Why in God's name would Elizabeth Warren run for President?

[MannyGoldstein]

In just two years, Senator Warren has:

- become a de facto leader of America's FDR Democrats; hell, they call us the Elizabeth Warren Democrats now!
- been appointed to a leadership position among Senate Democrats, usually reserved for members with significant seniority
- had hundreds of thousands of Americans, many organizations, and at least one major newspaper beg her to run for President
- had two major political organizations, MoveOn and DFA, actually set up infrastructure to draft her for President in Iowa in NH

And now Wall Street itself is advertising Warren's utility to working Americans by overtly threatening the Democratic Party unless they can get her to STFU!

In just two years!

Here's my questions: has any Democrat in memory gone so far, so fast? Could Warren have done any better if she'd done anything different?

At some point I expect that Warren will throw her hat into the ring for 2016. But for now... why would she?

"In my opinion, she is the prototype of a person we would want to be president of the United States. She has a very well-defined set of values and unlike many politicians, she actually sticks by those values and fights to implement them.

In short, it don't get no better."
- Richard Trumka, President, AFL-CIO

Keep on keeping on, Senator Warren!

[Omaha Steve]

1. I can't think of a single reason

But then you have several.

K&R!

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Sorry, Steve!

I forgot that at least one union leader wants her to run, too:

The Country's Biggest Union Leader Wants Elizabeth Warren to Be President

I added Trumka's input to the OP.

[leftofcool]

2. Here's hoping she throws her hat into the ring. The more the merrier!

I would not support her in the primaries but will damn sure support her in the general if she wins it.

[F4lconF16]

38. Who would you?

Just curious. I'd probably support Bernie, myself.

[leftofcool]

53. Hillary for the primary but I will support any Democrat in the general.

I like both Senator Sanders and Senator Warren.

[L0oniX]

4. K & R to Warren ...for pissing off all the right people ...if you can even call them ...people.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Billboards should be put up

"Wall Street: Elizabeth Warren must be stopped!"

Could there be a better recommendation to the American People?

[L0oniX]

9. There's quite the opportunity to burn them with this. I hope the heat goes to max.

[marym625]

70. That's exactly what I said!

[Fumesucker]

5. Donning my tin foil beany cap..

I can think of a couple of quite good reasons a "difficult" person might not wish to become President.

We have people around these days who make Curtis LeMay look like a hippie.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. One mitigating factor...

small planes are not needed to easily reach the outskirts of Mass.

[hifiguy]

20. And LeMay was crazy as a shithouse rat.

He wanted to use nukes to rescue the French at Dien Bien Phu.

IIRC he was the model for General Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove.

[joeybee12]

7. She's not going to run because she's a smart lady...

It amazes me that so many people here who consider themselves politically well-versed don't sem to grasp that media scrutiny and coverage changes overnight once a person declares...Liz knows this...she wants to work on her message longer...if she runs, she becomes the issue.

[L0oniX]

10. So by that reasoning Hillary will run because she is stupid. Right?

[joeybee12]

11. Thanks for total lack of comprehension...

Hilary has already been through this...she knows it...Liz is smart and should hone her message because as soon as she runs she becomes a target and that message gets lost...it's basic polictic...thanks for playing.

[L0oniX]

13. ...and just what do you imagine they will target her for? They will drag out all the old...

shit on Hillary plus some new shit too. Oh and since you haven't been awake ...Wall Street is already on the attack against Warren.

[F4lconF16]

46. The whole reason she has done as well as she has

Is that she has already honed her message. She knows exactly what she's talking about. A presidential run would bring distractions, yes, but also an enormous amount of attention to her ideas. The media would focus on her because of her threat to Clinton. The reason she would do well in the presidential run is because she can clearly articulate her ideas and plans, unlike some other possible candidates.

[Demeter]

15. Well, I wouldn't have put it quite so bluuntly, but now that you mention it

[840high]

64. .....

[phantom power]

12. Truthfully, I'm finding it hard to imagine why Hillary would want to run.

I'm not enthusiastic about her in any case, but putting that aside, she and Bill get treated so terribly in the media, and by the GOP, that I'd hardly blame her for saying "fuck all that."

[zeemike]

33. Right, in the media.

But behind closed doors they smooz it up with the power players and the Bush folks.
Let's face it, the media is a show that plays on the TV...has no reality in it at all.

But why would she want to run?...because it means a lifetime membership for her and her family in the big club.

[Demeter]

77. She's already a member of the Big Club

This is pure ego on her part. It's not as if she had a goal of saving the nation, or the Constitution, or the world. She would be more likely to finish one or more of them off entirely, completing the destruction previous Presidents started...

[marym625]

72. The gop is kissing her ass

They have already said they would have no problem with her being president. And that right there should worry any Democrat

[NCTraveler]

83. Funny. nt.

[RiverLover]

14. "It don't get no better", damn straight!

You hear MSM try to marginalize her, she's "far left", she's "extreme", etc.

But when she's talks, people listen, people LIKE what they hear. She's authentic. Something that's been missing, authenticity.

The video above was posted on youtube yesterday. 5,183 views. In a day. Just talking about Consumer Protection.

The video below had 2 million views, in ONE week, on her facebook page~

Star power, Decency, Empathy, Intelligence, & most of all, she Represents US & speaks for true Democratic Values,

Why is she so threatening to Wall Street Republicans & Democrats? The Establishment?

...The first and most obvious reason is that Washington is, to put it gently, a swamp of corruption where many influential people live comfortably — thanks to Wall Street. Maybe they’re lobbyists; maybe they work in free-market think tanks; maybe they’re employed by the defense industry, which benefits greatly from Wall Street’s largesse. Or maybe they’re government bureaucrats who find Warren’s opposition to the “revolving door” to be in profound conflict with their future plans.

My second theory is less political and more prosaic. Another reason Bai and his ilk find Warren discomfiting may be her glaring lack of false modesty and her disinterest in keeping her head down and paying her dues. Because despite being the capital of what is nominally the greatest liberal democracy on Earth, Washington is in truth a deeply conformist and hierarchical milieu, one where new arrivals are expected to be neither seen nor heard until they’ve been deemed to have earned their place. And while Warren may want to be seen as a team player, what she cares most about is reining in Wall Street. If she deems it necessary to accomplish her primary goal, she’s willing to step on some toes and lose a few fair-weather friends....

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/06/elizabeth_warren_causes_dc_freakout_why_the_liberal_hero_has_elite_washington_in_hysterics/

[cheapdate]

32. Well, they're wrong about that. She's neither "far left" nor "extreme".

She has firm convictions regarding the correct regulatory structure for banking, finance, and insurance. And she believes that the government can, and should, enact public policies to expand opportunities for all Americans.

But she isn't a "radical" nor is she a "socialist". Her goal isn't to upend the existing order, throw the bankers and corporate creeps in jail to answer for their crimes, and give back land and power to the people.

She wants to improve the system, not tear it down and build something new.

I like Warren. I like Hillary too. They're both good people. And they have a lot more in common than people generally believe. Both have a very conventional, centrist, Democratic outlook on society, government, and the state.

I'd gladly support either of them. But I harbor no illusion that either of them comes close to sharing my ethics of environmental stewardship, social justice, or local autonomy. Nor do I imagine that either of them will bring about the kind of transformative change that I'd like to see.

The important thing is just to win the election for the Democrats.

[F4lconF16]

50. +1 for most of it.

However, there is a massive gulf between Warren's liberalism and Clinton's centrism, and to say that the only important thing is for a democrat to win ignores that.

[cheapdate]

61. Winning is extremely important.

Last edited Sat Mar 28, 2015, 12:17 AM - Edit history (1)

As many as four or more Supreme Court justices could retire under the next president. The Supreme Court has been extremely important in recent decades. Appointments to the federal courts, including the SCOTUS, can shape public policy and public life for a generation, or more. Republican appointed judges rule against the people nearly every time. A Republican president could roll back nearly every modest gain that the left has made since 2009 -- in alternative and renewable energy, in climate change action, in diversity and gender equality, etc.

Republicans are extremely adept at consolidating power. Eight years of Bush/Rove/Cheney left ideological operatives burrowed into every crevice of the federal bureaucracy.

I don't care how conservative Hillary Clinton might seem to be. She's Ceasar Chavez next to any Republican in the race. Hillary might be wrong on trade and economics, wrong on national defense, and wrong in other areas, but she at least believes in functioning civil institutions, believes in climate change, believes in secularism and separation of church and state, supports marriage equality, etc.

Winning is extremely important. Republicans very much want to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Hillary has voted twice to ban it. One of those votes was a permanent ban, on a bill which she co-sponsored. Some things that are lost are lost permanently.

I think it's foolish to tear into Hillary Clinton on a personal level the way some people do. She's not my ideological soulmate, but that's not what the election is about. It's about an actual choice over who's going to lead the country.

[rhett o rick]

89. I hear what you are saying, but her stand on economics, foreign policy

and the Security State may be enough to push us off the edge of democracy. Social gains will quickly disappear if that happens.

[cheapdate]

100. I don't have the answer.

I support activism and direct action when I can. But that's a separate track. Participating in electoral politics doesn't take anything away from activism and direct action. I choose to do both. "Elections have consequences" as the saying goes. I am by nature a "consequentialist". And while I wait for the revolution to take hold, I'm supporting the Democratic Party, out of concern over consequences.

I support strong and well intentioned efforts to influence the direction of the Democratic Party through reasoned and passionate argument. But I push back over unproductive cynicism that would weaken the party and strengthen the opposition.

Hillary Clinton may very well wind up carrying the banner for the Democratic Party. If she does, I want her to win.

[rhett o rick]

101. The problem is that so many Democrats are in denial that we are facing a major

split in the Party. The big banks are threatening to stop funding Democrats if they don't toe the line. We know they mean only some Democrats. At some point Democrats will have to admit they are choosing the Progressive Wing or the Conservative (HRC) Wing.
It is no longer "good enough" to just elect a Democrat, we must elect Democrats that will change our foreign policy and not bow down to the MIC and NSA/CIA.

[cascadiance]

96. And with the email scandal, I would argue that perhaps makes Clinton more vulnerable to defeat...

... than another Democrat like Warren that alternatively provides a cleaner history and also provides a message that most Americans can get behind, despite the corporatist corruptors trying to label her through the corporate media as being "far left" to try and marginalize her.

I would argue that all of these so-called polls that show Clinton handily beating Republicans mainly based on name recognition, not only ignores other Democrats who could potentially do the same thing without as much name recognition now (much like she polled ahead of Obama heavily even just a year before 2008 election), but also that many Republicans with more name recognition later would get potentially more support later as that factor dissipates closer to the election.

I would argue that I want a president that is more likely to name someone like Erwin Chemerinsky or Marjorie Cohn as a supreme court justice than either Republicans or Clinton would. Someone that really could balance out the heavy corporatist and right wing majority that is on the court there now. I don't think Clinton will give us a nominee that would truly balance out the corporatist siding majority that is there now. I think that's sone big reason why Ruth Bader Ginsberg is holding off on her retirement now. As she sees Obama also as being a problem in naming a decent more progressive justice that doesn't look to be a servant for corporate America. I believe she's hoping someone like Warren gets elected and we get a decent Senate majority in congress that will help nominate a decent replacement for her.

[marym625]

73. What's amazing is that trying to keep the banks

And corporations from owning the country and everyone in it, is considered "far left." It isn't and everyone knows it isn't. It's as middle as middle can get.

In this right leaning world we find ourselves in currently, anything right is considered left

[Enthusiast]

16. We must have a President Warren!

[hifiguy]

17. Just one I can think of.

This country needs Elizabeth Warren like it hasn't needed a particular person as president maybe since FDR.

[Demeter]

18. Elizabeth Warren would need at least a million well-heeled friends to run a campaign

she's a hard worker, and a rising star, but the Party doesn't have that kind of pull, anymore.

The Unions have been neutered if not destroyed.
The Machines are rusted or destroyed.
The media will stifle her message and pull a Howard Dean on her.

Still, she's got the best chance of a grass-roots campaign since Dean. Maybe even better than his.

[RiverLover]

22. You mean like MoveOn.org, DFA, & WFA?

We're ready across the country for her to announce. Foot soldiers, just waiting for the word.

[Demeter]

23. Better add in Occupy, too

And Emily's List. And NOW.

Every last scrap of American grassroots democracy.

And still, it will be a hard battle against the Koch addicts.

[RiverLover]

30. With Pleasure!

Occupy!!!!

But this time it will be organized, with a clear cut goal. Thinking positively, I can't WAIT.

[leftofcool]

24. Has she raised at least 30 million yet?

I understand that in order to beat the money of the Koch Bros it is going to take many millions to run for president. Not to mention Sheldon Asshole and other big money folks who want to see a repuke win.

[MannyGoldstein]

55. Which Senate candidate raised the most in 2012?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

[raven mad]

65. I'd fight for her as hard as I fought for Barack Obama -

and that was damn hard in this reddest of red states. Ready to rock and roll!

[geek tragedy]

19. "has any Democrat in memory gone so far, so fast?"

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Who begged Obama to run?

Did he have his own wing of the Party?

Leadership position in the Party?

Wall Street calling for his head? (LOL)

[BrotherIvan]

26. lol

or

You have activated the bat signal

[Jackpine Radical]

51. The bats will be here shortly.

[marym625]

74. Oy vey!

And then they came as if from nowhere.

Why does everything have to be a fight

[geek tragedy]

28. 1) Ted Kennedy encouraged him to run

2) Obviously so

3) Does "President of the United States" count?

4) In 2012 he did, when they had a chance to see how he governed and what policies he pursued, including when he made Elizabeth Warren a member of his administration

He also had something in March 2007 Elizabeth Warren does not have: a credible campaign organization and a strategy for defeating Hillary Clinton.

Check out the hire dates on his field organization in Iowa. Serious candidates are already putting together an organization at this point in the process, if they haven't declared already.


http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/obama/obamaorgia.html

[MannyGoldstein]

31. Let's take these one at a time, shall we?

So nobody begged Obama to run, but Ted Kennedy encouraged him. Where was Kennedy's statement published?

Thanks in advance.

[geek tragedy]

39. Part A of response:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/03/AR2009080303184.html

When Obama came to the Senate, Kennedy recruited him to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. He admired the senator's commitment to finding a compromise on immigration. He saw genuine leadership qualities in Obama, so when Obama talked to him privately about running for president, Kennedy was encouraging.

Kennedy believed the longer Obama stayed in the Senate, the less chance he would ever have to become president. According to a source familiar with their conversation, he told Obama, "The votes you're going to have to cast, whether it's guns or whether it's abortion or whether it's any one of the hot-button items, finishes you as a national political leader in this country. You just can't do it. It's not possible."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/0828/kennedy-and-obama-s-bond-recent-but-strong

But the Kennedy-Obama bond was a relatively recent phenomenon. Though Kennedy had encouraged Obama to run for president, the two were not close friends in the Senate. Obama, after all, had arrived there only in 2005. Kennedy held back in issuing an endorsement during the heated primary battle between Obama and another Senate colleague, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/nationalinterest/47377/

The biggest Kennedy celebrities, however, were undecided. Caroline, as usual, wasn’t in Hyannis Port; all fall, though, her daughters kept encouraging JFK’s only surviving child to check out an Obama rally. And Ted, the legend and patriarch, was conflicted. He liked Hillary and thought Bill, as president, had been good for the country and the family. A family friend who spoke to Ted during the Thanksgiving trip says the senator was leaning toward Hillary. But two of Kennedy’s closest Senate pals, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, were still in the presidential field. And Ted had been one of the first to encourage Obama to run; he thought the moment demanded a candidate who could inspire the nation. As the family scattered at the close of the weekend, all the competing interests left the senator determined to stay neutral through the primaries.

[zappaman]

47. Oops.

[Doctor_J]

88. So it was Obama's idea, and Kennedy didn't tell him "no"

when Obama talked to him privately about running for president, Kennedy was encouraging.

Where is the begging?

[geek tragedy]

41. Part B of response:

Transcript:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/28/edward_kennedys_endorsement_of_barack_obama/?page=full

Remarks of Senator Edward M. Kennedy







On Endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for President


January 28, 2008


As Prepared for Delivery

Thank you, Caroline. Thank you for that wonderful introduction and for your courage and bold vision, for your insight and understanding, and for the power and reach of your words. Like you, we too "want a president who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again." Thank you, Caroline. Your mother and father would be so proud today.

Thank you, Patrick, for your leadership in Congress and for being here to celebrate and support a leader who truly has the power to inspire and make America good again, "from sea to shining sea."

Thank you, American University.

I feel change in the air.

Every time I’ve been asked over the past year who I would support in the Democratic Primary, my answer has always been the same: I’ll support the candidate who inspires me, who inspires all of us, who can lift our vision and summon our hopes and renew our belief that our country’s best days are still to come.

I’ve found that candidate. And it looks to me like you have too.

But first, let me say how much I respect the strength, the work and dedication of two other Democrats still in the race, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. They are my friends; they have been my colleagues in the Senate. John Edwards has been a powerful advocate for economic and social justice. And Hillary Clinton has been in the forefront on issues ranging from health care to the rights of women around the world. Whoever is our nominee will have my enthusiastic support.

Let there be no doubt: We are all committed to seeing a Democratic President in 2008.

But I believe there is one candidate who has extraordinary gifts of leadership and character, matched to the extraordinary demands of this moment in history.

He understands what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. called the "fierce urgency of now."

He will be a president who refuses to be trapped in the patterns of the past. He is a leader who sees the world clearly without being cynical. He is a fighter who cares passionately about the causes he believes in, without demonizing those who hold a different view.

He is tough-minded, but he also has an uncommon capacity to appeal to "the better angels of our nature."

I am proud to stand here today and offer my help, my voice, my energy and my commitment to make Barack Obama the next President of the United States.


Like most of the nation, I was moved four years ago as he told us a profound truth—that we are not, we must not be, just red states and blue states, but one United States. And since that time I have marveled at his grit and his grace as he traveled this country and inspired record turnouts of people of all ages, of all races, of all genders, of all parties and faiths to get "fired up" and "ready to go."

I’ve seen him connect with people from every walk of life and with Senators on both sides of the aisle. With every person he meets, every crowd he inspires, and everyone he touches, he generates new hope that our greatest days as a nation are still ahead, and this generation of Americans, like others before us, can unite to meet our own rendezvous with destiny.

We know the true record of Barack Obama. There is the courage he showed when so many others were silent or simply went along. From the beginning, he opposed the war in Iraq.

And let no one deny that truth.

There is the great intelligence of someone who could have had a glittering career in corporate law, but chose instead to serve his community and then enter public life.

There is the tireless skill of a Senator who was there in the early mornings to help us hammer out a needed compromise on immigration reform— who always saw a way to protect both national security and the dignity of people who do not have a vote. For them, he was a voice for justice.

And there is the clear effectiveness of Barack Obama in fashioning legislation to put high quality teachers in our classrooms—and in pushing and prodding the Senate to pass the most far-reaching ethics reform in its history.

Now, with Barack Obama, there is a new national leader who has given America a different kind of campaign—a campaign not just about himself, but about all of us. A campaign about the country we will become, if we can rise above the old politics that parses us into separate groups and puts us at odds with one another.

I remember another such time, in the 1960s, when I came to the Senate at the age of 30. We had a new president who inspired the nation, especially the young, to seek a new frontier. Those inspired young people marched, sat in at lunch counters, protested the war in Vietnam and served honorably in that war even when they opposed it.

They realized that when they asked what they could do for their country, they could change the world.

It was the young who led the first Earth Day and issued a clarion call to protect the environment; the young who enlisted in the cause of civil rights and equality for women; the young who joined the Peace Corps and showed the world the hopeful face of America.


At the fifth anniversary celebration of the Peace Corps, I asked one of those young Americans why they had volunteered.

And I will never forget the answer: "It was the first time someone asked me to do something for my country."

This is another such time.

I sense the same kind of yearning today, the same kind of hunger to move on and move America forward. I see it not just in young people, but in all our people.

And in Barack Obama, I see not just the audacity, but the possibility of hope for the America that is yet to be.

What counts in our leadership is not the length of years in Washington, but the reach of our vision, the strength of our beliefs, and that rare quality of mind and spirit that can call forth the best in our country and our people.

With Barack Obama, we will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion.

With Barack Obama, we will close the book on the old politics of race against race, gender against gender, ethnic group against ethnic group, and straight against gay.

With Barack Obama, we will close the door on the old economics that has written off the poor and left the middle class poorer and less secure.

He offers a strategy for prosperity—so that America will once again lead the world in better standards of life.

With Barack Obama, we will break the old gridlock and finally make health care what it should be in America—a fundamental right for all, not just an expensive privilege for the few.

We will make the United States the great leader and not the great roadblock in the fateful fight against global warming.

And with Barack Obama, we will end a war in Iraq that he has always stood against, that has cost us the lives of thousands of our sons and daughters, and that America never should have fought.

I have seen him in the Senate. He will keep us strong and defend the nation against real threats of terrorism and proliferation.

So let us reject the counsels of doubt and calculation.

Let us remember that when Franklin Roosevelt envisioned Social Security, he didn’t decide—no, it was too ambitious, too big a dream, too hard.

When John Kennedy thought of going to the moon, he didn’t say no, it was too far, maybe we couldn’t get there and shouldn’t even try.

I am convinced we can reach our goals only if we are "not petty when our cause is so great"– only if we find a way past the stale ideas and stalemate of our times – only if we replace the politics of fear with the politics of hope – and only if we have the courage to choose change.

Barack Obama is the one person running for President who can bring us that change.

Barack Obama is the one person running for President who can be that change.

I love this country. I believe in the bright light of hope and possibility. I always have, even in the darkest hours. I know what America can achieve. I’ve seen it. I’ve lived it—and with Barack Obama, we can do it again.

I know that he’s ready to be President on day one. And when he raises his hand on Inauguration Day, at that very moment, we will lift the spirits of our nation and begin to restore America’s standing in the world.

There was another time, when another young candidate was running for President and challenging America to cross a New Frontier. He faced public criticism from the preceding Democratic President, who was widely respected in the party. Harry Truman said we needed "someone with greater experience"—and added: "May I urge you to be patient." And John Kennedy replied: "The world is changing. The old ways will not do…It is time for a new generation of leadership."

So it is with Barack Obama. He has lit a spark of hope amid the fierce urgency of now.

I believe that a wave of change is moving across America. If we do not turn aside, if we dare to set our course for the shores of hope, we together will go beyond the divisions of the past and find our place to build the America of the future.

My friends, I ask you to join in this historic journey — to have the courage to choose change.

It is time again for a new generation of leadership.

It is time now for Barack Obama.

[zappaman]

48. Double oops.

[MannyGoldstein]

54. So it seems like we agree. Nobody of any stature publicly begged Obama to run for President,

and perhaps one politician privately encouraged Obama to run for President.

As compared to hundreds of thousands of Americans signing petitions asking Warren to run, along with many public figures and at least one major newspaper pleading for her to run.

Can we agree to this and move on to your next point?

[geek tragedy]

56. Um, no, because Obama had quite a following

before he ran. Perhaps you missed that.

And Kennedy was far from the only one encouraging him.

Not sure what the relevance of people begging is.

[MannyGoldstein]

58. Ok, show us.

Let's break it into bite-sized pieces. First, which major political figures publicly called on Obama to run for President?

[geek tragedy]

85. People who make public calls for someone to run are usually doing it

To promote themselves rather than persuade the person to run. Not sure why you think Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid encouraging him to run in private means less because it was part of a private, serious discussion.

But:
http://www.salon.com/2006/11/28/obama_153/

Barack Obama seems to be moving ever closer to a White House run, and he’s getting a push now from fellow Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin. As the Chicago Sun-Times’ Lynn Sweet reports, Durbin has just sent an e-mail message to his friends and supporters asking them to join him in urging Obama to run in 2008.

“With a unifying leader like Barack Obama in the White House, I know that we can overcome the deep divisions that cause such unnecessary friction to arise between red and blue, both in Washington and in our nation as a whole,” Durbin writes. “That is why I hope you will join me in urging Barack to run for president.”

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16364560

But over the next 18 months, Obama began taking the buzz seriously, Axelrod says. Democratic Party officials were inviting Obama to speak at campaign stops for their candidates nationwide, and he was drawing large and enthusiastic crowds. Nearly every media appearance seemed to invite questions about his presidential ambitions.

Also, in October 2006:

The Illinois Democrat said he could no longer stand by the statements he made after his 2004 election and earlier this year that he would serve a full six-year term in Congress. He said he would not make a decision until after the Nov. 7 elections.

“That was how I was thinking at that time,” said Obama, when asked on NBC’s “Meet the Press” about his previous statements.

“Given the responses that I’ve been getting over the last several months, I have thought about the possibility” although not with the seriousness or depth required, he said. “My main focus right now is in the ’06. ... After November 7, I’ll sit down, I’ll sit down and consider, and if at some point I change my mind, I will make a public announcement and everybody will be able to go at me.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15026621/ns/politics/t/obama-calls-presidential-bid-possibility/#.VRawvSe9KSM

No need to parse present vs future tense there.

[leftofcool]

57. Good God I hope she listens to all these people and joins the primary!

I want to see how she holds up to attacks, being vetted and hear her on issues besides the big bad banks.

[MannyGoldstein]

59. Well, given that her 2012 race was the most-expensive and most-watched Senate race in the country,

yet she started something like 20 points behind the then-most popular politician in Mass and ended up 7 points ahead of him... I'm thinking she'll do fine.

[treestar]

80. This

He is a leader who sees the world clearly without being cynical. He is a fighter who cares passionately about the causes he believes in, without demonizing those who hold a different view.

so true.

[sheshe2]

87. Well~

[treestar]

79. What about his having an organization and plan by March 2007?

Elizabeth Warren is not even considering running.

Being begged by some minority is not relevant. What's relevant is actually doing it.

[sheshe2]

35. The American people did when they voted for him in the primary. He Won!

[NCTraveler]

84. This gives Manny a sad. nt.

[treestar]

42. You're seriously going to pit them against each other?

They are both Democrats.

You pit him against FDR, LBJ, EW. Anything to divide Democrats.

[JI7]

44. that's the point of it, none of it is actually about supporting WArren for PResident

[treestar]

78. +1 Exactly

Warren has expressed no interest in being POTUS. She is being used to divide. I wonder if she knew if she would not like that.

[Number23]

34. Thread Killer. Thread is dead

As for the "Who asked Obama to run?" angle...

[sheshe2]

36. Perfect!

Thanks geek tragedy.

[WillTwain]

98. Has any Democrat ever come to a screaching halt so fast?

[PADemD]

25. My greatest fear

is that she will be sidelined by President Hillary Clinton and Senate Minority Leader Shumer.

[RiverLover]

40. Shudder.

Me too PADemD. Well, not my greatest, but its right up there.

[SidDithers]

27. Clap for Tinkerbell!!...nt

Sid

[still_one]

29. The question Manny is why doesn't she want to run for President? Perhaps it is because she thinks

at this time she can accomplish more in the Senate.

[sheshe2]

37. Another thread winner, still_one.

[MannyGoldstein]

60. Is it her opposition to the TPP that makes you think Warren's not good enough

to be President?

[sheshe2]

62. Lol~

Why is it that you always tell us what we mean?

Eyes crossed.

She is not running. She said so, multiple times.

Quite please, there is a lady on stage. A woman, a strong fine woman that does indeed speak her mind, Manny. She knows what she wants to do. Stop speaking for her, take a moment and listen. Listen. Listen to her.

[still_one]

63. Sorry to interject, but who said Senator Warren wasn't good enough to be President? My point was by

all appearances, given by Senator Warren, is that she does not want to run for president in 2016, which implies she prefers to do her work in the Senate at this time

[sheshe2]

67. Boom!

Thanks.

[zeemike]

43. I don't know why she would think that.

The senate is controlled by the GOP...she can accomplish nothing without their support.
But if she ran she could change the senate and house like Obama did when he ran because of the massive turnout by voters who thought they would finally get some change.

Hillary does not represent change and is not even talking about it...Warren is...and up against Bush, which I think will be the GOP candidate, she would have the same effect as Obama did...not mention that people are really really ready for a woman president. But not just a woman but one who does not represent dynastic rule.

[treestar]

82. Yeah she must realize that Presidency is not all powerful

and knows they will scream with disappointment when the Congress they ignored is still Republican.

[OnyxCollie]

45. Sen. Obama was one who had gone so far, so fast.

But then he had Joe Lieberman to mentor him.

[BrotherIvan]

71. And Penny Pritzker

[marym625]

49. The ONLY thing I wish she had done differently

Was support the bill to extend the deadline to ratify the ERA a year sooner than she did.

That's it.

I am 100% for an Elizabeth Warren run!

K&R

[ErikJ]

52. She cant be bought off by the corps

[liberal_at_heart]

66. She is a badass and Wall Street is scared of her.

[Zorra]

68. She can count on me for seriously totally dedicated support if she runs. nt

[merrily]

76. Trumka has been as openly unhappy with Democrats as any recent head of the

AFL-CIO. Unions, like individual voters, are trapped in the LOTE of the two-party system, though, so there is only so far he can go publicly.

[NCTraveler]

81. lightly different, but yes.

"has any Democrat in memory gone so far, so fast?"

Obama.

[brooklynite]

86. "Keep on keeping on, Senator Warren!"....really, Manny?

You want her to keep on in the Senate? I never would have guessed.

[MannyGoldstein]

90. I think the context for that statement was pretty clear.

But it is difficult to critique one's own writing, particularly for issues involving context.

[brooklynite]

91. But my interpretation is the only one that makes sense...

...since Warren isn't doing anything with respect to a Presidential campaign that she could "keep on with"...

[MannyGoldstein]

93. Then I have failed as a writer.

Or you have failed as a reader.

[brooklynite]

95. Perhaps so...but the fact that Warren won't be running for President makes the issue moot

[PatrickforO]

92. I'm with you. As an Elizabeth Warren/Bernie Sanders Democrat,

I think that the populists would be better off getting the message out and POPULATING the House and Senate until they are far stronger. That's one thing about Warren - she's been TIRELESS in getting out the populist message, which is phenomenal. That is, we all know, one of Obama's failings - he just hasn't effective getting the message out because his personal preference is 'no drama' and to quietly put good policies in place. He's done some great things, it is true, but trumpeting out the populist message is vital at this point.

I say this about Warren, and really don't want her to run for President, because I think she can take Ted Kennedy's place as the Lion of the Senate, and Ted arguably did far more good in the Senate than he would have done as President. She, Bernie Sanders and a few others are sowing the seeds of populism, and we need to help them. I was dismayed, for instance, at the 2014 election results when these tea Republicans swept.

But I was LESS dismayed when at the same time all the initiatives raising minimum wage, legalizing marijuana, introducing medical marijuana PASSED and the initiatives for 'sanctity of life' all FAILED. This in the very same election that Republicans swept.

The lesson this gives us is:
1. The people will vote for POPULISTS because they voted in POPULUST initiatives, whether Republican or Democrat - and we have to face the sad fact that most of the voters last year were Republican or Republican leaning independents
2. We can do some cool things via direct democracy by putting populist initiatives on the ballot in our respective states, because they will probably pass

One of the things though, that really bothers me is this new trade deal. We don't see 'team Pelosi' emailing out petitions against it, do we? That is because Pelosi and many of the other Democrat leaders are NOT populists, they are CORPORATISTS, towing the neoliberal line. I'm profoundly disappointed in Obama for letting it get this far because it will take up where NAFTA left off dismantling the American middle class. It is a VERY BAD idea.

Could Obama be hastening this horrible trade deal because he knows that when it is ratified, as it may well be, the American people may suffer a precipitous drop in quality of life, and as Thom Hartmann says in his brilliant book The Crash of 2016, such drops cause massive social unrest? Could it be that Obama has come to the conclusion that by hastening the takeover by the neoliberal corporate royalists (1%) we will actually develop powerful counter movements as in the 60s? Movements that actually FORCE positive social change, and promote social and economic justice? Just wondering what all of your thoughts are on this.

[cascadiance]

97. I'm with you on this long term strategy, but I don't think we have a lot of time to wait...

I think we need to make 2016 our year to have populism take charge in this country and work hard towards that goal, and we need strong leadership that only a few like Elizabeth Warren can provide us at the presidential level.

We need this to happen soon because:
1) We need new leadership to reverse the wide range of problems that the current corporate corruption has created that has put the world on the edge of extinction from Climate Change. I think we need some decisive action around that time that won't come with more "centrist"/corporate entities in control, no matter how much we might have a bigger progressive base in the House and the Senate.
2) The middle class is on the verge of being destroyed, and needs some decisive legislation to reverse this trend before people lose all of their savings. It may seem like the economy is better with more people getting jobs. But until they get back the raises they should have had over the last two decades, and money to make up for those lost wages during that time, the wealth gap will continue to be a problem, and we still won't have a healthy economy. I myself am having to right now sell off almost all of my remaining assets like 401k accounts to continue to function without having financial disaster hanging over my head, and making investments that have been put off that I need to make a living, etc. now.

I would say that if Warren leaves the Senate to become president, we don't LOSE that power in the Senate, but provide an opportunity for another progressive politician to start their Senate career there from Massachusetts, that will grow progressive power that much more in addition to giving us the presidential power that will be necessary to do the things we need to do in 2016.

Will it be easy to accomplish all of this? Of course not. But I do believe it is necessary, and I think more Americans will come to that realization if we work hard enough to help that realization happen before 2016. Heavy grass roots work will provide Warren the infrastructure so that she sees it as a parade to get in front of to lead, instead of trying to lead something that doesn't have enough power to fight the huge corporate power we have in America today that she's rightfully concerned about before she prematurely announces that she's going to run, if she does have a potential for wanting to get in the race. I'm pretty sure that as a very smart person, she realizes this, and this is precisely why whether or not she really wants to run, she'll wait longer before she announces she's running if she really has aspirations to want to run at some point.

[Thespian2]

94. K & R

[Fearless]

99. If you vote on issues then she is your candidate.

I wonder how many of us don't vote on the issues. Actually I don't wonder. It's sad really.