HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Look people: What do we *...

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 10:36 PM

 

Look people: What do we *really* know about Elizabeth Warren?

Sure, she wrote a best-selling book a decade ago about how working families are getting @#$%ed, fought like hell against Biden's stop-Americans-from-declaring-bankruptcy-so-the-bankers-can-get-more-money bill (and enlisted Ted Kennedy's fervent help in doing so), fought like hell to start the Consumer Financial Protection Board, tore Timmy Geithner a few new bodily openings for hosing down bankers with money while mooning the 99%, told federal regulators that bankers oughta go to trial and to jail and their banks be broken up, stopped Larry Summers from having another crack at finishing us off as Fed Chairman, and a few other things of little consequence.

With that sparse of a record, how can we believe, at all, that Warren will do the right thing as President? After all, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton did at least as much for the 99% before they became president (just trust me, no need to look that up), and they ended up being disappointments.

Certainly, Hillary and other potential presidential candidates have records that are longer and stronger than Warren's with regard to fighting for the 99%: and I look forward to good DUers posting those records below, so DUers can see why Warren is just another unknown who will likely disappoint.

Regards,

This-will-be-a-long-and-amusing-election-cycle Manny

P.S. This post is sarcasm, although I do invite people to post the stronger track records of other potential presidential candidates - if such track records exists.

110 replies, 16843 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 110 replies Author Time Post
Reply Look people: What do we *really* know about Elizabeth Warren? (Original post)
MannyGoldstein Nov 2014 OP
True Blue Door Nov 2014 #1
NYC_SKP Nov 2014 #2
Rockyj Nov 2014 #25
840high Nov 2014 #35
trueblue2007 Dec 2014 #43
NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #49
SheilaT Dec 2014 #40
MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #48
billhicks76 Dec 2014 #50
Art_from_Ark Dec 2014 #54
JDPriestly Dec 2014 #55
davidpdx Dec 2014 #64
billhicks76 Dec 2014 #102
Art_from_Ark Dec 2014 #104
billhicks76 Dec 2014 #101
Art_from_Ark Dec 2014 #105
billhicks76 Dec 2014 #107
Art_from_Ark Dec 2014 #108
billhicks76 Dec 2014 #109
madokie Dec 2014 #58
madokie Dec 2014 #57
Stellar Dec 2014 #66
Name removed Dec 2014 #78
rock Dec 2014 #84
True Blue Door Nov 2014 #3
MannyGoldstein Nov 2014 #5
True Blue Door Nov 2014 #10
MannyGoldstein Nov 2014 #13
True Blue Door Nov 2014 #15
Ken Burch Nov 2014 #33
True Blue Door Dec 2014 #41
NYC_SKP Nov 2014 #8
True Blue Door Nov 2014 #11
NYC_SKP Nov 2014 #20
True Blue Door Nov 2014 #23
bvar22 Dec 2014 #72
NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #73
SheilaT Dec 2014 #44
NYC_SKP Nov 2014 #12
True Blue Door Nov 2014 #19
treestar Dec 2014 #63
ChisolmTrailDem Nov 2014 #4
lumpy Nov 2014 #6
Baitball Blogger Nov 2014 #7
MannyGoldstein Nov 2014 #9
C Moon Dec 2014 #42
pkdu Nov 2014 #14
NYC_SKP Nov 2014 #24
RiverLover Nov 2014 #16
NYC_SKP Nov 2014 #17
RiverLover Nov 2014 #18
NYC_SKP Nov 2014 #21
Cartoonist Nov 2014 #22
NYC_SKP Nov 2014 #27
RiverLover Nov 2014 #28
SheilaT Dec 2014 #45
Thinkingabout Nov 2014 #26
NYC_SKP Nov 2014 #34
RiverLover Nov 2014 #36
Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #70
Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #69
MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #71
Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #76
RiverLover Dec 2014 #80
Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #81
RiverLover Dec 2014 #82
Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #83
MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #85
Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #86
MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #87
Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #88
MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #89
Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #90
MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #92
Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #93
MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #95
Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #96
MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #97
Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #98
MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #99
Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #100
MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #75
Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #79
brooklynite Nov 2014 #29
RiverLover Nov 2014 #32
SheilaT Dec 2014 #46
RiverLover Nov 2014 #30
NYC_SKP Nov 2014 #37
RiverLover Nov 2014 #39
GitRDun Dec 2014 #53
NYC_SKP Nov 2014 #38
George II Nov 2014 #31
PatrickforO Dec 2014 #47
DeSwiss Dec 2014 #51
MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #52
RiverLover Dec 2014 #56
geek tragedy Dec 2014 #59
MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #60
geek tragedy Dec 2014 #62
MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #68
newfie11 Dec 2014 #61
Bluenorthwest Dec 2014 #65
madokie Dec 2014 #67
RiverLover Dec 2014 #74
fredamae Dec 2014 #77
Orsino Dec 2014 #91
TheNutcracker Dec 2014 #94
Jesus Malverde Dec 2014 #103
Autumn Dec 2014 #106
RiverLover Dec 2014 #110

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 10:39 PM

2. OK then, below is my full list of reasons to vote for and support HRH Clinton:

 

[font color=white]Nothing here.

Nothing here either.

Or here.

Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.

Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.

Nothing here either.

Or here.

Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.

Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.

Nothing here either.

Or here.

Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.

Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.

Nothing here either.

Or here.

Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.

Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.

Nothing here either.

Or here.

Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.

Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.Nothing here either.

Or here.

[/font color]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:22 PM

25. BEST RESPONSE!

I will never vote or support another corporate owned democratic candidate again, which includes Hillary Clinton & MOST of the democratic party! FUCK the lesser of two evils! I'd rather stick an EVIL in my eye than VOTE for her!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rockyj (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:40 PM

35. So would I. Don't weaken.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rockyj (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 12:18 AM

43. I would not expect a Democrat to make the statement you've made.

You are EVIL or what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trueblue2007 (Reply #43)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 01:15 AM

49. Hillary Clinton. One of us is a Progressive Democrat and the other is...

 

...a former Senator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 12:05 AM

40. That many reasons?

 

It took me so long to get through them, but I agree with you totally!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 01:10 AM

48. That certainly *is* convincing. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 01:19 AM

50. HAHAHAHA

 

Love it. And by the way Bill Clinton didn't do anything for the 99% as Governor. He was a Dixiecrat who sucked up to Bush Sr.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billhicks76 (Reply #50)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 03:20 AM

54. I'm sorry, but a lot of your assertions are wrong

While governor, Clinton exempted seniors from the sales tax on medicines, and increased the home property tax exemption for seniors. My mother, who is about as "99%" as can be, greatly benefited from both of those actions. Clinton also spent a lot of time trying to attract Japanese companies to build production facilities in Arkansas to provide jobs in economically sluggish areas, and he raised teachers' salaries, increased opportunities for vo-tech training, and generally devoted a lot of resources to improving educational facilities in the state. He also worked to improve Arkansas' roads, which benefited everyone.

He was, at least in the early days of his presidency, still a "man of the people". A few months after he became President, he came back to Arkansas for a vacation. I, and several dozen other well-wishers, gathered at the Springdale airport to greet him, waiting outside on a very hot August day. Air Force One parked just a hundred yards or so from where we were waiting. It was so close that we could see Clinton getting out of the plane. And the first thing he did when he left the plane was come over to where we were waiting and start shaking hands. I don't think he left until he was satisfied that he had shaken hands and exchanged greetings with everyone who wanted to do so. That was hardly the behavior of a man who was only beholden to the 1%.

And Clinton was in no way a "Dixiecrat"-- you must be confusing him with George Wallace, Orval Faubus, or Lester Maddox. He did get a little too chummy with Bush Sr., but that was after he left the presidency. But his slogan during his 1992 presidential campaign was "It's the economy, stupid!", with "stupid" being an indirect reference to Bush Sr., who had essentially turned the 1992 Republican National Convention into a tribute to his family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #54)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 04:09 AM

55. Unfortunately, at least in his final years in the presidency, he got really cozy with Wall Street.

And Hillary deeply inhales the golden air that the Wall Street moguls exhale. No thanks.

Ah! The smell of money. Bill Clinton assured us he did not inhale, but Hillary???

Bill signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, NAFTA, the "reform" of welfare bills and on and on.

Was Bill a lovable guy? Absolutely. I campaigned for him, and I loved him.

But the Clintons are not what we need at this time. Neither of them.

We need a president who is pretty independent from the influence of the financial sector and able and willing to reform it without destroying it. There are a couple of people who fit that bill. We need to elect one of them, and not Hillary Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #54)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 08:44 AM

64. I don't agree with the person you replied to

but I do think Clinton made some mistake that have ended up screwing us in the long run (the biggest being the repeal of Glass-Steagall). I think he was much more on the conservative side of the party and his record reflects that. That being said, I did vote for him in the GE in 1992 and both the primary and GE in 1996 (I didn't vote in the primary in 1992).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #64)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 03:18 AM

102. He IS and always was Bush Sr.'s Hand Selected Poodle

 

People really need to educate themselves instead of repeating baseless drivel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #64)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 09:31 PM

104. He was much more liberal in the beginning

but, yeah, he did become too conservative later on. And when he came to Arkansas to campaign for Blanche Lincoln against the more liberal Bill Halter in the 2010 Democratic US Senate primary, it was almost like he was campaigning against himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #54)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 03:17 AM

101. New Breed

 

Ever see his photo in '91 inspecting black prisoners at a prison/slavelabour camp with Sam Nunn where all the Black prisoners were in stripped fatigues and chained ankle to ankle just like the good-ole-days? Thanks for the amped up Drug War making your buddies rich Bill! I can't believe people still live in a fantasyland and not the reality on the ground they must be immune from in their cozy bubbles. Seniors? How was the nursing home industry doing...ask Bill that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billhicks76 (Reply #101)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 09:34 PM

105. How was the nursing home industry doing, in Arkansas?

My grandfather was in a nursing home in Arkansas while Clinton was governor. The rates were fairly reasonable, and my grandfather's pension paid for everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #105)

Fri Dec 5, 2014, 12:13 AM

107. Yeah

 

And as then Bill messed it up and handed it to the vultures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billhicks76 (Reply #107)

Fri Dec 5, 2014, 12:30 AM

108. When did he "hand it to the vultures"?

My experience with nursing homes in Arkansas only goes up through the first 7 of Clinton's 12 years as governor.

But Clinton did help the non-one-percenters while he was governor-- my mom is a beneficiary of some of his policies, which is probably one reason why she likes Hillary so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #108)

Fri Dec 5, 2014, 01:25 AM

109. He Didn't Reform Enough

 

And catered to the corporate owned chains that cut back on little things. Maybe he just couldn't pull it off in fairness I guess. More pissed at his ramping up the drug war under Bush Sr guidance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billhicks76 (Reply #50)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 06:55 AM

58. And still sucking up to poppy

I wonder if its he just likes to live or not though
BFEE and all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 06:53 AM

57. Thats a long list

convinced me too, why yes, yes it did

Awesome

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 08:58 AM

66. I think you've said enough!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #2)


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 10:55 AM

84. So, you have no reason

OK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 10:39 PM

3. We still need Warren to make a demonstration of power.

Her values are clearly strong, her understanding impeccable, but she needs to deliver something to us. Something to show she can control political animals, not just speak intelligently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 10:40 PM

5. OK. As opposed to who else that has?nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 10:49 PM

10. Jerry Brown.

But since he probably won't run, that doesn't mean anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 10:51 PM

13. Good answer.

 

I'd like him to run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:02 PM

15. Me too. The country needs him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #15)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:36 PM

33. Brown's a fascist on crime policy and the drug war, though.

 

I was never sure how he squared that(including his defense of the "three strikes" policy that has thousands doing life sentences in Cali prisons for committing a handful of trivial crimes)with his supposed progressive or anti-establishment policies on other issues-it's like he's trying to be a Zen Giuliani or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 12:09 AM

41. I disagree strongly.

You're reading quite a lot into situations where it doesn't apply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 10:45 PM

8. You mean like this smackdown of some executives over minimum wage?

 

Watch and learn... watch it all. There are much better examples, but this is pretty representative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 10:50 PM

11. Those are words.

Very important words, but still words. They prove she is a good Senator - one who will speak for us in legislative contexts. They are not, however, evidence of the power to control political animals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:12 PM

20. So, what the has Hillary done that is in any way more than what Warren has done.

 

Her and words, the oft cited Politifact page about Hillary's positions are just words.

Power to control political animals, is that what you think Hillary has.

Please provide examples of this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:21 PM

23. I'm not a Hillary supporter. You mistake my comments.

I want Warren, or Sanders, or anyone to rise to a level that can defeat Hillary in the primaries and then a Republican opponent in the general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 02:34 PM

72. While Hillary was a Senator,

....she spearheaded the fight against Flag Burning and violent Video Games.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #72)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 02:54 PM

73. And fought those nasty credit card welchers!

 

In favor of banksters!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 12:21 AM

44. One of the reasons I get so angry at the claims

 

that rises in the minimum wage would utterly destroy our economy, is to note that in the various periods when the minimum wage has stayed the same, the cost of things like, say a meal at McDonald's, has rarely stayed the same in that same time period.

Elizabeth Warren actually has a good grasp on what the economy is like for those at the bottom. Even though I don't think she herself has never lived at the very bottom, she's been close enough to observe it. Hillary Clinton has never even been close her entire life, and ever since Bill became President, she's been a long, long way from it and has made no effort whatsoever to understand that place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 10:51 PM

12. "Warren Schools Bank Executives"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #12)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:11 PM

19. She does a good job as a freshman Senator.

That's not the same thing as what I'm talking about.

That was a message to us that she's aware of what we want.

We need a message that she's aware of what we need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue Door (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 08:16 AM

63. +1

What good is "fighting like hell?" The evil bankruptcy bill still passed.

DU is always rallying behind someone and demanding they be POTUS because they said the right thing. That means zip. I can do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 10:40 PM

4. Don't hold your breath. They're explanations as to why Hillary is The One and should

 

be the next president seem to elude them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 10:41 PM

6. Good post Manny. Have wondered also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 10:45 PM

7. I know this:

Obama was greatly favored by the voters for saying all the right (but congressionally unpopular) things about the Iraq War.

And now here come Elizabeth Warren saying all the right (but congressionally unpopular) things about Wall Street.

They both are not cookie cutter candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 10:47 PM

9. But what had Obama actually *done*?

 

And for how long?

Was there an Obama equivalent of this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 12:14 AM

42. I think President Obama had good intentions and wanted to do everything he'd promised...

but once he got into the mess of President, he realized he had to work with the RW.

He took compromising too far.

The GOP are bastards, and saw him as weak, rather than someone who cared about the country and was reaching out to get things done for everyone (even though, the scales are tipped so far to the 1%, there is no "everyone" anymore).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 10:57 PM

14. Get back to me when she STOPS saying she's NOT RUNNING, until then, this stuff is

Circle-jerk , and piss- poor circle-jerk at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pkdu (Reply #14)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:22 PM

24. I'd like a professional opinion regarding the circle jerk skills, a circle jerk specialist.

 

"Piss Poor" indeed!

I am offended!

Bring me a specialist!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:05 PM

16. Here are the bills she's sponsored so far in the Senate~

http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=sponsored_legislation

They truly show who she is and what she wants to change & improve. She walks the talk.


And here's a great article about the differences btn EW & Hillary~
http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-vs-elizabeth-warren-big-differences-despite-claims-contrary-1640810

For ex~

...Additionally, Warren has been a vocal critic of so-called free trade deals, which create major regulatory protection for intellectual property, patents and copyrights, but often remove such protections for workers, consumers and the environment. Clinton, by contrast, was a key backer of NAFTA and voted for free trade pacts with Oman, Chile and Singapore during her Senate tenure. Additionally, Clinton was a key Obama administration player when the administration began pushing the Trans Pacific Partnership - a free trade deal that Warren has publicly criticized.

Clinton was a prominent supporter of the 1996 welfare reform legislation that made it more difficult for poor families to receive government benefits. She stood by that support during her 2008 presidential campaign. With a new study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities showing that law coincided with a rise in extreme childhood poverty, Clinton's position may open her up to criticism from Warren, who has positioned herself as a champion of the poor.

There is also Clinton’s vote for the Iraq War. During her 2012 Senate campaign, Warren was an outspoken critic of the war. As a senator, Warren is a co-sponsor of a new bill to repeal the original authorization for war in Iraq that Clinton supported.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:09 PM

17. "Too Big to Fail" has become "Too Big for Trial" clip here:

 


?start=226

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:10 PM

18. Some of EW's background ala Wiki~

She was previously a Harvard Law School professor specializing in bankruptcy law. Warren is an active consumer protection advocate whose work led to the conception and establishment of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She has written a number of academic and popular works, and is a frequent subject of media interviews regarding the American economy and personal finance.

In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, Warren served as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). She later served as Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under President Barack Obama. In the late 2000s, she was recognized by publications such as the National Law Journal and the Time 100 as an increasingly influential public policy figure.

....Warren was an early advocate for the creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The bureau was established by the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act signed into law by President Obama in July 2010. In anticipation of the agency's formal opening, for the first year after the bill's signing, Warren worked on implementation of the bureau as a special assistant to the president. While liberal groups and consumer advocacy groups pushed for Obama to nominate Warren as the agency's permanent director, Warren was strongly opposed by financial institutions and by Republican members of Congress who believed Warren would be an overly zealous regulator.[36][37][38]

...At a Banking Committee hearing in March, Warren questioned Treasury Department officials why criminal charges were not brought against HSBC for its money laundering practices. With her questions being continually dodged and her visibly upset, Warren then compared money laundering to drug possession, saying "if you’re caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you’re going to go to jail... But evidently, if you launder nearly a billion dollars for drug cartels and violate our international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your own bed at night."[49]

Warren is in favor of increasing the minimum wage and has argued that if the minimum wage had followed increases in worker productivity in the United States, it would now be at least $22 an hour.[50][51]

In May, Warren sent letters to Justice Department, Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Reserve, questioning their decisions that settling rather than going to court would be more fruitful.[52] Later that month, Warren introduced her first bill, the Bank on Student Loans Fairness Act, which would allow students to take out government education loans at the same rate that banks such as Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase pay to borrow from the federal government. Suggesting that students should get "the same great deal that banks get," Warren proposed that new student borrowers be able to take out a federally subsidized loan at 0.75%, the rate paid by banks, compared with the current 3.4% student loan rate.[53] Endorsing her bill days after its introduction, Independent Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders stated: "the only thing wrong with this bill is that [she] thought of it and I didn’t" on The Thom Hartmann Program.[54]

During the 2014 election cycle, Warren was a top Democratic fundraiser, supporting candidates in Ohio, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, West Virginia, Michigan, and Kentucky. In the aftermath of the election, Warren was appointed by Majority Leader Harry Reid (the same man who made her Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel) to become the first ever Strategic Advisor of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, a position that was created just for her. The move is widely seen as an effort by Reid to lean his party more to the left following major Democratic losses in the recent election. It would also end up boosting further speculation about a possible presidential run on part of Warren in 2016.[55][56][57][58][59]

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


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:19 PM

21. She wants to raise the minimum wage to over $22/hour and prosecute the banksters.

 

That, alone, elevates her well above whatshername.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:19 PM

22. She used to be a republican

I like what she says recently about economics, but she doesn't have a track record of being a progressive on social issues.
She's a female Ralph Nader, and that's not a compliment from me. Why would people of color vote for her? People of color turned out huge for Obama, but stayed at home when it was just white dems running for office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cartoonist (Reply #22)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:26 PM

27. That old claim? Hell, it will only attract more independents and soft Republicans.

 

WTH would anybody of color vote for Clinton?

Sorry to have to point out the obvious: Warren is able to speak plainly and with passion to issues that matter to the working class and poor.

Credit card debt, income disparity, punishing banksters, plenty more.

Hillary has nothing, and especially nothing for minorities or whites, unless they're in the top 5%, or better.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cartoonist (Reply #22)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:26 PM

28. They came out for Jimmy Carter & some say they won it for him.

Jimmy Carter won the black vote with more than "92 percent going for Jimmy." Carter was both the largest black vote in history and influential single exercise of minority political power...

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/41066097?uid=3739840&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21105333415373

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cartoonist (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 12:25 AM

45. She used to be a Republican.

 

Hillary was a Goldwater Girl.

Neither one of those things matters very much any more. What does matter is what they've said, and more importantly what they've done in the past few years.

Hillary: support the war in Iraq. As Secretary of State she oversaw all that I most despise about our military. I'm not very happy with Obama on those things either.

Elizabeth: speaks up about how awful it is that not a single banker has served time. Tries to get economic policies in place that would actually support the middle and working classes, as well as the poor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:23 PM

26. Do you think working to get an increase in minimun wage increase good for the 99%?

Do you think working disparity between executives and the 99% is good?
Do you think an advocate for LGBT rights is good for the 99%?
Do you think an advocate for civil rights is good for the 99%?
Do you think fighting for the bankruptcy rules not to be against the 99% good?
Do you think having an advocate for women's rights important to the 99%?
Do you think having an advocate against violence on women important to the 99%?
Do you think keeping the right of a woman to choose important to the 99%?
Are you outraged at executive compensations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #26)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:38 PM

34. You just described Warren, but not Clinton.

 

Hillary is a bankster's wet dream.

BILL MOYERS: Bill, her husband, who vetoed…

ELIZABETH WARREN: Her husband had vetoed it very much at her urging.

BILL MOYERS: And?

ELIZABETH WARREN: She voted in favor of it.

BILL MOYERS: Why?

ELIZABETH WARREN: As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different. It's a well-financed industry. You know a lot of people don't realize that the industry that gave the most money to Washington over the past few years was not the oil industry, was not pharmaceuticals. It was consumer credit products. Those are the people. The credit card companies have been giving money, and they have influence.


Fast forward to about 2:30

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #34)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:45 PM

36. That's good stuff.

Sure doesn't sound like she's endorsing Hillary. Just the opposite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 09:55 AM

70. Yep, it is Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 09:23 AM

69. You are incorrect, it is Hillary's position and she has a voting record to back it up.

I find it interesting Warren was involved with the TARP rollout under Bush, is she also responsible for the terrible handling of TARP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #69)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 01:20 PM

71. Warren was involved in the TARP rollout?

 

Link?

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #76)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 09:12 AM

80. Thanks, it disproves your words. She was part of Obama's Oversight TARP panel.

It says she was on the "bailout watchdog committee" & ~

Warren stepped down from the oversight panel in September 2010 to help launch the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But Obama passed her over for the permanent director job when it became clear Republicans would block her Senate confirmation.


(I was waiting for his answer too, Manny, I hope you don't mind me jumping in!!!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #80)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 09:16 AM

81. You have proven in your post she was involved in TARP. In fact she was on

The committee in 2008. If her position was one of oversight WTH happened?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #81)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 09:18 AM

82. Really, you are funny to watch.

Too early for popcorn. Darn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #82)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 09:22 AM

83. May be funny but factual. Hope you got a good laugh from the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #76)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 11:13 AM

85. So I assume you belive that Patrick Fitzgerald helped to Blow Valerie Plame's cover?

 

And that FDR helped attack Pearl Harbor?

Or is that logic, in any way, different from yours with regards to the "evidence" you provided?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #85)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 11:51 AM

86. Do you now believe Warren was connected with TARP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #86)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 12:10 PM

87. "I find it interesting Warren was involved with the TARP rollout under Bush"

 

That was your statement.

You've yet to demonstrate that she had anything to do with the rollout. Rather, she chaired a committee created after the fact to keep an eye on the thing, and they were very critical of how TARP was handled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #87)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 12:20 PM

88. Warren was involved with TARP in 2008, Bush was still president in 2008, Obama went into office

in 2009. Now it is established Warren was involved with TARP, passed and implemented in the Bush administration, Warren was on the oversight committee, why is so many complaining about TARP. I would have thought Warren would have been on top of the issues but seems like the bonuses still rolled out to the executives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #88)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 12:29 PM

89. She did as much as she was allowed to by statute

 

And was very vocal about what a @#$% up it was, e.g.,



Specifically, what would you expect her to do beyond what she did? Should she have marched down to Treasury herself and grabbed the money?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #89)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 01:30 PM

90. You include a picture of Tim Geithner but Hank Paulson actually was the Secretary of Treasure.

I would assume she was not able in the last months of 2008 able to change the executives from receiving their bonuses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #90)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 02:13 PM

92. Why don't you do the research?

 

Who in Treasury did she have the right to talk to, subpoena, or depose?

The answers are pretty clear, so your task is easy. Good luck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #92)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 02:17 PM

93. I guess I was surprised you would wanted or need a link to Warren's activities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #93)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 03:28 PM

95. To her activities *rolling out* TARP

 

which I've still not seen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #95)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 04:20 PM

96. She was involved as I said

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #96)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 06:00 PM

97. Like FDR was *involved* in Pearl Harbor.

 

Who knew?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #97)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 06:47 PM

98. Did not know FDR was on the Pearl Harbor Oversight Committee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #98)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 07:37 PM

99. You still haven't stated what Warren was legally able to do

 

beyond what she did.

You wouldn't want people to think you're just dealing in baseless smears, would you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #99)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 08:57 PM

100. Where in the hell have I smeared Warren, I stated she was involved in the TARP rollout, if you

consider it to be a smear against her then perhaps you should rethink the standards you hold others. This seems to be a problem, let someone say one word and they are labeled incorrectly for the rest of their lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #69)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 08:55 AM

75. Still waiting to see what Warren's involvement was

 

Last edited Tue Dec 2, 2014, 11:10 AM - Edit history (1)

on the TARP rollout...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #75)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 09:07 AM

79. Link was provided.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:27 PM

29. I think we really know that she doesn't want to run for President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #29)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:35 PM

32. We'll see

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 12:26 AM

46. Didn't she really resist running for the Senate at first?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:32 PM

30. My favorite vid of EW is when she was interviewed & responded to Karl Rove attack ads

linking her to Occupy Wall Street~



Actually, that's not true, there are so many good videos of her, but my favorite is the very first one I saw of her in 2007. I can't find it now. Should have bookmarked it. I remember wishing then that she would run for president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #30)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:50 PM

37. She spoke at UC Berkeley in June 2007.

 

I wonder if what you can't find is from that day:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #37)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:56 PM

39. Thank you NYC SKP! Wow. That's it.

I'll watch the whole thing again tomorrow, and be pleasantly reminded of why I'm a Democrat. A Proud Democrat. Thx again!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 02:46 AM

53. I stopped at 34 minutes

Yikes! She's got my vote!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #30)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:52 PM

38. 2007 speaking at senate hearings before becoming a senator:

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Nov 30, 2014, 11:33 PM

31. Emphatically - NOT MUCH (and that is NOT "sarcasm"!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 12:33 AM

47. There aren't many real populist Democrats anymore.

I'm actually much closer to Warren philosophically. Clinton really is a corporate Democrat. Whatever populism she must have once had is long gone.

Sometimes I wonder whether I should just vote for the Greens. If enough of us did it...well, that's why I'll still vote Dem. A vote for the Greens, as much as I like most of their positions, would actually suck enough Dem votes away so a Republican is elected. Like the Nader thing a few years ago. I like Ralph Nader a lot, but the reality is that Bush's operatives were able to steal the election because Gore's margin was too small. If Nader hadn't run, Gore would have had a wide enough victory margin to prevent the Republicans from being able to steal the presidency.

And we all know what a disaster that was, (or would be if another Republican gets into the White House).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 01:49 AM

51. She's a hopeless dreamer, Manny.

 

- She's all pie-in-the-sky. Airy-fairy. All ''Let's help the poor Middle-classers'' -- pfffffft! Like that's gonna happen! We need a sure thing, Manny. Something we can count on. Like Clintonism. At least we KNOW EXACTLY what that is.....



K&R!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #51)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 02:34 AM

52. Great quote!

 

Hadn't seen that, thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 06:50 AM

56. Elizabeth's positions on Energy Policy are

best shown by her differences with Scott Brown, who she sent backing back to FoxFiction~

The Republican Brown is bullish on "fracking," the controversial technique for unlocking vast stores of natural gas, while Warren, a Democrat, has what she calls deep concerns.

Warren favors the Cape Wind offshore wind project, which Brown opposes.

Brown is a nuclear power proponent, but Warren worries it's unsafe and doesn't want any new nuclear power plants built in the U.S.

And Warren says the Keystone XL pipeline project would be a bad investment in a dirty fuel. Brown sees it as a job creator.

To the Warren campaign, Brown's positions show he isn't at all serious about the climate threats posed by burning fossil fuels.

They knock him for votes to continue tax subsidies to oil companies, and point to the money Brown's campaign has received from people connected the oil and gas industry (about $334,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics).

"Scott Brown continues to vote for huge taxpayer subsidies to the big oil companies, even as they rake in billions in profits," Warren said. "That's the wrong direction for our country to go."

Warren, too, benefits from money from groups interested in energy policy. The League of Conservation Voters has spent about $1 million in Massachusetts to defeat Brown, including a $200,000 mail campaign announced last week to highlight Brown's "ties to Big Oil."

....Brown says the country should create incentives to develop cleaner renewables such as solar, wind and hydropower, but he says nuclear energy and domestic fossil fuels must remain an important part of the mix. Meanwhile, the nation should work to decrease overall energy use through better efficiency, he says.

Warren wants to focus more on developing renewable energy in preparation for a shift from the fossil fuels she sees at the root of the problem.

"I believe we need to get serious about climate change, and we can start by ending the subsidies to big oil companies and investing in clean energy," she said. "Right now, we're losing out on these investments to other countries."

...Warren's focus on developing renewable power drives opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport heavy tar-sands crude oil from Canada to Texas' Gulf Coast refineries.

"We should be making investments to grow the clean energy economy, not continuing to support dirty fuel," she said, dismissing claims the project would be a major job creator or drive down gas prices.

Brown counters that the pipeline will, in fact, create thousands of jobs and help suppress gas prices.

He's also enthusiastic about fracking, a technique that's recovered large reserves of natural gas by pumping volumes of water, plus sand and chemicals, deep underground to break shale apart and free the gas. Brown says it can be done safely and help achieve energy independence.

Warren, though, believes fracking poses possible health and environmental risks, particularly to the water supply. Fracking, she says, should be subjected to federal safe drinking water laws.

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/10/sen_scott_brown_elizabeth_warr_1.html


Republican Scott Brown sounded very Third Way there, didn't he?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 07:12 AM

59. The data we do have on her--she badly underperformed Obama in her Senate race

 

http://www.boston.com/news/special/politics/2012/general/



Obama: 61% 1,900,575
Romney: 38% 1,180,370

Warren: 54% 1,678,408
Brown: 46% 1,449,180


She underperformed the president by 7%. We can't afford a Presidential nominee who would underperform him by 2%.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #59)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 08:10 AM

60. she beat the most popular pol in MA like a drum

 

Started down by 20 IIRC, won by 8.

But keep trying...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #60)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 08:13 AM

62. The Scott Brown who barely got by Martha Coakley?

 

In an increased turnout general election, Warren was exactly halfway between Martha Coakley's off-year results and Obama's totals.

Warren plays well with a good section of the base. Her appeal beyond the base is questionable and needs to be established.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #62)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 09:21 AM

68. And who became an incumbent, named by the Boston Globe

 

as the Most Popular Politician in Massachusetts? Yes that Scott Brown. Go do the research, show us I'm wrong.

The two-faced lying Mitt Romney that was so hated by Mass residents that he couldn't have won a race for dog catcher? Yeah, that Mitt Romney.

But keep at it, sport.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 08:11 AM

61. Glad you added sarcasm nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 08:59 AM

67. The only thing I need to know for sure is

I want her as My President this next term. 2016 is all Elizabeth for me

ETA: I'd like to see her team up with Bernie Sanders or Sherrod Brown. Anyway they want to shuffle the cards would be fine with me but I 'd really like to see Senator Warren at the head of the ticket

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #67)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 06:29 AM

74. Yes, yes, yes!!

Wouldn't that be great Madokie? 'Ready for Warren' is giving her until Feb 16 to announce. I hope she doesn't take that long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 09:07 AM

77. The "Thing" that jumps

out from your post (for me) is the slowly emerging possibility POTUS can't do/control shit anymore...that the corps/banksters/1%/MIC etc may be more deeply embedded in our govt that I believed.

Who's really "running the joint", anyway?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #77)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 02:08 PM

91. Well, since we recruit our presidents from the pool of congresscritters and governors...

...we shouldn't expect POTUS to do shit.

There is our longing for a hetoic Chief Executive, of course, and exceptional individuals exist, but our insistence on "strong" records is really a guarantee of the same ol' same 'ol.

I don't necessarily want a prez with a "strong" record. President Obama's lack of Washinton experience/obedience schooling is why I preferred him to Sen. Clinton.

"Strong" needs to mean more than well-financed. It needs to denote service to ideals that benefit Us The People.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 02:34 PM

94. I'm with Bernie Sanders.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 05:03 AM

103. She went to an elitist east coast school.

When it comes down to it she relates much better with the east coast elites than the wider citizenry.

We need a candidate that has no connection to Harvard, Princeton or Yale. The training ground of Elites and those that service them.

President Obama makes that clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Dec 4, 2014, 09:41 PM

106. I know she has more honor in her left big toe than Reid and Pelosi have in their combined

bodies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Reply to this thread