I could say, "New Rule: It is now illegal for office holders and candidates to receive campaign contributions or gifts, of any amount, for any reason, at any time, except for wages."

Now that would be transformative.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

33. Exactly. If they are "donors", what are they donating to her for? Senate election is still

a few years away and she can't take bribes, so what are they donating to?

[Baitball Blogger]

45. What I hate about this system is that it's responsible for the DINOs too.

I'm not saying that Hilary won't make a good Democratic candidate. I'm just saying that I want to see positive change and the only candidate that seems to be vocal about fighting corruption is Elizabeth Edwards.

[brooklynite]

106. You missed the point of the article...

We were all part of the financial supporters of Warren in 2012. If she chose to run for President, she would likely tap her existing donor base. The point of the article is that many of her financial supporters have already indicated their support of Clinton for the Presidential nomination.

Hey, so has Warren.....

[ChisolmTrailDem]

112. I have disengaged from the "Warren for President" camp and coined the term for her:

"Lioness of the Senate"™

I'm not stupid, her every denial that she will not run for president has indeed been parsed down to the verb tense because every single time she is forced to comment by some interviewer, she uses a present tense verb. But, I'm done boosting her. She has pushed me to support a war-mongering chickenhawk. So, that is what I will do since my party is stupid enough to support her and I am expected to fall in line.

[PowerToThePeople]

114. OMG

ChisolmTrailDem (3,635 posts)
112. I have disengaged from the "Warren for President" camp and coined the term for her:

"Lioness of the Senate"™

I'm not stupid, her every denial that she will not run for president has indeed been parsed down to the verb tense because every single time she is forced to comment by some interviewer, she uses a present tense verb. But, I'm done boosting her. She has pushed me to support a war-mongering chickenhawk. So, that is what I will do since my party is stupid enough to support her and I am expected to fall in line.

Not sure if this was your intension, but this post reads to me as though someone came over from a conservative republican board to troll DU.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

115. If you have some proof of your allegation, you should prove it now. Let it be known

that this particular poster follows me around and makes these sort of accusations and NEVER backs it up with anything. Often, this poster has been known to insult me, just as he/she has done here, and has for whatever reason attached themself to me in order to say something like this any chance her/she gets.

[PowerToThePeople]

117. see your prior post.

and, I allege nothing. I was just commenting that your statement came across to me similarly to a comment I would expect to hear from someone as described.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

118. HILLARY CLINTON IS A WAR-MONGERING CHICKENHAWK. There, now everyone can see it.

I have my opinion on Hillary and it has NOTHING to do with whether or not I'm a secret conservative sneaking in here to make a comment about Hillary that many others here have made without such charges being made against them.

You are my personal bully. I will call you George...

[PowerToThePeople]

120. I happen to agree with the war monger statement

It is not the Hillary comment that concerned me, it was the "my party is stupid enough" comment.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

123. The Democratic Party has moved to the right. That makes it more stupid, by default.

That's right, I said it. It's my goddamned party too and if I think it's stupid, then I have a right to feel that way. Supporting the warmongerer Hillary Clinton is STUPID.

I am grievously disappointed with what my party has become. And I will say it, WITHOUT your stupid accusations/allegations!

[PowerToThePeople]

125. And that is why you and I are at odds.

ChisolmTrailDem (3,638 posts)
123. The Democratic Party has moved to the right. That makes it more stupid, by default.

That's right, I said it. It's my goddamned party too and if I think it's stupid, then I have a right to feel that way. Supporting the warmongerer Hillary Clinton is STUPID.

I am grievously disappointed with what my party has become. And I will say it, WITHOUT your stupid accusations/allegations!

I happen to think that the majority of the Democratic voters are more left leaning, but that the moneyed interests pull the discussion to the right. They do not have the numbers but they have the cash. They are NOT the party imho, they are just trying to (and to date been successful) steal the platform from the people.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

127. And that majority of left-leaning Democratic voters you laud will vote for Hillary, just as the

money wants them to. And that despite the money's low numbers versus the so-called left-leaning Democrats' legion. And, with every vote, including mine, we will elect Hillary and her moneyed interests to the most powerful office in the world. Because that is what I am expected to do by EVERY other Democrat, lest I be a traitor or perceived as helping the republican'ts win.

[PowerToThePeople]

128. fight the money

that is the fight that must be waged.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

129. Hence my now suspended support for Warren, since that is apparently the domain of heretics. That's

where the fight against money lies, with Warren. Sooooo.....

[MADem]

53. No, not at all.

They are simply telling her that they won't be forking over any big donations if she runs.

That's her source, so that's problematic...but only if she decided to break her pledge to finish out her term, which she's not going to do.

[Baitball Blogger]

56. You know what I'm thinking?

I'll be 66 in 2024.

<sigh>

[hrmjustin]

32. I think there will be a primary but I think Hillary will be our nominee.

I really take Warren at her word that ehe won't run.

[merrily]

40. If you take potential candidates at their word, why assume Hillary will run, much

less win--and you seem to assume Hillary's run with such certainty, too?

Hillary keeps equivocating about whether she will run or not. Do you disbelieve Hillary's lack of decision totally, yet take Warren totally at her word* about not running? If so, what does that say about how much trust you have in the word of Warren versus the word of Hillary?

*Thanks to 2008 Hillary for making "I take him at his word," a national saying about the statements of politicians.

[hrmjustin]

46. She will run.She is likely to win so that is why I assume.

She has my vote and support.

IWarren is new so I really can't read if she is thinking about it or not so I take her at her word she won't run.

[merrily]

51. I didn't ask whether Hillary would run, though.

Warren is new so I really can't read if she is thinking about it or not so I take her at her word she won't run.

I don't take you at your word that you are NOT taking Hillary at her word while taking Warren at her word only because you feel you can read Hillary better than you can read Warren. I think you made inconsistent statements in your prior post without realizing it and, when challenged about them, came up with the newbie explanation.

[hrmjustin]

55. Hillary was my senator and I bvoted her 5 times.

I can read her better than Warren.

[merrily]

61. Maybe you can; maybe you can't. Either way, I don't think your

perception of how able you think you are to read Hillary vs. how able you think you are to read Warren had anything to do with the wording of your reply 32. On that score, I stand by my prior post.

[hrmjustin]

64. My point is I think there will be a primary.

At this point I don't think Warren will be in.

[merrily]

71. I understood your point from your first reply.

[hrmjustin]

76. Ok.

[cascadiance]

90. So you know Hillary pretty well and like her better on these issues and attributes?

... than someone like an Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders?

- her being on Walmart's board?
- her full support for expanding H-1B Visa program that costs people like me decent high tech careers here and had me yesterday cashing an IRA to pay this month's rent.
- her vote for the war in Iraq
- her and her husband's creation of the DLC at the time he was president that took money from the Koch brothers?
- her and her husband's support for destructive trade agreements like the TPP
- her likely support of her husband's signing the Telecomm act, which has us with the corporate media oligopoly we have today as a result.
- she support retaining instead of eliminating the payroll tax cap, which protects higher salaried people and keeps us from getting social security and medicare from being solvent.

And for me, these are just a start... I think we need a different option personally, or at least a challenger to keep her honest on her positions on these issues, and hopefully push her to change them publicly if she indeed becomes our nominee.

[hrmjustin]

91. I don't agree with her on everthing but I will vote for her.

[StevieM]

130. She actually never spoke those words. The journalist interviewing her

spoke them, and attributed them to her. Then he asked his next question based on the premise that she had spoken them.

He kept asking the same question over and over again. Reasonable people have to recognize that he was going for a gotcha moment. Eventually, he was going to get one. In no way was Hillary trying to suggest that Obama was, or might be, a Muslim.

In no way was Hillary trying to suggest what she was accused of implying by her bashers. But if somebody really wants to believe something, they will find a reason to.

[Buns_of_Fire]

201. There'll definitely be primaries. There has to be.

"Inevitable" or not, I think a coronation by the party elders and money men would do her (or whoever the nominee winds up being) more harm than good come general election time. Given the nascent wave of populism, that's the kind of stuff that people resent.

[betterdemsonly]

38. Big donors are a corrupting influence on the political

process and don't add much. They mostly do it to gain influence, not because they believe in the candidate.

[lumberjack_jeff]

41. Out here in the sticks, I take comfort and trust that the owners of these manhattan living rooms...

... know what is best for me, and will choose me a good President.

[closeupready]

99. LOL - nailed it.

[pa28]

181. This OP inadvertently points out the need for a Warren candidacy.

Good thing she makes her own decisions.

[BainsBane]

47. I think she'd be out of her mind for a different reason

People who worship her now would turn on her in a NY minute as soon as they discovered she could not magically transform the nation and the world with the existing congress and that she would have to deal with the political realities in Washington. She would then be denounced as a corporatist and a sell out, while they would look for the next political messiah, only for the cycle to be repeated.

[MADem]

62. What you note has already happened.

A cadre of professional bashers have already thrown her under the bus. They did it to support President Obama, back in 2008. Then, when President Obama couldn't grant them their every little wish, they stuffed HIM under the bus as well.

Now, they show the love to Senator Warren, and to a lesser extent, Senator Sanders....but they screw their eyes shut and furiously ignore any inconvenient votes on touchy topics that involve warfighting and weaponry, longstanding territorial disputes, weak v. strong, and complex issues involving security and terrorism and self-determination and civilian casualties.

For now, anyway, because there's no one waiting in the wings with a tabula rasa, a spotless and empty record, who looks good, who sounds good, to be held up on high, and then be dashed to the ground for daring to be politically pragmatic.

[betterdemsonly]

69. A lesser evilist

whining that their candidate is not perceived as less evil.

[MADem]

73. No one is sufficiently pure.

Politics is a dirty business. The minute they get dirty, they lose their cachet.

And they all get dirty.

[betterdemsonly]

74. so vote for the most dirty, most evil one?

In a primary no less?

[MADem]

79. Perhaps the rose colored glasses need to come off.

Vote for the most effective candidate who has the talents, intelligence, connections, and knowledge to win in the general and in so doing, advance the planks of the Democratic platform.

Stop concerning yourself with what you wrongly perceive as "degrees of evilness," because the fact of the matter is this--what you call "evil" is what's known to most people as experience.

[betterdemsonly]

81. I don't care about the opinions, of people who view things I view

as evil, as experience. You vote your way, and I'll vote mine. If you don't like it, tough shit! I don't want someone who is effective at pushing an agenda I oppose, and I oppose much of Hillary's agenda. I don't favor, a global race to the bottom on the economy, or the neocon foreign policy agenda.

[merrily]

68. Yeah, I don't think so.

That was certainly not why I changed my mind about Obama. I don't think it's why others did either. Then again, I didn't "worship" Obama, either. Nor do I worship Warren or Sanders or any politician.

Your implications that members of a certain group of Democrats are as childish and silly as pre-teen fans of Bieber is neither accurate nor pleasant.

[loyalsister]

135. Most definitely

Suppose Pres. Obama had stayed in the senate. We can't know what would have happened, but one thing is sure. It's possible that he could have been more outspoken without running the risk of costing us seats in congress. Maybe the tone of his idealism regarding coming together could have come from a more demanding perspective when he wasn't the one who had to sign the bills with undesirable compromises.

I have always been a staunch supporter of Obama and have no regrets that he was elected.
I agree Elizabeth Warren would have to abandon or would naturally lose what has made her so popular and her most ardent supporters would be disappointed.

Her voice is too valuable as senator for her to have to give up some of her best ideas and dialogue.

[treestar]

143. Exactly. They put too much onto the Presidency

These people talk as if Congress is powerless. And as if the Constitution have no limit on the President's powers. They take the ridiculous canard about "most powerful person in the world" as if it were true.

[jeff47]

63. Back in 2006, people were insisting the 2008 election would be Clinton vs. Giuliani.

Giuliani got crushed before the campaign really started. Clinton lost the 2008 primary.

It's really, really dumb to repeat the same mistake today. But the media and lots of DU want to do so.

Clinton is currently the favorite for 2016. She was also the favorite for 2008. Could she lose in 2016? Sure. She lost in 2008 to a junior senator with a funny name. He was even way behind Clinton in 2006 polling.

Just like everyone is way behind Clinton in 2016 polling.

Who's going to be our 2016 candidate? We'll find out in 2016.

[rhett o rick]

66. And the manipulation continues. Of course the Big-Money is behind Clinton/Goldbags-Sachs.

They are just looking at supporting her as a good investment. And I am sure she would reciprocate if elected. Maybe like Pres Obama and Penny Pritzker (the Dem's Romney).

We are being sold that Clinton-Sachs is the sure winner, therefore, everyone else should just give in. We are often critical of other countries that have mock-democratic elections where there is only one candidate. We are much better, we run the Powers That Be's choice and add a second candidate that's a clown, giving the perception (to the numb-minded) that we have a choice. Democracy my ass.

[Laelth]

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

-Laelth

[polichick]

95. And Lord knows, big donors are always right!

[Marr]

110. The political landscape is like a dry prairie right now, and the party establishment is

vigorously trying to put out sparks before they touch anything. They've got their next product in Hillary "More of the Same" Clinton, and really, really want to convince everyone that she's inevitable, just like last time. When she wasn't.

[MannyGoldstein]

113. The wealthy favor Clinton over Warren?

That's a surprise.

[brooklynite]

122. The wealthy supported Warren over Scott Brown in 2012?

Didn't see that coming...

[MannyGoldstein]

131. Will you check on Wall Street contributions to Warren and Brown

Let us know what you find., thanks.

[brooklynite]

133. You just chastised "the wealthy" referred to in this article for supporting Clinton...

Did you miss the part where "the wealthy" had all been Warren Senate supporters?

[MannyGoldstein]

140. You brought up Brown not me.

Seems like you diverted the conversation, and am unhappy that I changed to your new conversation.

Or is there a larger point that you're making that zoomed over my head?

[brooklynite]

144. You threw out a cliche that "wealthy" people would automatically support Clinton...

...I pointed out that those same wealthy people were happy to support Warren, just not for President.

[yurbud]

134. If a big Hillary supporter also supports Warren, that tarnishes Warren a bit

[brooklynite]

138. If Warren supports Hillary, does that tarnish her as well?

Warren is a good politician. Operative word being "politician". Envisioning her as something transcendentally different will only lead to eventual disappointment.

[MADem]

151. Danger Will Robinson! Danger!

It does not compute....

When EW endorses HRC, and she'll likely do so with great fanfare, there will be a popping noise hither and yon on this board.

[yurbud]

207. Even if she was, we would need a different kind of Congress for her to get anything done.

[Matrosov]

136. Warren is the secret weapon

I see many parallels between 2016 and 2008. Back then, Hillary Clinton was supposed to be the obvious choice for Democratic nominee. Conservatives did their best to attack her and warn of a third term of Bill Clinton. Then along came Senator Obama and caught everyone by surprise. His message energized the progressive base and didn't leave conservatives with much ammunition to use against him.

Both Clinton and Warren should run in 2016, and Warren should hold off a while longer before announcing her candidacy. Let conservatives focus on Clinton once again. Hillary would have to be the sacrificial lamb, but it'd be for the greater good of ensuring the White House remains under progressive control. After all, the nominee doesn't matter much if we return to the dark days of barbarians in the oval office.

My reasoning is that Warren has something special about her. I believe she could be the secret weapon of 2016. I know more than a few people who typically have no interest in politics or who even lean slightly to the right, who say they are excited about the idea of a President Warren. Many feel her message transcends party lines and the usual political debates and could be even more powerful than "Hope & CHange."

Elizabeth Warren might not have the "brand name" that Hillary Clinton does, but trust me, the conservatives who know who she is and for what she stands would much rather face Hillary Clinton in 2016.

[brooklynite]

139. Here's the big difference between Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren...

Obama didn't call on Clinton to run for President.

[DonCoquixote]

145. Ah Yes

The same Taskmasters who are angry that people dared not coronate Hillary Imperatrix de Pax America Eterna are cracking their whips to make damned sure the peons do not get any funny ideas. This will allow Hillary to skew hard right in her Primary, to try to appeal to the types for whom no Tax is too low, and for whom no body count in the Middle east too high.

By that last comment, I meant a good portion of democrats, as well as those rats on the GOP raft who want to leap over onto our ship, then take it over as our reward for not letting the drown.

[brooklynite]

146. Clinton voted against the Bush Tax cuts in 2001

But don't let me interrupt your diatribe.

[bluestateguy]

152. The corporate media would rip her to shreds

Also, throw in a Koch brother assault that would be double what they would spend against Obama, and she'd never be able to raise the kind of money needed to fight back.

Just the way things are.

[TheKentuckian]

153. Just keep building that vacuum and someone will fill it, maintain pressure on what the

"Big Ticket" donors fear, the fault lines in the party being exposed and where Clinton stands in that divide rather than the phony ass side show designed to generate the appearance of unity behind the announced one of the wealthy folks driving our party into the ground.

Focus on the issues and sideline the personalities and the cream will separate and rise to where it is clear who is what.

[JDPriestly]

155. Hillary will ignore the big ticket problems of ordinary Americans.

That's the problem with our current system in which oligarchs can support candidates who do not support the 99% and in which oligarchs spend their money to discourage candidates that would represent the 99%.

Those who are lucky enough, rich enough to write big checks decide what goes on in this country. That is feudalism in a modern form.

It certainly is not government by the people, for the people, of the people.

I'm sick of fat cats deciding who I can and cannot vote for.

This life-long (71 years) Democrat will not vote for Hillary if she runs. She has sold her soul to big business, and she cannot represent me.

Shame on anyone who supports Hillary over Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren is not only more likely to represent the majority of Americans, but she is a much better speaker and more likely to win the national election than Hillary.

Hillary is doing well in the polls, but that is because she has name recognition, not because people know her well, know what she really stands for, have looked at her record and want her to be president.

Hillary's own record is not that impressive. She is great on issues concerning women and children. But she did not carefully scrutinize the evidence presented by the Bush administration before voting for the Iraq War resolution. She had recently come out of the White House and she did not see the flaws in Bush's arguments and excuses for war? That shows a lack of due diligence.

And Bill's record will come back to haunt Hillary.

If Elizabeth Warren decides not to run, I hope that Bernie Sanders will run in the Democratic Primary. If he does, I will be out campaigning for him.

The American people deserve better and need more fighting spirit than Hillary Clinton.

[Agony]

159. fuck the big donors, they are the problem not the solution. nt

[Iggo]

165. It's really quite simple: If Warren runs, she's got my vote in the primary.

If she doesn't, I'll see who I think is best when the time comes and vote for that person. If it's Clinton, then fine. If it ain't, then it ain't. Then I'll vote for whoever the Dem nominee is in the general election.

What I won't do is withhold my vote because some donor said he wouldn't support her.

(EDIT: Regarding "...she's got my vote in the primary." Um, I've also said that about Sanders if he runs as a Democrat. So if they both run, then I guess it's not as simple as I thought...lol.)

[JimDandy]

176. The smallest donors-the 99%-say: RUN FOR PREZ WARREN.

[wyldwolf]

179. Like stomping on an ant bed and watching the ants stream out in utter confusion

[betterdemsonly]

198. If you hate ordinary people why join the democrats? n/t

[Union Scribe]

200. Wow

that comment reveals a lot about you.

[randys1]

183. One thing is for sure, unlike all republicants running for prez, Liz will NOT do it to make a profit

Running for prez if you are a con is a for profit operation, one in which most candidates have no intention of winning, realize they cant, but do know how to make millions off running.

Conservatism is a for profit scam on the human race.

[Union Scribe]

195. Thanks for today's Resistance is Futile reminder. nt

[brooklynite]

197. I wouldn't call it that...

...more of a "if you really want an alternative candidate to Clinton, better wake up from your dream and start working to find one" suggestion.

[davidpdx]

199. Hillary has been once again anointed

How many times does this make? It's funny to see people on DU whine about how it's all a fabrication and then see it happen over and over again. It's like a Three Stooges movie.

[Roy Serohz]

202. Unpopular Opinion Warning

I agree

[morningfog]

204. Because Hillarybis inevitable...again...for real this time.