Was Elizabeth Warren under external pressure when she added a 2nd tweet quickly?

[madfloridian]

Last edited Fri Jan 15, 2016, 03:22 AM - Edit history (2)

There was nothing wrong with her praise of Bernie Sanders about his Wall Street policies. But within an hour and a half she had changed it.

(ON EDIT: Since I am being accused of ugly things....let me reword my 2nd sentence.

"But within an hour and a half she had written another to include all the candidates."

YES! The first one still remained, and she added the second an hour and a half later.

I hope that clarifies it to everyone's satisfaction. The word "liar" is now thrown around here way too loosely.

Any questions?)

Why Did Elizabeth Warren Suddenly Pivot to Praise ‘All’ Dem Candidates on Wall St. Reform?

At 10:10 a.m. ET on Wednesday, bankruptcy law pro and anti-big bank hero Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat representing Massachusetts, took to Twitter to offer her unequivocal support for Senator Bernie Sanders. The praise in question stemmed from Sanders’ heightened rhetoric this week, when the Democratic-Socialist candidate for President visited New York City to speak publicly about Wall St. reform.

Elizabeth Warren
✔
@elizabethforma

I'm glad @BernieSanders is out there fighting to hold big banks accountable, make our economy safer, & stop the GOP from rigging the system.
10:10 AM - 6 Jan 2016

4,742 4,742 Retweets
7,866

But then this happened.

But something seems to have happened in the hour-and-a-half following Warren’s Tweet, perhaps facing pressure from within the Democratic party to clarify her sentiments to include the party frontrunner Clinton in her praise. 91 minutes later, Warren returned to Twitter to offer this cryptic update to her sentiments:

Elizabeth Warren
✔
@elizabethforma

I'm glad that ALL the Dem candidates for president – @HillaryClinton, @BernieSanders & @MartinOMalley – are fighting for Wall St reform.
11:41 AM - 6 Jan 2016

452 452 Retweets
803

I agree with this statement from the Mediaite article:

Regardless of her true support, on Wednesday it would appear that some external pressure seems to have influenced Warren’s rhetoric and approach, putting her in a position to clarify that “ALL the Dem candidates for President” are fighting the fight she most believes in (but really, only Sanders does).

[Dretownblues]

1. hmm

Could this mean that she want to endorse Bernie, but is being pressured not to?

[madfloridian]

8. No, most likely she'll endorse Hillary.

[Dretownblues]

10. Hope not

[Art_from_Ark]

11. Why do you say that?

She's at loggerheads with Hillary about banking reform, her revised tweet notwithstanding. And she noted last year that her singing the letter encouraging Hillary to run was NOT an endorsement.

[madfloridian]

13. From one of those Politico articles you take with a few grains of salt or whatever.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/elizabeth-warren-2016-endorsement-217731

[Art_from_Ark]

16. Well, all Politico has to go on is

"But people close to Warren’s political advisers in Boston say an endorsement of Clinton is far more likely than one of Sanders at this point."

But that is followed by "Clinton allies have long pointed to a 2013 letter that Warren signed with other female Democratic senators urging the former secretary of state to get into the race."

However, Warren herself said last year that signing that letter did not constitute an endorsement. I personally think that she, as a newly-minted Senator with no prior political experience, was pressured into signing the letter. She has shown that she's not particularly enthused with Hillary, while showing herself to be more closely aligned with Bernie.

[senz]

40. I'm sorry, but that would be monstrous.

EW knows full well Hillary's connections to Wall Street, and she's certainly smart and savvy enough to know that Hillary is now in primary campaign mode, trying to appeal to progressive Democrats.

If EW were to endorse Hillary over Bernie in the primary, something horrible would have to have happened.

[MisterP]

59. it'd reveal the had on everyone's arm, twisting and twisting

[CorporatistNation]

20. Liz Is Being Pressured Relentlessly To Be Certain!

This is now a question of integrity. Is she going to stay out and let this race run its natural if less predictable course? Given that Hillary is no where near Warren's professed positions on the issues, if Warrren endorses Hillary she will be toast for any future political ambitions as she will be viewed as caving to Clinton power brokers/thugs.

If Warren is truly the person she presents herself to be, she will stay out until the nominee is fairly well identified.

Do not be fooled by Hillary taking nuanced positions leaning somewhat left as she will say ANYTHING in order to realize her lifelong dream...

[Dretownblues]

25. Warren is my Senator

but if she were to endorse Hillary, it would make me question her motives behind it. Not that I would stop supporting her, but it would make me question how much is she really playing the politics game. Also believe me I have never once thought of Clinton as a Progressive, that includes Bill.

[underthematrix]

56. Elizabeth Warren is a politician

I think she's one of the good guys but she's honing her intra-party political skills because she made some missteps when she first joined the Senate and as a result had to learn some hard political lessons. Warren is NOT a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Bernie is the only senate member.

While I don't know this, I'm guessing she will endorse HRC because the politics work for her in the long term. And they need to work for her so she can get re-elected.

[Dretownblues]

57. Her endorsing Clinton

wouldn't surprise I'm just hoping that she stays true to her progressive stances. Even if she does, like I said she won't lose me as a supporter just because of that.

[bkkyosemite]

2. And then there is that rumor in another post

that says Elizabeth doesn't think Bernie can win....who got to her I wonder. Hope there is not a voting glitch as the days go on and the voting starts.

[madfloridian]

4. And there's a post at DKos saying she's about to endorse Hillary.

So who really knows.

[senz]

42. Well, as of today, EW knows Bernie CAN win.

Check this out: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017320929

[JI7]

3. she deleted the earlier tweet ? or she just added another tweet ?

[madfloridian]

7. Link to her twitter. Both are there when I looked about 5 minutes ago.

https://twitter.com/SenWarren?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

She added another tweet.

[JI7]

9. what probably happened is supporters of other candidates responded with things

their candidates have done so she responded with saying she is proud of what all of them are doing on that issue.

[Cali_Democrat]

5. Who would pressure her?

Maybe she changed the tweet on her own?

Women can think on their own, ya know.

[delrem]

17. You think madfloridian needed help with that?

Look up "inconsistent" in your dictionary, then get back to us.

[Cali_Democrat]

23. So did she change the tweet or was it a new tweet?

I didn't even verify the OP's claim which appears to be suspect.

[madfloridian]

31. Hey there, verify away. Then go to Mediaite and verify them as well.

[Cali_Democrat]

44. So she never changed the tweet....she simply tweeted something else.

Your OP is based on a lie.

[madfloridian]

45. Actually she changed the tweet to include all the candidates.

You really should be careful who you call a liar.

[Cali_Democrat]

46. She didn't change the first tweet referenced in your OP.

...she tweeted something else. She never changed the first tweet, they were two separate tweets.

You're not being truthful when you say she changed her tweet.

[madfloridian]

47. Okay then call me a big fat liar right out loud. It's okay to do that here now.

Whatever makes you happy.

Or could we take an effing vote on whether madfloridian lied or misspoke or was totally right.

As long as it makes you happy.

[Punkingal]

18. Who indeed?

[RichVRichV]

19. It's possible.

She may have changed it on her own as she wants to stay above the fray and not appear to endorse anyone yet (We've all seen how any compliment can get blown out of proportion). But there is real pressure being put on her to endorse.

Pressure grows on Elizabeth Warren to pick a side in Democratic race -CNN

[senz]

43. Right. She was sincere in her praise of Bernie but then realized

that some would interpret her praise as an endorsement, and she wants to refrain from endorsing anyone in the primary. So she changed her tweet.

Makes perfect sense, and I can understand why she wants to stay neutral.

[madfloridian]

29. I'm a woman, I think quite well for myself.

[Uncle Joe]

6. I have no doubt the pressure is great, but that's how diamonds are made.

I hope if Senator Warren endorses one of the candidates, that she is being true to her heart.

Thanks for the thread, madfloridian.

[Mnpaul]

14. But Warren is already a diamond

I don't see pressure changing that. Little Georgie tried with no luck.

[Uncle Joe]

26. There are different grades of diamonds,

The AGS 0–10 grading scale is easy to understand.

The highest possible grade is zero; and 10 is the lowest.

Easy, huh?

So, a diamond with a color grade of 3 has less color than a diamond with a color grade of 5. Diamonds having less color are more rare; therefore, they may cost more on the retail market.

When writing the grades of a diamond using the AGS Scale, diamond Cut grade is first, then diamond Color, clarity, then Carat Weight — in that order.

If a diamond possessing the finest diamond cut grade is also colorless, free of inclusions and blemishes, and weighs one carat, it would be written as: 0/0/0–1.000 carat.

In the American Gem Society Diamond Grading Standards, this would be known as the famed Triple Zero® or Triple 000.

(snip)

https://www.americangemsociety.org/ags-diamond-grading-system

Used in so-called diamond anvil experiments to create high-pressure environments, diamonds are able to withstand crushing pressures in excess of 600 gigapascals (6 million atmospheres).[14]

(snip)


Unlike most electrical insulators, diamond is a good conductor of heat because of the strong covalent bonding and low phonon scattering. Thermal conductivity of natural diamond was measured to be about 22 W/(cm·K), which is five times more than copper. Monocrystalline synthetic diamond enriched in the isotope 12C (99.9%) has the highest thermal conductivity of any known solid at room temperature: 33.2 W/(cm·K).[37][38] Because diamond has such high thermal conductance it is already used in semiconductor manufacture to prevent silicon and other semiconducting materials from overheating. At lower temperatures conductivity becomes even better, and reaches 410 W/(cm·K) at 104 K (12C-enriched diamond).[38]

Diamond's high thermal conductivity is used by jewelers and gemologists who may employ an electronic thermal probe to separate diamonds from their imitations. These probes consist of a pair of battery-powered thermistors mounted in a fine copper tip. One thermistor functions as a heating device while the other measures the temperature of the copper tip: if the stone being tested is a diamond, it will conduct the tip's thermal energy rapidly enough to produce a measurable temperature drop. This test takes about 2–3 seconds. However, older probes will be fooled by moissanite, a crystalline mineral form of silicon carbide introduced in 1998 as an alternative to diamonds, which has a similar thermal conductivity.[5][27]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_properties_of_diamond

[senz]

50. What a wonderful reply, Uncle Joe.

I'm not particularly interested in diamonds as gems but do find it wondrous and amazing that both diamonds and graphite are forms of carbon. Also, the diamond industry is perfect to use as an illustration in explaining the concepts of vertical and horizontal integration. (Just in the spirit of geekiness, fwiw.)

[99th_Monkey]

12. Wow. Now Warren? this just happened to VP Joe the other day.

praised Sanders, then spend a day backpedaling and "explaining" in away.

It's downright creepy, that's what it is. Screw the Clintons and their bullying ways,
people not being able to speak their minds without "retribution". It's sickening.

[madfloridian]

15. I did not realize that had happened to Biden.

Thanks for sharing.

[99th_Monkey]

21. Here you go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128095928
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141312147
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141311831


You're most welcome.

[Cali_Democrat]

27. The Clintons bullied Biden the other day?

How so?

[99th_Monkey]

30. Someone did. Either them or someone on their behalf. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

32. What's your evidence that Biden was bullied the other day? nt

[99th_Monkey]

33. That's my opinion. take it or leave it.

and this is becoming a rather obvious pattern, now with Warren.

[Empowerer]

39. The ACCUSATION is the obvious pattern ...

[99th_Monkey]

41. You obviously disagree with my opinion, based on observing two instances. Fine. -nt

[senz]

51. Hm, okay that does sound like pressure. Or...

it could be that Democratic bigwigs who want to stay neutral now have to watch every public utterance about any of the candidates.

But their spontaneous enthusiasm does seem to be with Bernie Sanders.

[ucrdem]

22. I suppose it's possible that she made a deal not to endorse

and doesn't want to be seen as reneging on whatever promise she might have made. But that raises the questions of who and why and what she got in return.

[Empowerer]

24. Good Lord - the woman can think for herself.

Everything is not some grand conspiracy . . .

[madfloridian]

34. Not all questioning about candidates is worthy of being called a conspiracy. Catch-all word

used to try to discredit those who do question.

[Empowerer]

37. LOL

So, you acknowledge that you were raising a "question about a candidate" when you suggested that Elizabeth Warren may have been forced by "external pressure" to change her tweet. Which candidate, pray tell, were you raising questions about? Bernie Sanders? No, I don't think so. We both know the candidate you were implicating is Hillary Clinton. And if Hillary Clinton or her campaign exerted external pressure on Sen. Warren, that would certainly amount to a conspiracy.

You threw a rock and then tried to hide your hand. It didn't work.

[madfloridian]

38. Hiding my hand? Throwing a rock?

Good Lord this is crazy around here.

It was a logical sensible query by Mediaite, I posted it because I agreed.

[senz]

52. You were doing fine until your little accusation at the end.

There is nothing wrong with wondering why politicians do and say things. We all know they have both a private and a public/professional existence. The OP has as much right as anyone to point out discrepancies and it doesn't necessarily mean bad motives. Putting it out there as she did invited other people's explanations which could very well influence the OPs evolving opinion of the matter.

[anigbrowl]

28. Or perhaps she just changed her mind

Obviously one candidate's fans will prefer the original version, but it doesn't follow that anyone else was involved. Elizabeth Warren doesn't strike me as someone easily pushed around.

[madfloridian]

35. That's quite possible.

[ram2008]

36. Candidates/Politicians don't write their own tweets

Last edited Fri Jan 15, 2016, 02:28 AM - Edit history (1)

They're usually written by interns and reviewed by a mid level comms staffer. Most likely the tweet was approved by mid level staffer and seen by the communications director or Warren, and they were instructed to elaborate for political concerns/ staying neutral etc. Not something influenced directly by external sources, but an inner circle calculations.

[madfloridian]

48. Yes, everyone's tippy toeing around.

That's for sure.

[Skwmom]

49. She is a politician worried about her political future.

Last edited Fri Jan 15, 2016, 03:25 AM - Edit history (1)

My hunch: She wants to be able to woo Hillary supporters when they put her on the ticket with Biden.

Fiorina tore into Clinton over the foundation etc. and Matthews said not a word. I also saw a women rep that has been a long time supporter of Clinton making a very cutting remark at the end of the interview. Something is definitely up....

[senz]

54. You mean a Biden/Warren ticket?

That seems like a waste of Warren; she has a greater effect as Senator. Unless you mean an attempt to head off a Sanders win?

[stone space]

53. Those look like two separate tweets to me.

They each seem to have their own timestamp.

Is the second one supposed to be an edited version of the first?

If so, the act of editing the post seems to have started the retweet count over. Not sure how twitter works, though.

[madfloridian]

55. I edited it since I was called a liar above.

Actually it looks right now to me as if BOTH have been deleted from her twitter feed. I read them just before I posted, and fortunately my old buddy NYC_SKP has a screenshot of them.

I hope my edit is now satisfactory to everyone.

[ladjf]

58. IMO, Sen. Warren is still checking the political winds for committing to either candidate.

Hmm, that sounds like some other politicians I know.

[bigtree]

60. this is less than rumor

...sounds like the writer made it up.

Simplest explanation would be that Warren didn't want to appear to be taking sides.

I wonder how much of this nonsense speculation is meant to discredit her, as it is to discredit her statement of support for 'all' of the candidates' wall street reform efforts?

[Myrina]

61. It was the rabbit in the kettle on the kitchen stove ...