Elizabeth Warren: ‘I am not running for president'

[OKNancy]

Source: Washington Post

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) pledged Wednesday to serve out her term and sought to pour cold water on the idea that she might run for president in 2016, according to the Boston Herald.

"I'm not running for president and I plan to serve out my term," Warren said at a news conference for Boston mayor-elect Marty Walsh, the Herald reported. Pressed further, Warren said she would "pledge to serve out my term."

Warren added: "I am not running for president. I am working as hard as I can to be the best (possible) senator I can be." Warren's words, however, are unlikely to put an end to the speculation. It's worth noting that President Obama also pledged to serve his entire term before changing his mind and running in 2008.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/12/04/elizabeth-warren-i-am-not-running-for-president/

[pscot]

1. Shermanesque

[PoliticAverse]

9. No, that was Obamaesque. n/t

[Brigid]

203. And don't forget . . .

Sherman meant it.

[PoliticAverse]

2. Sorry, not quite Shermanesque enough to end hope...

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

[pnwmom]

3. We need her in the Senate. This is the right place for her now

and she knows it.

[olddad56]

7. and we need more like her in the Senate (and House). A lot more.

[JDPriestly]

67. We need her in the White House. That's where we need her.

She should be setting the agenda, not just asking questions. She is the smartest person in the Senate, and she should be in the White House.

[Art_from_Ark]

108. I agree

As a Senator, she is just one voice among one hundred. In the White House, she would be at the top of the executive branch.

[Fearless]

144. +1

[ChisolmTrailDem]

204. She needs to be in the White House. That is the place she needs to be. n/t

[Ken Burch]

207. If HRC is the nom, she won't stand for anything that Elizabeth Warren stands for.

That's what being a "pro-business Democrat" means...taking the side of the rich against the people.

We have nothing to gain in lowering ourselves to the Nineties again.

[JaneyVee]

4. Sherminator.

[pscot]

15. +1

[MADem]

5. This is only the eleventh or twelfth time she's made a divisive declaration on this topic.

Obama didn't say "Hell, no" as many times as EW has done.

If EW publicly endorses HRC, I swear, heads are gonna explode in some corners...!

[PoliticAverse]

11. "divisive declaration" indeed. n/t

[MADem]

20. Hee hee!

See post 16--it does fit!

[Old and In the Way]

12. Divisive or decisive?

But kind of fit MADem.

[MADem]

16. Ha ha ha!!!!

Funny how spellcheck won't pick up some stuff!!!

It does kinda fit, doesn't it? I'm a gonna leave it!

[djean111]

17. No, heads will not explode. That is, I think, wishful thinking.

Many people will be disappointed, that's all.
This "exploding head" meme is getting silly.

[MADem]

21. When I have pointed out the fact that she's made "decisive" (heh heh) comments previously, I've

gotten hot-breathed pushback that approached "head exploding" proportions. Shooting the messenger is a popular pastime, here, unfortunately.

I think there will be plopping sounds left and right, as shit hits the fan. People will be bullshit, they'll accuse mysterious "PTBs" of "silencing" EW, of "forcing" her to not run--and even while they applaud her independent streak, they will simultaneously insist that she's either being cowed or doesn't know her own mind.

It happens all the time here--it makes for some crazy reading.

[Old and In the Way]

26. Anyone who's been onboard for the past 10 years is well aware of this cycle.

The Democratic candidate, chosen by Democrats, is never Democratic enough. I guess, because all Democrats are Republicans...or something.

[MADem]

27. Yes--it's a bit tiresome.

I think we can win in 2016, and I'm not going to allow negativity or low-level trolling to sway my resolve!

[blue14u]

47. MADem, if Hillary

does not run, who do you feel we should/could support? I too have resolve,

so we are at odds on this .. Who are these negative and low-level trolls you speak of?

I'm dismayed at the inability for some to even consider a different candidate.

Maybe I should not be, but I am open minded and like to keep my options open, and HRC is a negative

imo, in many, many ways. I have no links, but I am sure you are aware of the

wave of backlash out there where HRC is concerned.

[arely staircase]

59. wave of backlash from whom?

HRC is popular with Americsns in general and hugely popular with Democrats

[blue14u]

70. Millennials for one. I

spend a lot of time with them. My daughter is a theater major @ USM. She and her friends, classmates like the ideal of a woman for POTUS. As I posted yesterday, they want someone with a clean slate, (or less baggage and corporate ties), than what will come with Hillary. They are good kids and they vote. They are very astute, have great critical thinking skills, and are looking toward a future that does not sell them out as they feel they have been with the current/past politicians. The majority of them are Democrats. They are gay, straight, lesbian, all of them have many friends who are minorities, and they are just wanting someone who will have their back when they graduate in the spring, or the next year. I may have used the word backlash in the wrong way, but I'm just trying to let others who have this absolute ideal that HRC is the only way, may not be the reality of the world we live in now. I could be wrong, I'm just relaying what see, read, hear, on a daily basis.

I also see more B. Sanders and EW support right here on DU. That tells me the Democrats are hungry for someone like EW or BS. I have been reading on DU since August of 2012. Campaigning heavily for BO on my FB, and word of mouth during the campaign, and at the polls. I have worked campaigns many times over as my Mother is a politician and I worked going door to door, (being bit by a dog), and taken people to vote. I work phone banks, make calls the night before, work the polls, and on and on. I only signed up on DU a few months ago, so please don't base my knowledge, or perceived lack of it on my post count. That is not a real or fair account of my time on DU.

I believe if we Democrats had a candidate a little more left of center,( for real, not just spin), we could pull a win easily. People who have stopped voting b/c of past disappointments would actually be excited and go vote again. I feel/see a wave of change. I like to win, and I want to vote for someone, and ask my friends and family, and their friends to vote for a sincere, passionate, energized candidate. Anything can happen, I will stay mostly focused on 2014 and when we have CHOICES for POTUS I will do everything I can to make sure they win.

[arely staircase]

72. so no evidence of a "wave of backlash" should the democrats nominate one of the most popular women

in America then? Other than your anecdotal observations of like minded aquaintences and a handful of DU posters. If you want to vote for someone other than HRC that is fine but hyperbolic claims of " a wave of backlash" against her when all evidence is to the contrary isn't credible.

[blue14u]

87. Blacklash-sharp reaction,,

As I said in my post maybe you missed that part, backlash may not have been the correct word, but a sharp reaction of the word NO when asked about HRC as POTUS
is a pretty solid reaction. Their minds are made up at this point.

If you wish to minimize my family, friends, and their family and friends and people I speak to on a regular basis as no evidence, and call them mere acquaintances then your credibility is in question from where I sit...A "mere acquaintance" is someone you meet casually . I know my family, friends and FB people, and others I mentioned. WE VOTE TOO!

Its just fun to use that word" hyperbolic" isn't it?

I don't trust the "evidence" you claim is out there about HRC. The only place I see support for her is on DU, and that's only a handful of people, and a few polls. I know no one in person or other that is jumping up and down to vote for the Wall Street third way candidate.... So I'm not even close to being convinced she will be the chosen one for POTUS..
I love open-minded people and people with principal, and critical thinking skills. We work hard to elect the best Democratic candidate that will work for the people and not sell us out. EW would not sell us out imo.. HRC would, she has to answer to her base. Wall Street.

[arely staircase]

94. ok so you trust a sampling of a few data points over surveys with with many many more

ok.

[blue14u]

99. I live in a reality

based world where actual people who vote and care about the

outcome speak to me. My own Politician Mother and many friends in politics

are who I listen to.

I don't let WS tell me who to vote for b/c their polled third way candidate told me what I wanted to hear, and what THEY wanted me to think and who they want me to vote for.

I will think for myself and make up my own mind when I see my choices.
Funny how all the polling involves ONLY HRC as a choice. Funny and odd.

The cards are stacked and polls are rigged to suite them.

We all know that I thought.

[VanillaRhapsody]

101. Please stop with the all bolded text...too hard to read!

[blue14u]

107. Hi VanillaRhapsody. I apologize

for using the bold text. I don't see well, ( I am disabled b/c of my bad eyesight), so if I use the bold text

I can read my writing better and correct my mistakes before I post.

I hope no harm was done. I also have my font size set to 130. I could go larger

and see if that helps me instead of using the bold text.

Thank you for letting me know it makes it more difficult for you to read my posts. I will try making my font larger and hopefully correct that in the future.

Really sorry for that.

peace

[MADem]

76. There isn't a "wave of backlash." Likely voters are overwhelmingly supporting HRC.

I don't think you're going to see much competition should she choose to run (and barring ill health I think she will do that). Anyone who might enter this primary or that is running for VP.

I realize you don't like her, but you're not in the majority, and I suspect that many of the people complaining about her didn't vote in 2012 and are unlikely to vote in 14 or 16, either.

[OKNancy]

83. ..and Millennials vote but not in near the number that older women vote

and the plus 50 crowd overwhelmingly support Hillary ( even some old-line Republican women)

ETA: I went to see if I could find some backup for my statement above and not just what I've heard in my own circle... and what do you know:
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-2016-poll-women-independents-election-2012-12

( I'm starting a new thread)

[MADem]

91. I suspect a lot of millenials complain, and say they vote "after the fact" but many don't bother.

They may even say they support a candidate, but they don't bother to register to vote. Then, election day comes, they aren't registered, the lines or long, or .... whatever.

The "millenial ennui" affects both parties equally. Their lack of enthusiasm isn't just taking votes away from Dems...it's taking votes away from the GOP, too. So, for every wide eyed liberal who isn't on the college campus, touting hope and change or the Peace Corps or Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow, there's also one less College Republican rubbing his hands together and plotting how to steal an election, a la Karl Rove.

If they want to sit it out, fine. They can't win if they don't play. Eventually, they'll make the connection. It's "We, The People" not "Those other guys over there...."

[blue14u]

95. OKancy, did you start a new thread?

I tried to find it and could not.

[OKNancy]

96. yes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251342304

I just got online again.. so you got a quick answer!

[blue14u]

89. The reason they are complaining

and not voting for her is b/c she is a third way corporate wall street

candidate. I have no interest in voting for someone chosen by WS.

Is it possible she is being pushed by WS and the M$M because that is who

THEY want? So no one else can be looked at or considered. If we are given a choice of a progressive and a poll is done and the

M$M starts having them on the tvee then you will see very different poll numbers and different support. Since she is the only one they are allowing to get air time, and do those sketchy polls on, of course that is what you will appear. Its fixed.

BTW, I did vote, I always vote and so did all my family and friends in 2012, and will in 2014 and 2016.

Please don't diminish our votes. They count too, even if they are different from yours. I don't think we are a minority either.

I like HRC as a person, she is ok, just not for a pick for POTUS.. She put many years of service in to this country. I acknowledge that. Its time for her to step away, and let someone with fresh progressive ideals, and a clean slate help this country move forward. Not stay stuck where we are. Center left is a better choice for the country. NOT center right... The PCCC who helped Warren win her election and is working hard to get us a center left candidate appeals to me. I just signed up with them, and now working to help rid ourselves of third way and get progressives elected.
Thanks MADem.

[MADem]

90. She isn't running. You're just going to have to "get over it."

Barring ill health, HRC is the candidate. Only someone who is completely unschooled as to how politics works thinks otherwise.

Again----Warren isn't running. She's a smart woman and she knows how to say no. She hasn't raised any money, she hasn't made any Fifty State connections, and she barely won her election here in MA (as anyone who was actually here in MA remembers---it was touch and go for awhile).
http://betterment.democraticunderground.com/1057495

She was struggling for votes even when Scott Brown was doing stupid shit like THIS:

http://betterment.democraticunderground.com/1057396

She had to push back accusations that she used native heritage (though she isn't on any tribal rolls and there's no genealogical path to native ancestry) and benefitted from "affirmative action" (she didn't) in her hiring at Harvard. The issue was muddied because Harvard used HER to plump up their "faculty of color" bona fides.

It wasn't a cakewalk. It was a nasty, bruising slog and it was exhausting. I don't know why people from outside MA have this idea that she cruised to a coronation--she barely pulled it off. With a SHITLOAD of money, too. They kept coming at her, they would not stop. I don't blame her for not wanting to deal with that sick shit.

She is a wonderful US Senator--and that's where she needs to stay. At least until President Hillary Clinton appoints her as Fed Chair.

[blue14u]

92. Ok, so my 30 plus years

working on campaigns for not only my Politician Mother, but many candidates

does not qualify me as schooled in how politics work, and campaigns work?...
An idiot I am, in your opinion...

Huh, imagine that...

Thank you for letting me know I have no business commenting on politics and who
would be best for this country as POTUS..

I understand she may have struggled during her first campaign.

She now recognized nationally, and a great fundraiser too..

[MADem]

98. Not if you think EW is a viable candidate when she's said, a dozen times, NO.

===Not if you think she's a viable candidate when she hasn't visited a single state, not even nearby NH (and she actually does constituent services most weekends--she's at meet-and-greets, town halls, meetings with the mayor-elect, the governor, etc.)

===Not if you think she's a viable candidate when she hasn't raised a penny (and being such an expert, you SURELY know it's never too soon for your 'friends' to get to work....see https://www.readyforhillary.com/ for starters).

===Not if you think she's a viable candidate when she has ducked out of hallway interviews, press conference and Sunday talkers--which is how "non-candidate candidates" get their name and face out there.

===Not if you think she's a viable candidate when she SKIPPED the most important Democratic fund-raising meet-n-greet of the year, the Harkin Steak Fry.

===Not if you think that she can win the Presidency on love and pale moonlight, without a ground game down to the precinct level in all fifty states (have you learned nothing from Dr. Dean?).

So, where are we at? No money, no precinct level contacts, no national strategy, no raising interest through public appearances outside the state...oh, and NO DESIRE TO RUN.

I didn't call you any names, you know. Putting words in my mouth, falsely (An idiot I am, in your opinion) isn't cool. That's the way people who don't have an argument argue. You should not do that. It's rude.

You are free to comment about what you feel are the attitudes of millennials until the cows come home, but when your comments have no grounding in the real world--and the facts I've pointed out ARE "real world" (to say nothing of the graphs OK NANCY has provided which show that millennials, despite the behavior of your offspring and friends, do NOT vote in the numbers that middle aged and older people do)--I am going to point out the weaknesses in your assertions.

Your error is taking these notations personally.

Bottom line: "Wishing and hoping" isn't going to cut it. She is NOT running. I'll bet she knew she wasn't running for POTUS BEFORE this robo-call was recorded (do take the time to listen to it--it will take a half a minute--and remember, this robo-called helped EW win her Senate election):

Sometimes, no means no....and it becomes a bit, well, perverse when people refuse to take that no for an answer.

[blue14u]

110. Thanks MADem. I will add all of this,

plus the "not schooled" in politics to my list you have offered

me as to my lack of knowledge where politics are concerned.

Apparently you are stuck in reverse with HRC.

btw, I don't cave to polls, or WS, or M$M or DU, talking points. If we as Americans and voters do not try to change the WS buy/sell out of our politicians and keep the same old candidates and policies in place, why in the world do we bother to have elections or go vote for that matter. Its been decided already.

Rosa Parks didn't try either I guess, or President Obama, or Senator Warren with odds against them. If you are comfortable with the status quo then I know you will be happy if Hillary runs for POTUS.

We will see, and I will continue to support and hope for Senator Warren, or a progressive to run.

[MADem]

115. What are you talking about? Rosa Parks was never a senator and she didn't run for President.

A load of disjointed sentences does not a point make.

You don't have to "cave to polls," but you do have to acknowledge the reality of the numbers when they are presented to you.

And you need to stop taking things so personally. It's not about YOU, ya know. And it's not about me being "stuck in reverse" -- whatever that word salad means (I'd say 63 percent support for HRC at these early stages isn't "stuck in reverse" but that's JMO). It's about Liz Warren, a smart, adult woman, a Senator from Massachusetts who has TOLD YOU--not coyly, once or twice--but 12 times or more, now--that she isn't running and who has PLEDGED to complete her term--which tells me that she won't accept an appointment as Fed Chair until 2018.

Why are you treating her like an idiot-nitwit who does not know her own mind? It's insulting to her. She has PLEDGED to not run. Believe her.

[blue14u]

143. My point was they TRIED to make change ,and did in their own way!

Last edited Sun Dec 8, 2013, 05:27 AM - Edit history (1)

If you think I said Rosa Parks ran for POTUS, or as a Senator, your comprehension skills are very lacking..

Outside or that, your bloviating posts shows a deep resentment

toward people who can think for themselves. Your not getting votes with that attitude.. Unbelievable!!!!

Your wrong, thats final..."Get over it"!!!! The progressives will have a candidate and you can just

sit this one out. We don't need people like you getting in the way of

progress, and making crap up to diminish our progress, or our votes. All that
"word salad" you just posted means nothing, except that you need a lot of attention, and have a need to "show off" some perceived knowledge the rest of us perceivably, (in your mind), don't have... Good job MADem! Your old song and dance about HRC is just that...OLD!!!!.. But hey...Go for it...

Good luck.. We are done now!

[MADem]

147. Your skills at making an analogy seem to be more at issue than my comprehension ones.

And as for "word salad" I think you need to attend to the beam in your own eye.

I don't know why you consider plain truth to be "bloviating." When I offer plain facts, that's not "showing off," you know. Paying attention to what happens in the world is not a negative trait--you might try it sometime; it certainly works better than wild guesswork or pure invention. Did you even bother to look at those videos I provided? Based on your rather nasty response, I suspect the answer is a resounding NO. Go back and have a look. You'll see that the Senator is quite declarative.

You seem to be taking out your anger and frustrations on me; that never ends well, you know. Will you apologize for your harsh language when the candidate isn't Elizabeth Warren, but HRC? I won't hold my breath.

FWIW, Elizabeth Warren is going to be on WCVB, channel 5, Boston tomorrow, on a little local show we call OTR (On the Record). She is going to say, again, that she's NOT RUNNING for the Presidency.

I am not trying to "get votes"--I'm not running for anything. HRC will be, though, assuming she stays healthy and vigorous. Elizabeth Warren? She won't be running--she will continue to represent my Commonwealth with tremendous skill and vigor, and for that, we Bay State residents are very grateful.

But check out this PAC...it's probably time for you to just get ready:

https://www.readyforhillary.com/home

[blue14u]

170. Everything you have posted

and linked, I had already seen long before you. You seen to think I am not paying attention to what's going on, that ONLY you know what's going on, and ONLY you know the facts.. I know one thing going on, it is the third way centrist are trying to cram HRC down out throats and it won't work..
I never mentioned EW in my last post, and a few other posts I shared. Your overreacting, and again, your missing a lot of what I do and do not say. I DID say we need a PROGRESSIVE, I said it along with many many others in this thread and other threads where we are a majority posting. I don't see Hillary threads getting that kind of attention, or even being posted.

That is who the majority of Dem's and Independents want a PROGRESSIVE. Not the same old reheated leftover that lost last time she ran. My only anger comes from people like you who insist they know it all, and think you are right, even when someone puts information in your sight that says otherwise. You could apologize to them for being a bully.

Your posts to everyone in this thread were negative, mean spirited, and out right ugly. Go back and read them. Every time someone stated a opinion about having a choice of a progressive you attacked them. That does tend to anger me. Naturally.. Go ahead sit there with your closed up mind and pretend we all want HRC.

and No, I won't apologize for supporting EW, now or ever, nor will I apologize for wanting a progressive center left candidate like the majority on DU does. Like I said you are stuck in reverse, 2006!! Look up thread, it says the same thing. If HRC runs she will not get a lot of votes from people who post here, or the millennial. She will need all the votes she can get, and I don't see it happening. She has health issues for one ... That will kill her campaign right there. Sorry to hear she is not well, but its true. We want a Democrat or a Progressive with a clean slate.... but none the less, hold your breath!
btw the day after I posted there would be a "backlash" low and behold, Joan Walsh @Salon said the same thing...Go take a look.. I said it the 4th, she said it the 5th or 6th of December.

[MADem]

171. Wow--take a breath. You seem a bit excitable.

You are ranting about not mentioning EW in your first paragraph--while posting in a THREAD that is all about EW's potential as a Presidential candidate (ooooops); then you make false accusations about me trying to "cram" HRC down your throat (look--you can vote for Bozo the Clown for all I care--what you do matters not to me; are we quite clear on that score?) and then you follow up with a load of personal invective, before you contradict yourself and say you "won't apologize for supporting EW" which leads me to believe that you're really just angry because she's not running. Even if you can't bring yourself to admit it.

Because she's not. Running, that is.

And most of us in the Commonwealth are pleased that we'll be able to keep our Senator. We like her, you see. She's doing a great job for the Bay State, and we've had way too many Senators since Ted died.

[blue14u]

174. No I'm not excitable. You don't excite people to want to communicate with you or vote for who you ar

You continue to insult and make things up as you go along. I'm not the only one saying it.. again read the whole thread. Your out numbered and costing votes the Dems will need. That's your MO..

Check out post 130. That should help you find your way ..

Your incapable of seeing truth and the clues left by other posters in this thread and others posts.

Fine, live in you own little safe world with Hillary. She is sick. Get it! SICK!!!!

Your like talking to a tea bagger, they never stop, and always think they are right, and then call names and bully. Surely you know enough to know when the posting gets to that level, (but maybe that is one thing you don't know), (we will see), you have lost all credibly, and lost the argument.
I know that b/c of my extensive background in politics, which you also disparaged in several posts up thread Oh how little and small minded of you.

You never address anything, all you do is insult and bully people. and post OLD worn out talking points, and OLD video from the past. (keywords... OLD and PAST). merrily had it right. She called you out.. Good for her. You were wrong,(some people are incapable of admitting it when they are proven wrong, time and again with facts), but I guess you thought you could get away with it and no one would notice...

Go away now, I have wasted enough of my valuable time trying to reason and

explain to the unreasonable and incapable..

[MADem]

175. If you're not excitable, you could have fooled me.

And I think your most recent post demonstrates the point I made without any ambiguity.

I don't insult people or call names, like you've been doing throughout this thread, or do any of the things you're accusing me of .... all while you do exactly what you decry to me. Hello, irony!

The videos I've posted are fresh as a daisy. Sorry, you can hurl invective all day long and I'll simply "consider the source," and perhaps feel a bit sorry for you, but you're not getting away with making stuff up. I also don't see where I was "called out" but if you think that is the case and it makes you feel better to believe that, well, knock yourself out.

You certainly don't take it very well when someone doesn't agree with you, do you? That is a real shame ...for you, certainly.

It also makes for unproductive conversation.

[blue14u]

178. Best of this part of the article... and still true today..

Elizabeth Warren says she is not running for POTUS at this time. Although, if she changes her mind, (I hope she will), these "snips" from an article I just read is a great argument for her, or ANY PROGRESSIVE to run for the Democratic position of POTUS. I would love to vote for her and work for her campaign, or any other Progressive Democrat who may throw their hat into the ring. The country is starving for someone of her caliber to fill the seat and move us forward. This is a great read..

Noam Scheiber has a provocative cover story in the New Republic declaring that liberal Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren would be Hillary Clinton’s “nightmare” if she decided to challenge Clinton for the 2016 Democratic nomination. Scheiber bases this claim on the liberal shift the party’s base has undergone since the financial crisis. Voters of both parties, in fact, along with independents, have soured on Wall Streets "Third Way Centrist" candidates. Clinton, by virtue of the financial deregulation her husband presided over and the "buck-raking from rich financiers" that attended his presidency and post-presidency, is "trapped" on the wrong side of this sentiment—inextricably linked not just to some "unsavory characters" but to the whole idea, powerful among the liberal grassroots, that a "fundamentally immoral" Wall Street influence has been allowed to perpetuate itself, even during the presidency of a guy who promised “hope and change.” The collapse of Larry Summers’s bid to become Fed chairman in the face of staunch liberal opposition was an expression of this anger.
This does indeed pose a challenge for Clinton. If Clinton isn’t sufficiently Warren-like on matters of financial regulation and advancing middle-class economic interests, then Warren might try to steamroll her by marshaling her "legions of liberal supporters". As in 2008 "Clinton appears to still lack an overarching rationale for why she should be president". Casting herself as "inevitable" flopped. The speeches she’s given recently on protecting voters’ rights, while laudable, haven’t cohered into anything larger.
In a legislature too divided to pass laws, "Warren’s power in the Senate has been using her celebrity to set the agenda", at least on financial matters. The mere suggestion that she would go after Summers led him to drop out. That power would be "magnified manyfold in a Democratic primary", especially against a front-runner so vulnerable in this area. If Warren were to issue a platform, her policies would almost certainly become a "litmus test" in the eyes of Democratic primary voters for what constitutes a "true Democrat". Clinton would have no choice but to co-opt them—but doing so would also supply the purpose "she has always lacked as a presidential candidate". The salient comparison here would be "Hillary Clinton has never given voters a compelling reason to put herself in the White House". Warren could supply one, and that alone could be reason enough to get in the race.

[MADem]

182. No, not true. That article is a month old.

Here is one a few days old.

Elizabeth Warren Is Still, Still, Still Not Running for President
What must she do to convince us?

...“Elizabeth Warren says she’s not seeking presidency,” A front page above-the-fold Boston Globe headline declares. “Elizabeth Warren: ‘I am not running for president,’” says The Washington Post. “Warren Rules Out a Run for President,” The New York Times notes. “Warren pinky-swears she won’t run for prez,” jokes MASSterList.

If this comes as a surprise, you obviously missed the dozens of previous articles carrying the same news over the past several months. Speculation that Warren would make a strong candidate began even before she was elected to the Senate. But it got a real boost when a September New York Times story reported on the growing clamor for her candidacy among the populist wing of the Democratic party. Shortly afterward, the New Republic ran a terrifying cover calling Warren “Hillary’s Worst Nightmare.” Through it all, Warren has fervently denied any interest in running. Nor has she made behind-the-scenes moves in early primary states that might imply dishonesty in her answers.

So what spurred this round of headlines? Have the calls for her candidacy grown more marked since the last time she told a reporter “no”? Did a rumor get started that she’s weighing a run behind the scenes? It appears that the only reasons for today’s headlines seem to be that Warren was, once again, publicly asked the question, and that her manner of saying “no” was even more definitive than usual. “I pledge to serve out my term,” she said, which reporters are interpreting to be some kind of blood oath that narrows her ability to change her mind (even more than the time she told the Boston Globe, “No, no, no, no, no.”) This “pledge” was “her most definitive statement to date,” the Globe says.

At this point, the headlines almost seem like attempts to troll Warren more than inform readers. She seems a bit at a loss for strategies to convince anyone she’s telling the truth. (Maybe she should start her own birther rumors?)

And don’t expect this to be the last you hear about Warren’s presidential hopes. Most analysis suggests that Warren’s calculus can’t be made in earnest until Hillary Clinton decides whether to run, and for now, Clinton still hasn’t said. We imagine that when she does, reporters will once again check in with Warren, even if they’ve done so a half dozen times between now and then, too.

Video: http://www.necn.com/12/04/13/Warren-I-am-not-running-for-president/landing_politics.html?blockID=859169&tagID=63181

"I am not running for President and I plan to serve out my term," she said.

[blue14u]

187. Your wrong. Like so many

on this thread, and others have pointed out about you.

Its really a shame you are not capable of comprehending the English language as it is written. Maybe you are not schooled in the English language. I'm sorry.. That's to bad.. That could be due to your closed mind and dogma about Hillary too. ..

Good luck with that ..Keep drinking the Kool-Aid. Also you may want to go back and read the article again, try it slowly, maybe that will help..

btw it IS less than a month old... Wrong again you are. Batting 100 now...

There is no point in you replying back, You twist words and meanings and are looking foolish now.

Move on. We on DU who are Progressives, and real Democrats are not listening to you..

BYE!!!!

[MADem]

194. First, it "you're" not "your" and repeatedly flinging language insults at me isn't having the

desired effect--it only makes you look bad.

Here, let me help you out: You're=you are; your=belonging to you.

The lecture on "comprehending the English language" and "maybe you are not schooled in the English language" is quite rich, seeing as you are the one having trouble with your (i.e. belonging to you, in this case) very first word in your thread title.

You don't get to tell me to "move on" nor do you get to tell me what a "real Democrat" is. Most Democrats I know don't fling insults like you do when they don't get their way or someone doesn't agree with their world-view. In fact, you're (see, that's "you are" in this case) the meanest, most insulting Democrat I've encountered in quite some time. Why do my views cause you to respond in such a bitter and nasty fashion? You aren't changing my mind by calling me names, insulting my language skills, telling me I'm "batting 100," "drinking Kool Aid," or other childish comments. In fact, you're (that's "you are", there) just creating a very negative impression of yourself, one that you'll have to live with.

FWIW, the New Republic article, the one that every subsequent article with the faux "Warren v. Clinton" themes was based upon, a right wing seed attempt if I ever saw one, was published on November 10 (it was out on the internet a good week before the publication date). Today is December 10, and two days ago, on Sunday morning, Elizabeth Warren appeared on both local Boston ABC and CBS outlets and repeated on both programs that she's not running.

As a constituent of the Senator, I still believe that she means what she says.

[blue14u]

195. Your funny...

[MADem]

197. Well, it's "you're"- that's just kind of sad, how proud you are of your grammatical shortcomings. nt

[blue14u]

198. What is sad is that

you continue to insult me and make a fool of yourself..

That's what is sad.

Bye

[MADem]

199. How can I say farewell when you WON'T GO AWAY?

You keep giving me the BYE, and then you keep coming back at me with more tripe.

Mean what you say, for a change.

[merrily]

117. Scott Brown was an incumbent and had local media gushing over him.

Elizabeth Warren did not start out with a lot of statewide name recognition among people who are not politics addicts. Still, she won comfortably.

(I don't care who the Democratic nominee is. I am not posting for that reason.)

[MADem]

119. EW had a TON of buzz and a ton of money. And a shitload of national support.

And she did not win "comfortably." Good grief, it was a tough slog and it was by no means certain. I know, I dragged carloads of people to the polls and was rather obsessive in my GOTV efforts--what made it worse is that one of the roads to one of the polling places where I took people was being repaired (how conveeeeeeenient) and I had to take a detour, making it a longer trip. And I made dozens of trips that day.

How soon, apparently, do people forget? Get a load of these "cakewalk" headlines from what was a BRUTAL campaign to anyone paying attention:

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/08/21/scott-brown-ahead-elizabeth-warren-new-poll/R77R8RRwC630bmsXZqDyjO/story.html

Scott Brown ahead of Elizabeth Warren in new poll


http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-scott-brown-pulls-ahead-elizabeth-warren-massachusetts-senate-2012-2

POLL: Scott Brown Is Pulling Ahead Of Elizabeth Warren


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Senate/2012/0305/Scott-Brown-pulls-ahead-of-Elizabeth-Warren-in-Mass.-Senate-race
Scott Brown pulls ahead of Elizabeth Warren in Mass. Senate race

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81483.html

In first debate, Scott Brown hits Elizabeth Warren on Cherokee claim


Stop pretending it was easy and comfortable--EW struggled and she earned every damn vote she got. She won because she put her head down and slogged--she worked every damn day from morning till night, she got out there and campaigned, and she had HELP. Examples of that help:

&list=PLA04479E6D729A43B

She did not coast to victory--she earned every vote and Scott Brown's jerks threw EVERYTHING they could at her.

[merrily]

120. She beat an incumbent favored by local media by a comfortable margin.

The buzz was largely among people for whom politics is a hobby.

I guess we see it differently and probably always will. Nothing turns on it, so I don't see a lot of point going back and forth on it.

[MADem]

121. I was in the middle of it. I find it astounding that people think that a candidate who was

roughed up in a statewide race and whose victory was, for the longest time, by no means assured, is going to do the Queen Elizabeth wave and glide to national victory for an office she doesn't want, has said she wasn't interested in, and has declared a dozen times that she's not running for.

That jerk Mayor BLOOMBERG endorsed Scott Brown. His people were CERTAIN they were cruising to victory--it's why they felt comfortable enough to do this kind of despicable shit:

Key endorsements, machine politics (something so many people denigrate), and GOTV won the day for Betsy....as did money, lots of money for ad buys--and most of that was spent wisely, I must say. But EW doesn't have a national "machine" in play--she doesn't have the ground game. She doesn't -- plainly -- want it either, otherwise she'd be touring the country and chit-chatting, going on Sunday TV shows, instead of avoiding the media and attending to her constituents.

[merrily]

131. As I said, we see it differently and I don't see much point in going back and forth.

[Jackpine Radical]

105. Not really.

I can name several people around here who seem to have nothing left above the neck.

[FSogol]

38. If? Don't you mean, "When EW publically endorses HRC.?"

This will be DU:

[MADem]

79. Yes, it will be "when."

Bill Clinton helped her get elected to the Senate, after all.

People want there to be a big old hatefest between the Clintons and EW. That's just not happening.

?6


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/12/hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren-2016_n_4257891.html

[bitchkitty]

54. Do you think that she will endorse HRC? n/t

[madokie]

58. I think I remember she did endorse Hillary a while back

Best I remember anyway.

[NoOneMan]

155. I'm not sure anyone has endorse anyone else for 2016 yet

There are some blatant lies floating about. Best not to repeat those, I'd imagine

[MADem]

71. Yes, I do.

I wouldn't be surprised, either, if she stumps and fundraises both for her, and forms a LIZPAC or BETSYPAC or WARRENPAC that is similar to HILLPAC and helps (like HRC did) to fund Dem candidates for Congress.

No one had a gun to her head and forced her to sign that "Run, Hill, Run" letter. She's had NO trouble going her own way when it matters to her. I also think she's not stupid. She doesn't make the perfect the enemy of the good, and she can handle ideological differences if the trajectory is in the right direction. In sum, she's an adult.

And if you notice, it's people with an ax to grind--Faux Snooze, pseudo-even-handed but right wing funded outfits like Politico, and shit - stirrers who like drama who are touting the "Ewww, Warren is gonna run and Hillary better watch OUT!" theme. Warren has NO money, no ground game, no connections at the state levels (and she's not trying to make them, either), never mind the precinct levels, and she was badly bruised (a fact that escapes most people who didn't see the race in MA) in the Senate run--it should have been a cakewalk but she struggled to win and was on the ropes for awhile. It was only after Brown got mean and his jerky aides started doing war whoops and tomahawk chops that she started to surge enough to win.

Also, people have this idea that it's some big VERSUS game -- Hillary VERSUS Elizabeth....because they love a fight (and I won't even go into the sexist "catfight" shit that some of the wingnut media outlets want to shop). Those people are ignoring this, though:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/05/elizabeth-warren-bill-clinton_n_2077142.html

When someone does a GOTV "solid" for you, you don't forget it--and this was very helpful to EW at the finish. A lot of people up here in Blue MA still have a great love for the Big Dog, and she knows it. When she runs for reelection in 2018--assuming she's not yet the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, appointed by President Hillary Clinton--having not one, but two Presidents on your team is also helpful.

[bitchkitty]

75. You've convinced me.

I never really thought she would run, although I hoped she would. I hope she does become Chairman of the Fed.

I didn't/don't really want Hillary Clinton but will vote for her, of course. I'm used to it by now...the candidates I like either never run or they often lose.

[NoOneMan]

154. Obama denied, denied, denied up until he ran

Bush certainly denied, but not quite as much

[MADem]

157. Not like she has done. And she did it again, this morning.

I think the "Run, Betsy, Run" ship has sailed. She has other fish to fry.

[NoOneMan]

159. "I am not running for president in four years. I am not running for president in 2008."

I'm not sure how you are comparing the two to assume that Obama didn't say it the way she did

Warren's words, however, are unlikely to put an end to the speculation. It's worth noting that President Obama also pledged to serve his entire term before changing his mind and running in 2008.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/12/04/elizabeth-warren-i-am-not-running-for-president/

[MADem]

161. "I am not" is not the same as "I will not."

It is pretty easy to parse--but there's no parsing "I pledge to serve out my term."

Obama never "pledged" anything. If he did, it would have been shoved down his throat by the GOP at every available moment.

Also, you sort of glossed over the "big finish" at your link:

The freshman, who has been in the Senate for less than a year, has shown little interest in running for president herself, though.


This entire hype is a media invention. She's not going to run for President.

[NoOneMan]

162. The hype on DU has nothing to do with the media

There are plenty of people on DU with Warren signatures that want her to run. There is no reason to disingenuously cast an organic grassroots movement as media hype.

[MADem]

173. It has everything to do with the media. The TNR article lit the fuse.

Written like a bad term paper, it used secondary sources and attempted to create a "catfight" atmosphere (which frankly, I found to be crass on that level, alone for its rank sexism--never mind that they didn't check with the Senator for a single, solitary quote before they touted her).

But, as the WAPO article notes, she's not interested. And she's still not interested.

Even the sketchy pigs at POLITICO, that would LOOOOOVE it if she would run have acknowledged that she's not gonna do it: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/elizabeth-warren-2016-100671.html

But there’s been no indication from Warren or her campaign that 2016 is a serious consideration. A Warren financial backer told BuzzFeed last month that a Warren 2016 bid is “not gonna happen.”

She made some appearances on local Boston networks today, and repeated the mantra. If you want to disbelieve her, knock yourself out...but as the Eight Ball says Signs point to NO....

[NoOneMan]

177. You should start a poll for the Warren 2016 signature people

Last edited Sun Dec 8, 2013, 07:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Ask them if they really want her to run or if they are mindlessly being manipulated by the media like the idiots they are


I wonder how that will go.


By the way, despite how gleeful it might make you if Warren does eventually decides not to run, there will be a challenge to your fantasy pick (if she actually runs). People dislike Hillary and her values enough to support any viable candidate who runs against her. It happened in 2008 when a little known freshman senator defeated her (after all the years of favors and friends). It will probably happen again. If not Warren, it'll be someone. And your fantasy dreams of Hillary will burn in the primaries while the majority coalesces against this third way legacy candidate. Afterall, that's what your posts re Warren are really all about.

[MADem]

196. It's not a question of "gleeful" (but what an odd word choice, there)...

It's a question of several things.

*I want a candidate who will win. Warren is just not viable in this regard. She's regarded as far more "left" than she actually is (some of her champions here might be surprised, actually), has exploitable personal issues, and we know the GOP doesn't invoke Robert's Rules when running a campaign. For reference, look how John McCain, one of their own, was ravaged in the South Carolina primary. Look at the Swift Boating of Kerry. Look at how hard they tried to "Birther" Obama, and they continue to hobble him with that crap even today.

*I don't want to have to elect ANOTHER Senator from Massachusetts. We of the Bay State deserve to have a frigging Senator that will serve out their term. Do you know how many Senators we've had since Ted died in Aug 2009 and Kerry resigned this past February to take the SECSTATE job? Here, let me list them:

In Ted's seat, we had Paul Kirk (placeholder), Scott Jerkwad Brown, and Elizabeth Warren.

In Kerry's seat, we've had Moe Cowan (placeholder), and Ed Markey.

Five senators, four years. We deserve a little stability, for the good of the Commonwealth.

*Just because someone has a talent in one area (the banking industry), doesn't mean they have translatable talents in other areas. I think people who have strengths in the financial arena should be where they can make change--in the Senate, writing laws, not in the White House, worrying about a thousand other issues, to include world ones. EW can, and will, and should, use her celebrity to push change, but her talents lie in the Senate until the next Democratic POTUS appoints her Fed Chair.

As for these "people" who "dislike Hillary," time will tell. Right now, for someone who hasn't even announced, she's polling very well. And as for "people" who will run against her, they need to get going. They don't need to announce, but they do need to start working on a ground game.

I'm afraid your memory of the Obama-Clinton primary is faulty. That was a VERY close race, and people were torn. Most people, like me, were adults and understood that a united Democratic Party was necessary to win the WH, and were able to transfer their vote to BHO. Some, though, were bitter and angry--kind of like some of the people I am seeing in this thread, to be honest. And you do know, if HRC wins the nomination, she will have not just her own personal "ground game," but Obama's as well. He will support his former SECSTATE in the general election, and he'll stump for her, and Michelle will too.

[Scuba]

6. If demand is what drives a healthy economy, perhaps demand will help her change her mind.

[customerserviceguy]

8. The anti-Hillary folks are running out of time

Only Joe Biden has the tiniest chance of getting the nomination from her, and that's only if there is a perceived surge of support towards him in the next six months or a year. Even then, I still think he'd have a heck of a fight on his hands, and would need visible support from Barack Obama to get AA voters to the polls in the primary states. I don't think the President would pick one side over the other, that's why Hillary said OK to being Secretary of State.

[jeff47]

28. Apparently I need to set my calendar back to 2006.

Clinton's team tried this same "inevitability" scheme once before....how'd that work out?

[customerserviceguy]

35. Ok, then who

is the Obama coming out from nowhere to blindside her a second time? You don't think she learned a few lessons from that?

As I said earlier, time is growing short. Whoever would topple Hillary had better start getting a LOT of face time on the news, which right now is filled with Rand Paul and Chris Christie sucking up all available oxygen in the room. I don't see any Democratic potential candidates for 2016 that have the star power that Barack Obama had at this point in the game eight years ago.

IF, and that's a big if, everybody who doesn't want Hillary as our next President rallies around Joe Biden, and works it hard, there's a snowball's chance in hell that he can wrest the nomination from her in a convention fight. He's probably got more favors to call in than she does from superdelegates, but I wouldn't necessarily bet on that, as the Clinton campaign machine has built up political currency for her over the years since Bill left office.

There's really no other plausible alternative.

[jeff47]

37. Yep, definately have to set the calendar back to 2006.

You don't think she learned a few lessons from that?

Well, her supporters appear to be using the exact same strategy. Despite the fact that a loss is a rather large blow to an inevitability strategy.

"This time for sure!!!!"

If she's learned so much, you'd think she'd be steering people to a different strategy....

As I said earlier, time is growing short.

Nope, it isn't. This "Obama" fellow made a splash in the 2004 convention, which resulted in a US Senate seat, but he was laying fairly low in 2006. He was not on the news all the time. You know who was? All sorts of Republicans that were not McCain. So clearly they were going to dominate unless Obama starts drawing more attention to himself.

How'd that turn out? You mean the Republicans that got all that attention weren't even the nominee? Huh. Almost like it's a terrible measuring stick.

There's really no other plausible alternative.

Yep. It's 2006 again.

[gcomeau]

55. Sigh...

Well, her supporters appear to be using the exact same strategy.

I was an Obama supporter from day one last time around.

This time is clearly different. Anyone clinging to the idea that another Obama is going to appear to unseat Hillary is being delusional. The only way she doesn't take the nomination is if she doesn't try to get it... or if something catastrophic happens to her to disqualify her in the public's view between now and the campaign.



That said, we have this little thing called the 2014 elections we could all be paying attention to instead of this...

[customerserviceguy]

65. One thing she's learned

is to be cagey about running again, by waiting till the last possible second to announce, she puts the whole field on hold, freezing early money that might be going to challengers.

One other very important difference between 2016 and 2008 is that there is no John Edwards bleeding off the votes of white males in the early primaries. That allowed Barack Obama to get a toehold in the earliest primaries. By staying out of the official running, she figures she can prevent another Edwards from happening.

In any case, there's no stealth Obama waiting in the wings, who will get identity politics flowing in primary states.

[jeff47]

84. No stealth Obama that you know about.

Just like there wasn't in 2006. Remember, he was talking about finishing out his senate term back then. So clearly he was out of the 2008 race.

[customerserviceguy]

114. Whatever stealth candidate there is

they had damn well better use 2014 to make themselves known. As we know the race is in full swing the day after the midterm elections, and if you're not in it with at least an exploratory committee, then you're on the sidelines.

Remember Obama's fake announcement on Monday Night Football in late 2006? The only reason it was made and shown was because there was a huge buzz over whether or not he'd throw his hat in the ring. I simply cannot think of anyone at this time who could create that sort of media excitement.

[jeff47]

122. Have you realized yet that your argument keeps falling apart?

Your claim is the candidate for President has to start making a gigantic splash NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We have a lovely example in Obama, who did not make the gigantic splash you claim is required. We also have lovely examples of other Democratic and Republican candidates who did make such a splash, who weren't even the nominee. If you want to roll it back, Bill Clinton didn't make such a splash either.

There is no critical "must start now!!!!!!!" deadline. Attempts to create one are just a distraction from 2014. Stop buying the crap lousy media is feeding you.

[blue14u]

48. No other plausible alternative?

I guess I will throw in the towel then and not consider any other

candidate. Even ones who say, I'm not running for POTUS, then do

that exact thing. EW is only 4th in the lineup of all candidates being thrown out as possibles... It also applies where other candidates have said the

same thing. Seems to me, it is said quite often, then bam, there they are.

I plan to wait and see, and focus my efforts on 2014 for now.

[customerserviceguy]

66. Focusing on 2014 is indeed vitally important

No matter who wins the Presidency in 2016, we're going to need a progressive Congress in place for them to work with, or against, if it turns out that way.

Who's putting in the face time on the Sunday morning talk shows, or the vast oceans of time that three 24/7 news channels need to fill? Barack Obama had name and face recognition at this point in 2005 that absolutely no one on our side has, except for Hillary and Biden.

Tell me who the other possibilities are besides the two of them, who is going to ride to the rescue at the last second, and win the hearts and votes of the people who don't pay attention to elections until the weekend before one.

[JDPriestly]

69. Bernie Sanders has stated he will enter the race if no one else who is plausible and understands

the issues facing the middle class does so. He would need to change party, but that is mere paperwork since he has caucused with Democrats and agreed with progressive Democrats for years. If Elizabeth Warren really does not run, then I would support and work for Bernie Sanders. I do not want a candidate who will "compromise" on tough regulations on the banks or the environment or health care or Social Security. No politician has the right to compromise the economic future of our country, the health of Americans or the security of seniors. No politician. But Hillary would do just that because we know that she is sold out to Wall Street and big corporations. We on DU all know that.

Even as Secretary of State, Kerry is doing a better job than Hillary, much better. Frankly, I would gladly vote for Kerry like I did in 2004, but I don't think he has the charisma or projects the strength of purpose that we need in our Democratic candidate.

What makes a candidate charismatic? The ability to project sincerity and strength of purpose. You can't believe one thing and say another. People know when you are doing that. In 2000, both candidates had a touch of talking out of both sides of their mouths. Most candidates do. Obama was pretty good at sounding sincere. Problem is he changes his mind under pressure. That is why he does not negotiate well. But he is very charismatic because his mind, thoughts and physical actions are all one, unified. We instinctively read a person's voice, appearance, gestures, and listen to his language to determine whether he really believes what he is saying.

The catch with the fact that we vote so much according to whether a person seems one in word and mind is that fools very often are quite sure that what they are saying is correct when it is not at all. But that is the secret to charisma. It is also a secret of method acting.

[MADem]

78. Why would he need to change parties? The DNC wouldn't give him a dime, nor would

the Democratic PACs. If he were to run, he'd do it as an Independent.

They have about as much luck grabbing votes as Greens or Communists, really.

It would be a vanity campaign by an elderly man. Pointless.

I don't agree with what you seem to think "we on DU" know about HRC, and I'll leave it at that.

You do realize Kerry is reaping the benefits of the groundwork that HRC's State Department undertook? Apparently not. You actually think he swooped in there like Mighty Mouse and saved the day all by himself...? Please.

[customerserviceguy]

109. If Bernie is serious

he really needs to get his name and face out there. I doubt most Americans could distinguish him from Leahy, if they were shown portraits of the two of them together.

[blue14u]

49. No we are not yet

out of time. I think it's the other way around. The pro Hillary camp is running scared and does not want to open up to a newer fresher option.

One without so much baggage. Maybe it won't be Warren, but someone may appear like Obama did and surprise us all once again. I hope so.

[antigop]

166. the Third Way sycophants keep pushing the "inevitability" meme. nt

[blue14u]

172. Yes, and they can

keep pushing it. It will not work this time. We have caught on to

their meme's and rhetoric.

We will just push back, and I believe there are more of us than their

are of them!!!

[NorthCarolina]

64. I tend to believe Wall Street would prefer Clinton over Biden,

so she's the most likely shoe in for the Democrats. I suspect Wall Street will probably also want to complete their offerings to the public with a Christie nomination for the GOP side of the Wall Street presidential coin.

[customerserviceguy]

111. Agreed, they would

and if Biden ever got a chance to defeat Hillary, they'd pour in money to her, tipping the scales in her favor. Believe me, they'd do the very same thing to any Elizabeth Warren clone, as well.

Frankly, I'd bet that the big money boys know that no Republicon has a snowball's chance in hell in 2016, all of the possible candidates on that side are of regional appeal only. They remember the drubbing they took with McCain and Romney, and they know that the 2016 GOP field is even more lackluster. They'd probably rather see a friendly Clinton administration made friendlier by financial support.

[JDPriestly]

68. I might support Joe Biden, depending on his economic stances.

He really supports labor, has good common sense and is loved. But he doesn't have the charisma that Elizabeth Warren has. And he isn't as much in touch with the American people as Elizabeth Warren is. He doesn't have the strength of purpose and clarity of expression of either Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders (who would have to change party to become a serious contender).

[customerserviceguy]

112. One thing he does have

that neither Warren has, nor Obama had at this point eight years ago (and may not yet have today) is experience in guiding legislation through Congress, especially when working with minority party status in one or both houses of that body. Most of the legislative successes of the last few years have had Joe Biden's hand on them.

Maybe a third of a Senate term (without any House time, nor any governor experience) is not enough to get you a successful Presidency.

[JDPriestly]

116. Biden would be OK. Elizabeth Warren would be better.

[customerserviceguy]

146. Perhaps

But she's not running. She has said that repeatedly. I wonder what exactly it would take for the folks who fantasize for her to run to stop thinking it will happen. There may be nothing she says or does, unless she completely rules herself out a year from now, after the 2014 elections are over and done with.

Even then, I suppose the EW folks will still conjure up the possibility that a divided 2016 Democratic convention will turn to her. Maybe those people will finally get over the illusion by September, 2016.

[MADem]

152. He's from the Credit Card State.

People forget that before he was VP he was a Senator...from Delaware. Snarky bastards called him the "Senator from MBNA." Speaking of MBNA, they gave his son a job as a consultant there, awhile back, IIRC.

You don't get to keep your Senator job in Delaware without being beholden to financial interests. That could be problematic in this environment for him. He always said he wanted to be SECSTATE--perhaps he'll step back and help HRC in exchange for a shot at that gig.

[JDPriestly]

184. I did not know that, but I think he is more sympathetic to working people than Hillary.

If that is true, I really, really don't want either Hillary or Joe for president.

I really, really want Elizabeth Warren. I want Warren appointing the head of the Fed and the Secretary of the Treasury as well as the heads of the Commerce Dept., the SEC and the Supreme Court justices. That is what I want. I don't want anyone beholden to Wall Street, banks, etc. appointing people to those posts. That is what is already wrong in our country.

[MADem]

185. Look, ya gotta dance with the one what brung ya. I like Joe Biden, and I understand political

realities.

Before you start playing the "Hillary Bad, Joe Good" game, I would urge you to see just how indebted JB was to MNBA over the course of his career.

They liked him so well, they hired his kid.

You may want Warren, but you're unlikely in the extreme to get that Warren wish (FWIW, yesterday, she just said--on two separate Sunday talker shows in Boston--no, no, no yet again). She has no money, she has no organization, and most importantly--she has no DESIRE.

I'd like to see HRC appoint Warren as FED CHAIR after she finishes out that term she pledged to complete.

[JDPriestly]

191. A lot of Americans will share my objections to Hillary.

She is not on the side of working people. If Joe Biden is the MBNA-man in D.C., Hillary is Wall Street's woman. That is worse.

[MADem]

193. And a lot will not share your objections.

In fact, I think the majority of the nation will not agree with you.

Time, of course, will tell.

[JackRiddler]

97. Eight years later, same bullshit.

Someone will step up, become the alternative to Clinton, and likely win. She's weaker than she was during the same "inevitability" nonsense in 2006. Bank on it. Have a talk with Christine Quinn, or Clinton, 2008 edition. People are sick of personalities, they want substance, they don't want the same old neoliberal shit with aggressive foreign policy from someone who in 2003 voted for the biggest crime of the century so far.

[customerserviceguy]

113. So, who's it going to be?

Barack Obama was already a familiar fresh face at this point eight years ago. Who's got that kind of name recognition right now? Who's working the Sunday talking head shows, or the three 24/7 news networks to get the public acquainted with them?

[JackRiddler]

124. Absolutely does not matter.

An ABH is guaranteed to arise. Who the hell was De Blasio, four months ago? The revulsion at the continuation of Bloomberg in the form of the faker Quinn was enough that people would coalesce around one of the alternatives.

You're operating on the false assumption that Clinton's name recognition is a good thing. She is known for representing the same old fake, personality-based politics, neoliberal economics and neoconservative foreign policy.

What you should be asking yourself is what in the world motivates you, a democrat I presume, to be helping this terrible politician and contributing to this country's utterly corrupt dynastic politics by propagating the inevitability legend? You really want to see Clinton vs. Bush again?!

[customerserviceguy]

145. NY and the USA

are two completely different things here. For starters, there was only ONE NYC Democratic primary. Weiner self-destructed, and Quinn couldn't rise above her negatives, De Blasio mananged to use his family to get some notice. Hell, I live in the NYC media market, and I had no idea he had a multi-racial family, once he put his son Dante in commercials, he immediately began to surge in the polls. Nobody in the Democratic Presidental race can pull off that kind of surprise.

Yes, to hard-core progressives, she's third way, old hat, whatever you want to say about her. But most voters don't think like that, they make up their minds the weekend before the election. If a fresh face catches their interest, they may indeed hear that voice's siren song, but I just simply don't see such a person emerging from the shadows to capture the interest of the progressive-leaning voter who is simply troubled by the prospect of a GOP winner in 2016, but has no firm candidate in mind.

Please don't confuse my seeing the apparent inevitability of Hillary Clinton as any kind of support of her. I simply acknowledge that she's managed to clear the field by co-opting any serious opposition outside of Joe Biden, and if he's her only opponent, she will roll over him in dramatic fashion. She's plotted for this for years, and she was blindsided by Barack Obama, she made sure she would have a role in his relatively successful first term, and planned to drop out for the second act, where she will be able to distance herself from him. She's clever and conniving, and she looks like she's playing her cards extremely well. Don't confuse that with my backing her as the best possible choice for President, but by November, 2016, I'm afraid that's all we'll have.

[Cosmocat]

148. Yep

Strong, balanced and common sense post.

I would like a firebrand conservative as much as anyone else here.

But, everything you noted about her strategy is correct, and there also will be a REALLY strong, it is a women's time for her, too.

I will note, I think Christie will indeed be formidable, and Hill is really the only person who I think can beat him.

[customerserviceguy]

180. Christie is a tough sell outside the Northeast

He's a bit too acerbic for voters who are more than a few hundred miles away from NYC, and he will absolutely repel the folks who vote in Republicon primaries in Iowa. I doubt that he'll have much sway in New Hampshire, either, and the only people who will vote for him in South Carolina and Florida are NY/NJ emigres who fled those states for the aforementioned tax havens. I just don't see the fundies lining up behind him throughout the country.

I'd put more money on Rand Paul in the Rethug race, he inherits the decades-old base from his father. He's been plugging the libertarian line, and while that doesn't sell well with control-freak fundamentalists, he's paid lip service to Christianity, they may not tune him out completely.

Still, I cannot see any Repuke who can overcome Hillary, and she knows it. She knows this is her one and only opportunity, and nobody else will stand in her way.

[Cosmocat]

183. Yeah

Rand is real accident prone ...

Simple minded twit born into it and with a big sense of self entitlement.

I agree that Christie isn't great for the opening primaries.

But, the election is running longer now and those early primaries are not do or die.

Rand will probably start with his old man's base, but what is liable to run into is the same thing that the other really right lugntus ran into the last few elections - so many of them run that it waters it down and the more "establishment" guy like McCain or Romney wins.

We will see ...

[JackRiddler]

149. Thanks for the lesson in some obvious things.

The dynamics apply in most such situations. There will be candidates, and there will be a move on to coalesce around the one who isn't Clinton.

[customerserviceguy]

181. At this point, the only such person on the horizon

is Joe Biden. You won't have any opposition to him from the Obama administration, or the Democratic establishment. The feeling is that he's earned his shot at it, having run in 1988 and 2008, and having been a loyal member of the team for the last several years.

Could progressives unite around him? If not, then grab your ankles and wait for Hillary to cruise to victory in both the nomination and the general election fights.

[MADem]

202. WHAT? Who the hell was DiBlasio? Good grief, show us what you don't know!

Here's who Bill DiBlasio is:

He was a NYC Public Advocate (4 years) and City Council member (9 years), well known to the citizens of NYC;

He's an activist and organizer, he worked in Nicaragua in support of the Sandanistas as a younger man during the Reagan administration.

He was a HUD Regional Director under President Bill Clinton.

He was an aide to former mayor David Dinkins.

Here's where it's clear you don't know your stuff....

He was HILLARY CLINTON's CAMPAIGN MANAGER when she ran for the Senate.

Oooooops!

And looky here:




Hillary Clinton headlines Bill de Blasio fundraiser, brings in $1M for his mayoral campaign
The former Secretary of State hit the stage at the Roosevelt Hotel to tell the crowd that 'Hiring Bill de Blasio was one of the smartest decisions that I made' and implored New Yorkers to 'do the same.'



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/hillary-clinton-headlines-bill-de-blasio-fund-raiser-article-1.1492408#ixzz2n8VmBo8F


You are not speaking from a position of any knowledge. You'd probably be best off quitting while you're behind.

[Old and In the Way]

10. Fire sale on "Warren for President 2016" banners?

Time to go long on "Sanders for President 2016" banners...

[djean111]

13. It is not speculation so much as hope for a new non-Corporatist president.

This announcement just means I have no one as yet to get excited about, much less donate to or work for.
If Hillary is the candidate she has no need of my little bit of money anyway - she will have all she needs from Wall Street.

"It's worth noting that President Obama also pledged to serve his entire term before changing his mind and running in 2008."
Yeah, that. I don't remember hearing anyone say he was such a fantastic Congressman that he would do better to stay where he was, either. And those who say Warren is too old at 64 but Hillary is just right at 67 - no wonder the USA is so far down the list in math.

[pnwmom]

18. In 2008 we weren't on the precipice of losing the Senate.

Now we are.

[dreamnightwind]

31. 2016 would bring in a new Senate class

1/3 up for election every 2 years, so a Warren POTUS campaign would not impact holding the Senate in 2014. Nor would it need to impact the Senate in 2016, unless she actually became President. The argument you use is most often used by people on the corporate "centrist" side of our party who would be just fine with Hillary.

[pnwmom]

33. We could very well lose the Senate in 2014, which means that

the election in 2016 would be critical to getting a majority back.

What would the point be in her running unless she "actually became President"? Do you think she should run just to make a statement? We don't need anyone to run for President who isn't passionately driven to do so, and I don't see that in her at this point.

[dreamnightwind]

36. The point would be to have Elizabeth Warren as President

which would be a huge sea change in this country.

So now you're shifting the issue to re-taking a lost senate in 2016? You never quit, do you? Should Obama have run, or should he have stayed in the Senate?

I think her running would make a very very loud and emphatic statement, win or lose, but if she ran I'm certain she would run with all of her might to win. At this point she has not made that leap, doesn't mean she won't though I agree that it is unlikely.

[winter is coming]

93. ^^ This. Every bit of it. n/t

[MADem]

186. He was a Senator, not a congressman.

Upper house, not lower. Six year term, not two.

[Marrah_G]

209. This is it exactly.

[polichick]

14. Now that I know she was a RepubliCon during the Reagan years...

I feel better about her determination not to run for prez - at least yet.

Makes sense to watch her in the Senate for a while (though she is saying all the right things.)

[closeupready]

46. And Hillary was not only a Republican, she was a Goldwater Girl.

Irony is not just for breakfast anymore.

[OKNancy]

50. there is a big difference though

Last edited Wed Dec 4, 2013, 10:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Hillary dropped the Republicans as soon as she moved away from home ( at 18) and worked for Eugene McCarthy.
Elizabeth was a Republican into her mid-forties.

[closeupready]

61. yes, I'll concede that's true.

[merrily]

130. Not according to fact check or Hillary's wiki

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/hillary-worked-for-goldwater/

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

She claims she had doubts right after Goldwater, but she seems to have been gung ho Republican for a young woman, until she met Bill Clinton in Yale Law School.

I think that is still different from age 46, especially given that Warren's wiki says she changed because she thought Democrats would be better for the markets. And it also says that she still votes Republican on occasion (not as of know, but as of when she gave the interview being quoted in her wiki.)

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

[Beacool]

150. She didn't change parties when she got to Yale.

She changed on her second year at Wellesley.

[merrily]

192. You have a link to her voter registration record?

Last edited Tue Dec 10, 2013, 02:51 AM - Edit history (1)

Rodham was invited by moderate New York Republican Representative Charles Goodell to help Governor Nelson Rockefeller's late-entry campaign for the Republican nomination.[23] Rodham attended the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami.

Attending the Republican National Convention in 1968 is not, to my mind, evidence that she had changed her mind before then. Most "devout" lifelong Democrats have not attended a national Democratic convention.

Again, though, I do see a difference between Hillary's changing loyalties before leaving school and Warren's changing when she was 46--and, by her own admission, continuing to vote Republican sometimes after that.

But, that may be moot as it does not seem that Hillary and Warren will be competing head to head (unless Hillary runs for Senator of Massachusetts).

[Little Star]

51. As DUer Beacool has told people here many times.....

Hillary grew up in a Republican household. Yes, she was a Goldwater Girl. She also switched parties in college.

Elizabeth was in her mid 40s when she before she became a Democrat.

EW is one of my senators and I love her to death! She is wonderful and I'm very proud to call her my senator.

But I want Hillary for president, always have and always will.

[closeupready]

60. Fair enough.

[Beacool]

88. Hey, I heard my name!!!

Hillary was a Goldwater girl when she was 17 and did indeed switch parties in college. Warren was a Republican until her mid 40s.

I agree with your last sentence. I too want to see Hillary become president.

[Little Star]

100. Why yes you did hear your name :)

[merrily]

132. Close, but not exactly. Please see links at Reply 130.

[MADem]

103. There exists a small cadre of political soap opera buffs who seem to be looking for a catfight.

I find that distressingly sexist, as well as naive.

They want to shop a meme that Warren "hates" the Clintons, but they have nothing to say when confronted with this reality:

And they deny the importance of the "Run, Hill, Run" letter that Warren and every other female Democratic senator signed.

It gets to a point where all one can conclude is that they are being willfully obtuse, for purposes unknown.... chaos creation, voter demotivation, or just a little gleeful shit-stirring, perhaps? Or maybe...profound naivete?

[polichick]

56. imo we've watched her enough.

[MADem]

80. But she was a kid in high school, not a mature adult with children.

By the time Nixon was in office, HRC was a House staffer working on his impeachment.

[Little Star]

102. .

[JaneyVee]

19. What if we give her absolutely no choice on this matter?

[snooper2]

22. what are you going to do start stalking her house

LOL

[brooklynite]

24. No, post some more blog messages...

That'll convince her...

[arely staircase]

73. lol nt

[MADem]

23. The only "we" she needs to answer to, is her constituency.

And she's doing that--which is why she was at a thing for the Mayor elect of Beantown.

Unless "we" are a bunch of Massachusetts voters, she doesn't have to listen. She has her priorities in order--she is one of the most attentive MA Senators in terms of constituent services that I've seen in many years.

All politics is local, and she is, first and foremost, the senior Senator from Massachusetts.

[Beacool]

43. Who is this "we", kimosabe?

The vast majority of Democrats are supporting Hillary (although no one yet knows whether she will run).

[MADem]

106. Are you gonna tackle her in the hallway and force her to do stand-up interviews for the cable

networks? Are you gonna prevent her from going home to her state at the weekend and force her to go on the Sunday talkers? Are you going to shackle her to a chair and force her to make fundraising phone calls, and rally supporters away from people who have committed to--and who OWE--HRC?

She hasn't done a single thing to raise her national profile. In fact, she's done the OPPOSITE. She's gotten to work. She goes home to her state at the weekend. She is focusing, like it or not, on two major areas of interest--the first is the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth, and the second is the banking industry.

She didn't rule out military action against Iran when that situation was simmering, so she's not the "Lefty Peacenik" that some paint her to be. She also has gone on record as opposing legalization of weed. She even associated herself with Hillary Clinton's advocacy of "Smart Power" in foreign affairs: http://elizabethwarren.com/issues/foreign-policy

I suspect if, in some alternate universe, EW became POTUS, the same people here championing her would be the first people to call her a traitor and a sell-out, not because she has changed, but because they finally started paying attention to the way she actually feels about issues. They equate "pissed off at Wall Street" with all sorts of stances and views she just does not hold.

[Gothmog]

25. Again, I still think that we need to focus on 2014 and wait until after the midterms before we worry

about 2016. Control of the Senate is up for grabs and there are some key governors' races that we need to focus on. We need to change the governors in PA, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Florida before 2016 if the Democratic candidate does not face very stringent voter suppression efforts. Winning Virginia is a good first step.

I am hoping to turn Texas blue in 2014. Wendy Davis is a great candidate and her opponent is both arrogant and nasty which may help. If Texas turns blue (or purple) the GOP will not be able to get 270 electoral votes for a long time

[Tarheel_Dem]

29. Thank You!

[TBF]

30. Yes, I am with you -

it is time to turn Texas blue. Plenty of time to plan for 2016.

[Scootaloo]

32. Fine by me

I'm happy either way!

Actually, I'd rather we didn't pillage the legislature every time we go looking for a president, really. What's Howard Dean up to these days?

[dreamnightwind]

34. She used present tense, not future

and her statement about her plans means that she has not decided to run.

I think it's a long-shot that she runs, but still hoping she does.

I don't know who else we have to take on the powerful economic interests that are destroying this once-great nation. Hillary and Biden are more of the same Clinton-Obama New Democrat corporatism.

Bernie isn't a Dem, and though he might run a show campaign to get some issues heard, I doubt he'll be in it to win it. I'm open to Warren alternatives (Grayson?) but not seeing many of them out there.

[Orsino]

85. I'm not sure how she could be more plain.

Though I would love to see her presidentin', she's doing very well right where she is.

I wonder whether Clinton will be advised by Warren? If Hillary will track a nit to the left this time around, I'd gladly work for her.

[raouldukelives]

39. Great! President Sanders could use a VP. nt

[longship]

40. This won't be enough for some.

Some who have already chimed in on this thread.

I live in a reality-based world. I also love Elizabeth Warren, who has made it as clear as can be that she will not be running for President in 2016.

Some DUers will still chant: Warren 2016!!

She's going to be a helluva great US Senator -- she is demonstrating that she already is. Why would anybody want her to leave that office for higher aspirations? To leave future Democratic Senatorial leadership to people like Feinstein? I hope not. We need Warren in the Senate.

[Beacool]

42. She's in Teddy's seat and she will become another Lion of the Senate, or "Lioness" in this case.

[longship]

44. Indeed!

As it's cocktail hour here in the Manistee National Forest, I will raise a glass to your sentiments.

[Beacool]

45. And I will drink it.

Cheers!!!

[Beacool]

41. Oh boy, this is going to go down hard in some quarters.

[madrchsod]

52. well who else is there now?

i really don't see anyone that i could actually get exited about.

[pam4water]

63. Bernie Sanders?

[blue14u]

53. I think it best I

leave this thread for now. I tend to make heads blow up by supporting

someone other than the, "inevitable" "its my turn" Hillary camp meme.

[madokie]

57. I really like Senator Warren

I wish she was still here in Ok and was one of our senators but I'll take her where ever she chooses to live and who ever she chooses to represent.
My dream team would have been Senator Warren and Senator Sanders with Grayson as AG.

[pam4water]

62. NnnnnoooooooooOOOOOOo.......

[grahamhgreen]

74. Guess it's Sanders/warren the:)

[BootinUp]

77. Maybe Hillary was throwing her voice like a ventriloquist?

[workinclasszero]

81. Okay I take her at her word

And I back 1000% whoever the democratic candidate is who runs in 2016 because whoever it is will be one whole hell of a lot better than a fascist teabagger like Cruz, Palin or Walker!

[OKNancy]

82. That's the right attitude! Winning is important.

No matter what anyone says, winning is better than any Republican.

[reddread]

86. heard that before, will she be held accountable for changing her mind?

Jeb is coming, what students of history and political dog and pony shows think anyone else will get their shot?
wtfu.

[merrily]

118. Was Obama held accountable for changing his mind?

He had said he would not run in 2008.

[MADem]

123. Obama didn't say it forcefully, over a dozen times.

And Obama went to the steak fry, and toured the country, and met with political strategists and fundraisers, and went on the Sunday morning talkers, and made sure he got his "foreign policy" blocks checked. He never avoided interviews.

Senator Warren is not doing any of that stuff, but she is working her ass off--serving her constituents. If she is grooming herself for any job, I'd say she's burnishing a resume to be Chair of the Fed.

[reddread]

125. I dont think you want to count Obama's broken promises

do ya?

[MADem]

126. Oh, gee, another gratuitous "Waaaah, Obama sux" comment on a Democratic discussion board...

If that's supposed to be "edgy," it doesn't come off that way to me. It comes off like you play for another team. If that wasn't your intent, maybe you should modulate your delivery....?

[reddread]

127. i love modulation, and modulars, you should hear the sounds im hearing right now

I also demand honesty, particularly when DEMOCRACY demands it.
You seem to be indifferent?

[MADem]

128. I can't get inside your head and don't really care to so do.

What's being "dishonest" about adhering to the Terms of Service of this PRIVATE website, whose goal is to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to public office, pray tell?

[reddread]

135. Hate to club you over the head with reality, but heres some breaking info

Obama isnt running for office.
Obama isnt running for office.
one more time-
Obama isnt running for office.

once that sinks in, try to grasp this-
Elizabeth Warren is a Democrat.
So am I.
Your comments towards me deserve an alert, for all of the reasons selectable.
Im not that sort of baby or bully.
Im a Democrat.

[MADem]

136. How charming--violent imagery! Yes, that's the way to convince people!

If you think my comments towards you deserve an alert, hit the button. Don't indulge in idle threat, now.

I have news for you--but I won't repeat it three times in a simplistic fashion: You're apparently the only one in this conversation who thinks that anyone believes that Obama is running for office. Not sure why you have to say that over and over again like it means anything....but hey, so long as you're touting violence, use that "reality club" on yourself to disabuse yourself of that notion, too.

I think you remain unaware of the concept here. You might want to work on that.

Elizabeth Warren is a Democrat who speaks her mind and says what she means. Would that all Democrats be so forthright.

I believe that people are Democrats when they act like them. Denigrating a Democratic President isn't the sort of thing most Democrats do on a Democratic message board.

[reddread]

137. you really beat around the bush, or miss the mark, which is it?

you repeatedly insinuate baseless, inaccurate things about my statements.
You seem to seriously miss the part where I AM NOT A BABY OR A BULLY.
you, on the other hand, seem to be both, cowardly misrepresenting my posts and positions,
neither of which you can or will directly address, except to make comments intended to
stir something up, on the basis of bogus insinuations.
I doubt you have the decency to be ashamed of yourself.
I have not denigrated Obama. I have challenged your cheap tactics on the basis of history.

[MADem]

138. Hey, I'm not the one that insinuated that the POTUS was a

(waaaaaaaah) "promise breaker," you were. Anyone can pull the string on this sorry subthread and see what you said.

You lit this candle off, now you're annoyed that your "words of wisdom" weren't taken without a peep, that you could get away with a slam at POTUS without anyone noticing.

I noticed.

Time to just get over that.

[reddread]

140. good for laughs anyway

thats not what I call an insinuation. When trade agreements like NAFTA get played against the voters, veracity is an issue.
Trust is the game that gets played against American voters and taxpayers.
i guess I know whose side you are on.
Your tactics and insinuations are McCarthyistic.
That is not an insinuation, thats the plain truth.

[MADem]

142. I'm not laughing--and that's weak sauce you're dishing up.

Veracity? Apparently you're one of those people who slept through Schoolhouse Rock as a child. Congress makes law, ya know. Never mind that pesky bit--too complex, I suppose.

But hey, by your words we shall know you.

You're just real sweet there with the personal insults; were you hoping I'd cry because the likes of you calls me "McCarthyistic" when it's clear from your remarks you don't even have a grasp of how government works?

Too bad for you that names don't hurt me, particularly when they come from someone who doesn't matter in the slightest to me.

[merrily]

129. He did say it a number of times.

He went through rounds of interviews after he was elected Senator. During every one of them that I watched, he was asked whether he would be running in 2008 and he said no. Even made remarks like, I don't even know where the cloakroom is yet." Steadfastly refused even to discuss a run the Presidency later than 2008.

As far as "forcefully," I'll leave that subjective assessment to others. He said no again and again, and that is fact.

At the time, I was very disappointed because I did want him to run.

He got elected in 2008 anyway. I never heard anyone in public ask him why he broke his word about not running.

I did see it on message boards, by people who wanted Hillary to be the nominee. Even at that, I did not see it immediately, only after Hillary started slipping behind.

I think any politician worth the name (whatever it's worth) would have little problem explaining a change of mind after a couple of years.

Again, I don't care who runs in 2016 and I take Warren at her word that she will not be running. But, if I see something I disagree with, I am likely to respond.

[MADem]

133. Did he PLEDGE to finish out his term? Did he say "Five words--no, no, no, no, no!" and then

repeat those "no's" six more times? Did he say "Relax--I'm not running" to David Axelrod on a big screen? Did he say "I don't WANT to run, I am not INTERESTED, I am not running," in a half dozen iterations?

He never made anything approaching a Sherman statement in any video I saw of him. He used the non-denial denial method, along the lines of "Look, right now I want to be an effective Senator so I'm not entertaining any ambitions for higher office," or "I have no plans to run" -- but at the same time, he was meeting with campaign strategists, raising money like crazy, upping his profile by going on the Sunday talkers, travelling around the country, catching shit for not putting his hand over his heart at the Harkin Steak Fry, and doing everything he could think of to let people SEE HIM. Elizabeth Warren, by contrast, has said all these things and more, is avoiding interviews (running from the ambush stand-ups in the Senate hallways, in fact), going home to her Commonwealth on the weekends, focusing on constituents and MA issues, working across the aisle in more ways than one (see here and here -- surprising to many) and, basically, being one helluva Senator.

What she's not doing?

**** Setting up a fifty state ground game, all the way down to the precinct level. That needs to start NOW if you don't have the connections in place--and she doesn't. And where does one go first? NEW HAMPSHIRE. It's right next door. What could be easier? Only thing is, she hasn't even gone up there for some cheap liquor, never mind primary strategy meetings. Where else did she turn down an invite? Harkin's Beauty Contest--she said NO. That's not the behavior of a candidate, or someone who wants to be regarded as a "player" (e.g. VP).

**** Raising money. LOTS of money. She should be eating rubber chicken on Thurs, Fri, Sat and Sun evenings, meeting and greeting, and having her crew grab the checks. That's not happening. She's meeting CONSTITUENTS in venues where no money changes hands--town halls, meeting the new Boston mayor, constituent service outreach.

**** Getting on the phone and asking for endorsements, trying to steal away support from other candidate(s). Someone would tell. Her aides, too, are giving the massive "wave off." No coy denials--no "Well, she SAYS no...." -- they're saying "Fuggedaboutit."

And then, there's that "Democratic Women of the Senate" letter. Anyone who thinks that leak was "accidental" and that every woman who signed the letter wasn't onboard with that leak is probably smoking better crack than Mayor Ford can get his hands on! That was phase one of a "rollout" and it was, I must say, artfully done. Good job, Barbara Boxer et. al!

Look, there's "Tee hee--oh, no, I couldn't POSSIBLY...." and there's "Not only no, but hell no." I think she's in the latter sandbox, myself. YMMV.

[merrily]

134. He said no often.

I have already said that I take Warren at her word that she will not run.

However, if she proves me wrong, I don't think saying will make the difference between winning or losing.

Beyond that, I don't think the matter is worth a lot of discussion. Not to me, anyway.

[MADem]

139. Well, we have a little local TV program on WCVB here in the Bay State that no one outside the

Commonwealth watches. It's called OTR (On the Record) and it has local talent as hosts. EW is going to go on that program this Sunday (see, she's not fundraising, she's home with her constituents) and say, once again, that she's not running. She's not going on THIS WEEK, or MEET THE PRESS, or any of the DC talkers, she's going on a home - based show, because that's where she's at.

I'm sure that won't be enough for people, either--but hey, Rogers and Hammerstein wrote a song for those folks that was featured in the musical "The King and I."

I agree with you completely that the matter isn't worth much discussion, because it's plain to anyone listening to the words coming out of her mouth that she's both flattered by the attention and she's shut the door. I would not be surprised, though, if her latest protestations will either be ignored, or picked apart ("Look, there!!! Was that a WINK or a blink! She's signalling us!!!!&quot for an ambition that just is not there.

[NoOneMan]

156. "I am not running for president in four years. I am not running for president in 2008."

Another:

MR. RUSSERT: Before you go, you know there's been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your full six-year term as U.S. senator from Illinois?

SEN.-ELECT OBAMA: Absolutely. You know, a little--some of this hype's been a little overblown....

[MADem]

160. "I am not" is not a Sherman statement.

It's famously used in "non-denial denials."

I am not eating my dinner.

See, that's true right now, but it won't be when I sit at the table to take a meal.

I have PLEDGED to finish my term is a Sherman statement. The door is closed.

[NoOneMan]

163. Sure. Whatever.

When the primaries start, we will know. As of today, we don't know who will and who will not be running. We don't really have a single name. Just like in 2008

[MADem]

164. I know who, absent ill health, will be running. nt

[NoOneMan]

165. No you don't

You think you know, but you don't really know anyone personally and how these decisions could impact someone's personal life (or vice versa). You can't really predict the future. You don't even know what the political climate will be in 2 years, which could make a very viable person today completely and utterly unviable. You just don't know. I don't either.

[MADem]

167. Yeah, I do--and if you think about it in a pragmatic and non-emotional way, you do, too.

HRC is not a stupid woman.

She has friends. She has friends because she knows how to be a good friend. And at her age, I can say I know that she knows what she wants, and what she doesn't want. That kind of wisdom comes in the "second half" of life.

She can't coordinate a PAC with people who are supporting her, because that would be illegal, but she can, and she most certainly would, "call off the dogs" if she had no intention of running. This SUPERPAC isn't just a skunky little start-up, these people are raising SERIOUS cash, engaging in a wide variety of outreach efforts, and they are doing it grassroots style--no big money donors, a max contribution amount, and a focus on driving interest and outreach. You can see this at work here and here (check the number of 'likes'), and all over the net with a simple google.

Every female Democratic Senator has signed that "Run" letter. Claire McCaskill, Chuck Schumer, and others have stood up and said "We're ready to go to work for you."

Everything that has happened relative to the HRC candidacy conversation has every earmark of a stylized rollout. The candidate may not be coordinating it, but people who know her and have her best interests at heart most certainly are. They know what she wants, because they know her.

[NoOneMan]

168. Ok, so HRC is your fantasy pick

When/if she announces, Ill KNOW she is running. You will know then too

[MADem]

169. Not a "fantasy"--for the reasons I outlined.

She would not allow her friends and associates to spend all their free time fundraising, organizing, doing the whole blood/sweat/tears business of operating a SUPERPAC, if she weren't running.

She'd tell them "Go find someone else to back. I' not doing this. Stop wasting your time."

No one who thinks this through would imagine that she'd let her friends chase their tails for a year or more. That's not how she operates. As I said, she has friends because she is a good friend.

[Niceguy1]

104. we need her in the senate

And Hillary in the white house

[ChisolmTrailDem]

206. No we don't. We need EW in the White House and

we need Hillary to write more books and go on book tours and the speech-making circuit.

[Beacool]

208. This is one Christmas wish that you will not receive.

[brooklynite]

141. Just an observation to those who say she should/might/will change her mind...

Every day you keep repeating this is one day less you have to find an acceptable alternative (and I don't mean equally wishful thinking about Bernie Sanders or Sherrod Brown), convince them to run and help them get organized. Yes it would be nice to believe that you don't have to do anything until after 2014, but the reality is that those who ARE thinking seriously about running are getting organized NOW. If you want to start from scratch, you've got a lot of work to do.

[libodem]

151. That just makes me want her to run more

I love the personal integrity factor, the humility, and the composure. Unchained ambition is unattractive in either sex. I get very turned off by feeling pushed, cornered, and forced too, early to get on the, ready to run boat.

The over eagerness resembles greed and entitlement to me. Can't help it. It's visceral.

[Pterodactyl]

153. Good. We don't need her taking votes away from the main candidate.

[NoOneMan]

158. Unless she was the main candidate as determined by a primary

There is no main candidate until a primary is over FYI

[Pterodactyl]

188. Well, technically, you're right. But we all know how it will go down.

[NoOneMan]

189. Like 2008?

[Pterodactyl]

190. That was a one time fluke. The establishment will be back in charge this time.

[MFM008]

176. Would have been nice....

but you cant force someone to run. She may feel shes not ready and needs to fufill her contract with Mass.

[Beacool]

179. This thread is still going on?

Next, Warren will state her denial in smoke signals, Morse code and by carrier pigeon; maybe then people will believe her.

[MADem]

200. Oh geez, don't go there ...

The Republicans will be all over her over the "heritage" flap....they made her life miserable, and if you read the "comments" of any article that has to do with her, you'll see those basstids weighing in with snarky "smoke signals" and "Pocahontas" and "firewater" comments--it's pretty egregious.

It's also something she'd have to fight at a national level, which is one of the reasons why I think she's not interested and doesn't want to run. She was roughed up pretty bad---the thing that saved her, I think, is that Scott Brown's thugs couldn't contain their glee, and they got soooooooo "racist" in front of cameras that it sickened people.

Her heritage (or lack thereof) became less important than their poor behavior.

I don't think America at large would be so thoughtful. I think she'd be Native American Swift Boated. I think she thinks it, too, which is why she keeps saying NO.

[Beacool]

201. Yes, I remember.

Yes, they tried to Swift boat her but it didn't work. I think that she'll stay I the Senate. She's found her niche.

[brooklynite]

205. C'mon kids! If you all clap REAL LOUD.....

[djean111]

210. Nothing Warren says or doesn't say, does or does not do - will engender any more enthusiasm

for Hillary than Hillary has right now.
I think all the enthusiasm for Hillary - at large, not her devoted admirers - hit its peak in the primaries.
Hell, I voted for Hillary, here in Florida. Which was totally useless.
Up until a few years ago, I had not really stepped back and looked at her corporatism, I was still probably under that Clinton spell.
But now I see what corporatism and Third way is really all about, the most I would do, if I have to, is the holding my nose thing.

The enthusiasm for Warren is really just enthusiasm for No Corporatism. For no more Third Way.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the Indian heritage slinging was not even from the GOP - why would they even bother, right now. The only people who would have a stake in slinging shit at Warren right now would not be from the GOP. IMO.
Matter of fact, as we have been informed up-thread, if the GOP really felt so frightened of Hillary, why would they try and shoot down a possible challenger? Doesn't make sense, if Warren is such a weak candidate.

In any event, some Democrats are sick and tired of Corporatism, of the Third Way (actually the Really Like the Right Way), of things like the TPP and Nafta, of that "lesser evil" thing.

So shooting down Warren really does not change a fucking thing. And sure won't create any new Hillary fans.

[Pterodactyl]

211. Good. We need a nice simple primary to get the real candidate in there.