Boston Globe Op Ed: Elizabeth Warren, run for the White House

[n2doc]

By Anna Galland

LESS THAN three years into her Senate term, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has established herself as the country’s leading advocate for working and middle-class families. The Democrat has proven equally adept behind the scenes and in the media spotlight, and has stood up to Wall Street banks and other powerful interests to win changes that are improving millions of Americans’ lives. Already, more than one observer has compared her to Massachusetts’ first “liberal lion” in the US Senate, Ted Kennedy.

Some leading Democrats say that’s a great argument for Senator Warren to stay put — and not run for president.

I’d argue they’re wrong. Warren should run. Our country will be better off if she does. She would be a strong candidate — one who injects valuable ideas into the conversation and ensures the kind of debate our country needs. And she could win.

Put simply, this moment was made for Elizabeth Warren. With income inequality at its highest level on record, and corporations and lobbyists wielding enormous power in Washington and state capitals around the country, we need a president who is firmly grounded in making government work for regular people. Senator Warren has spent her career taking on corporate interests and winning historic financial protections for workers and small businesses. She’s not only been critical of lobbyists and powerful financial firms, but has even taken on President Obama on occasion.

more
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/03/21/elizabeth-warren-run-for-white-house/5Y6l1XBLz8Xm7AyNInr3bI/story.html

AND

Democrats need Elizabeth Warren’s voice in 2016 presidential race

By The Editorial Board

DEMOCRATS WOULD be making a big mistake if they let Hillary Clinton coast to the presidential nomination without real opposition, and, as a national leader, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren can make sure that doesn’t happen. While Warren has repeatedly vowed that she won’t run for president herself, she ought to reconsider. And if Warren sticks to her refusal, she should make it her responsibility to help recruit candidates to provide voters with a vigorous debate on her signature cause, reducing income inequality, over the next year.

The clock is ticking: Presidential candidates need to hire staff, raise money, and build a campaign operation. Although Clinton hasn’t officially declared her candidacy, she’s scooping up support from key party bigwigs and donors, who are working to impose a sense of inevitability about her nomination. Unfortunately, the strategy’s working: Few candidates are coming off the Democrats’ depleted bench to challenge Clinton. Neither declared candidate Jim Webb, a former Virginia senator, nor rumored candidate Martin O’Malley, a former governor of Maryland, represent top-tier opponents; independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has also hinted he might enter the Democratic primaries, but it’s difficult to imagine him thriving on the trail.

Clinton’s deep reservoir of support, from her stints as first lady, New York senator, 2008 presidential candidate, and secretary of state, no doubt poses a formidable obstacle. But Barack Obama overcame Clinton’s advantages in 2008, and Warren or another candidate still could in 2016. Even if they don’t, Clinton herself would benefit from a challenger. As former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick put it recently, “My view of the electorate is, we react badly to inevitability, because we experience it as entitlement, and that is risky, it seems to me, here in America.” Fairly or not, many Americans already view Clinton skeptically, and waltzing to the nomination may actually hurt her in the November election against the Republican nominee.

More important, though, the Democratic Party finds itself with some serious divides that ought to be settled by the electorate. Some are clear-cut policy differences, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an enormous free-trade agreement with Pacific Rim nations that Warren opposes and Clinton backs. Even in areas where the candidates agree, there are bound to be different priorities: It’s hard to imagine a President Clinton defending and enforcing the Dodd-Frank legislation with as much vigor as a President Warren, for instance.

more
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2015/03/21/democrats-need-elizabeth-warren-voice-presidential-race/TJkJtbu3UYaJYBmVHcrAcI/story.html

[MADem]

1. The author of that article is the Executive Director of MOVEON.ORG.

http://www.moveon.org/annagalland/

Unsurprising that she would have this view.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. And you're a known Hillary supporter, so it's 'unsurprising' that you should hold your views.

Does that 'lack of surprise' invalidate your views and expressed beliefs as well as invalidating the views and expressed beliefs of people with whom you disagree?

[MADem]

5. I didn't write an endorsement for the Boston Globe. Anna Galland did.

It's not a "view" that the author of the article is the Exec Director of MOVEON.ORG. That's what's called a fact. Or is it verboten to mention facts about authors of supportive pieces that might color one's perception of them, once the source is known?

It's also a fact that the Boston Globe endorsed Charlie Baker for Governor, which makes me wonder where their heads are at, of late.

But hey, whatever. Nothing to see there at all...move along! They're acting in good faith!! Never mind that the candidate they say they want has said no on dozens of occasions, sent out a letter disavowing MOVEON, and had Barney Frank articulate her unwillingness quite recently.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. "had Barney Frank articulate her unwillingness"

Can you supply a link showing that Warren asked Frank to do this?

Thanks.

[MADem]

18. Barney and Betsy are CLOSE. He wouldn't speak without her knowledge.

You know, the reason that politicians ask other public figures to say some things is because they don't want to say them themselves. That's usually how these things work.

Warren is not stupid--in fact, she's one of the best brains in the Senate, now, and quite possibly in this century. She knows that her high profile of late translates into influence and clout. She doesn't want that clout diminished prematurely, and I don't blame her. By the same token, she doesn't want to appear cutesy or coy, which is why she said no a dozen or more times, had her lawyer issue that cease-and-desist letter, and sent Barney out to talk about her "intelligent decision."

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/12/elizabeth_warren_in_boston_i_a.html

Look, if lighting strikes, she runs, and becomes the nominee, I'll cheerfully vote for her and work for her, and I'll deliver voters to the polls on her behalf. I won't HESITATE. I won't whine, cry, gripe, stomp my foot, take my ball and go home, name-call, or engage in any childish behavior. I think she's a fine senator--I sent her money and GOTV'd in her campaign against Brown, which--as I am sure you remember--got very UGLY at the end.

I just don't think she wants to run--she'd be running around the big old USA, and not appearing in Worcester or Springfield or Westover or Roxbury, doing "constituent stuff" if she were seriously interested in the White House. She'd be attending rubber chicken dinners at thousands a plate from sea to shining sea...and she isn't doing that. She said NO. Fifty times, by at least one count. I believe her, and I give her the dignity of taking her at her oft-repeated "No means no" word.

[MannyGoldstein]

20. One of us doesn't know Barney very well

In any case, can you please try to be clear when you're speculating as opposed to when you are stating verifiable facts?

Also - do you take Hillary at her word when she's said that she's ruled out running for President in 2016?

[MADem]

22. I know Barney--he'd remember my name. He'd remember my late grandmother better though.

She used to scold him on Beacon Hill (which gives you an idea of the time frame--that was some years ago) because he always looked like he slept in his clothes. She knew when he had a new love interest when he'd start looking more presentable.

Hillary hasn't said "No means no" fifty times. A quote from years ago when she was still SECSTATE and any campaigning wouldn't be "on" doesn't count.

Cough up one from, say, as recently as last DECEMBER and we'll talk.

I don't think that comment was "speculation," either--as I said, Barney and Betsy are CLOSE. He wouldn't screw her over--she was trying to help get him to "seat fill" in the Senate for the Kerry seat Markey won when Deval did an end run with Mo Cowan on that score.

Also, if you remember--and I will bet you do--once upon a time, Barney was all for the "Run Liz Run!" message. He was enthusiastic about it--why? Because it raised the Senator's profile and helped her get attention for causes of import to her. Why would he back off, completely change his tune, and do an about-face ... unless she asked him to?

[mountain grammy]

26. All I can say is..

I hope she changes her mind.

[MADem]

27. I want her to be Fed Chair. That's a job where she can really apply her particular skills

for the good of all Americans.

[mountain grammy]

30. I want her to be the president choosing the fed chair.

[MADem]

32. She'd have to reverse her decision for that to happen! nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

10. Ok, it's a 'fact'. So what?

Are you implying there is something 'wrong' or 'bad' about MoveOn.org?

You've already acknowledged, in your reply, that you were perpetrating an 'attack the messenger' assault on the author, so exactly what is 'wrong' with the messenger?

[MADem]

13. No--I am doing nothing of the sort. That's an unfair accusation.

What I am "implying" (and I am not implying, actually--I'm saying quite clearly and straightforwardly) that this is not a departure for that writer, any more than an article by, say, James Carville recommending HRC would be surprising.

I wasn't attacking any messenger. Unless you think that telling people where the messenger works is an "attack?"

Maybe you should take the chip off your shoulder. Information isn't a bad thing.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

16. Oh, sure you weren't....

Here's a hint - when you come in not to discuss the merits of a given article, but instead to make sure everyone knows the 'fact' of who the messenger is you're explicitly trying to shift the discussion away from the merits of the article and to make it 'about'' the messenger. It's derailing by attacking the messenger, and especially obvious when you do it in a group forum for a candidate other than that you choose. It's simply disingenuous to pretend otherwise, and it would be the exact same as if I went into the Hillary group and immediately pointed out the 'facts' about the author of an article that praised HRC. There's no 'chip' on my shoulder, simply because I can see your comment for what it is.

[MADem]

19. Wow. That's some vitriol, and it's not accurate.

"Derailing by attacking the messenger?" Since when is it an attack to let people know who the messenger is? Surely you don't support "willful ignorance."

The writer of the article and the merits of the article are inextricably linked, particularly since MOVEON has unsuccessfully been trying to convince Warren to run, and Warren's lawyer issued a letter telling them to stop fundraising on her behalf. So yeah, the "messenger" in this instance IS salient.

Here's the difference between you and me. I haven't said anything negative about Warren in this group. Why? I LIKE HER. I VOTED FOR HER. I SENT MONEY TO HER CAMPAIGN. I WORKED TO GET HER ELECTED. I'm on her mailing list, particularly when it comes to national defense issues.

That said, she has said, repeatedly, that she's not running. Is "the Warren Group" so insular and blinkered that they don't listen to the very person they claim to tout? Like it or not, her repeated refusals ARE an aspect of any hopes for a candidacy.

And, as I've said elsewhere and am happy to say again, if she's the nominee, I will happily vote for her, work for her, and donate to her effort. But so long as she is telling me that "No means no" I am going to believe her. I think she's a very smart woman, and she knows her own mind.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

23. There wasn't an ounce of 'vitriol' in my reply.

What there was was sardonic eye rolling.

[MADem]

28. Gee, ya coulda fooled me!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

29. Apparently I did fool you.

But it's not surprising. People see the emotional content they expect to see in text messages, not whatever was in the minds of the sender at the time.

Key and Peele did a very accurate skit about it, in which they were texting back and forth, and one was happy, but the other mistook everything they said as sarcastic and angry. You expect to see 'vitriol' and 'hate' from folks who don't care for Hillary, so when you read things they write, that's what you see.

[MADem]

31. When you start your rant with "Here's a hint..." you're not being a cheery pal.

You're finger wagging, scolding. You started out suggesting I was "implying" something nefarious about MOVEON, and then you flat out accused me of attacking the messenger when I was doing nothing of the sort. So, sorry--you're neither Key, nor Peele. I didn't mistake your motives. You weren't being friendly towards me at all.

You basically told me I have no "business" here, your remarks were designed to paint me as someone who has impure motives, even though, as I have said repeatedly, I am a fan of EW who helped to elect her. This isn't the Warren For President group, this is the Elizabeth Warren group. If the "rules" for membership here are that one must support EW for the Presidency, even though that's not the charge of this group, well, maybe the group name should be changed.

One can still "support" Senator Warren (and I do--I'm very pleased with her initiatives towards reducing student loan debt for kids carrying that burden, for example, as well as her POV on military vets/retirees and national defense issues) and think that she serves the nation best in other capacities. That's where I'm at. As I've said, if lightning hits, and she does decide to run, and she becomes our nominee, I will happily work for, donate to, and vote for her.

I want a Democrat in the White House, because even the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

33. 'Not friendly' is a far cry from 'vitriol'.

I do think your 'motives are impure' in what you wrote here - otherwise you would have addressed the substance of the OP, rather than simply, out of the gate, pulling up the author's biographical info 'just to let the readers know'. You might not 'hate' Warren - after all I don't 'hate' Clinton. You might even love for her to be a Senator. But what you brought to the debate today was a deliberate attempt to discredit a posting in favour of her for President, by making sure everyone knew the author was likely to have a personal bias. Which, as you yourself note, is hardly surprising, because, after all, they wrote a positive article about such. So there was no need to come in and 'make sure everyone knew' what else the author does. Feel free to call that a scolding - I give them out when I see someone being disingenuous.

[MADem]

34. You don't have to be foaming at the mouth to be vitriolic.

Some of the most profound vitriol is sotto voce. Particularly when accompanied by character assassination.

And you've doubled down again, I see--again accusing me of nefariousness. And disingenuousness. You keep responding (because you didn't like the point I made) by impugning my character, calling me names, in essence. It's not a good look.

The substance of the OP is self-evident--it doesn't take a rocket scientist to gauge the trajectory of the Executive Director's comments. What is there to say? It's an endorsement, and a rather cheerily generic one, at that. Fill in potential candidate's strong points, say that they are the man/woman for the time, something-something-time is now, bold and different, etc. etc. What is news, though, is who is making the comments. If this were John McCain's essay, or John Kerry's, for that matter, this would be a surprising endorsement. Coming from an organization that has long supported her candidacy, though, this is less surprising.

And I am not --deliberately, or otherwise--"atttempt(ing) to discredit a posting.." What I am doing is adding CONTEXT to the post. Full flavor--complete information. Not sure why anyone would find it fear-inducing, negative, or what-have-you for readers to know who wrote the doggone article--because context does matter.

Why do you see the information I provided--that the writer is in a leadership role at MOVEON--as threatening, or (scary word, this) DISCREDITING? There's something "discrediting" about letting people know who wrote the supportive article? REALLY? That's probably the most troubling comment in the thread--and YOU made it.

I don't think I'm the one with the issue, here, if that is the kind of thing that scares you.

I'm a Democrat, and knowing who wrote an article isn't a fear-inducing exercise to me, and I shouldn't think it is for anyone. That said, it is salient. As I said, an endorsement of Clinton by Carville is no surprise, but an endorsement by Bernie Sanders would be newsworthy. The "who" is as important as the "what." And that's true even if you don't care for it.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

35. So let's look at what you've achieved.

You've posted roughly half the comments under this thread, fighting with pro-Warren Presidency people in all of them.

Is it 'character assassination' then, to suggest that you were intending to do exactly what you succeeded in doing? Essentially burying anything that might have been said under the OP in pointless back and forths where you defend your pure and noble intentions?

What is news, though, is who is making the comments. If this were John McCain's essay, or John Kerry's, for that matter, this would be a surprising endorsement. Coming from an organization that has long supported her candidacy, though, this is less surprising.

So first it's 'news' that it's coming from who it is, and then within a second sentence, it's back to not really being 'news' because it fails to 'surprise' you.

Call it 'impugning your character' if you want. I'd call it 'holding up a mirror' for you to see what you're doing.

[MADem]

36. If you didn't call me names, I wouldn't be replying to you.

You know, all of your "scolding" which consisted of insults to my character--you're the one that lit that fuse, not me--all I did was impart a fact, and that irritated you.

All I did was mention who wrote the article, and you went off on me in a very personal way.

Maybe you should take a little responsibility for all the "conversation," here. Ya think?

And reading is fundamental--it's news, certainly, but it is less surprising news--as I said.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

37. Really? Then let's fix that.

I'll put you on ignore, and then neither of us will have to worry about me 'calling you names'.

[MADem]

38. Thank you--that will be lovely. nt

[RufusTFirefly]

39. It's a pity that the post includes two articles not one

The Boston Globe's editorial, "Democrats need Elizabeth Warren’s voice in 2016 presidential race" is written by the newspaper's editorial board. A related op-ed, "Elizabeth Warren, run for the White House" is indeed written by the executive director of MoveOn.org Civic Action. Unfortunately, posting both in a single thread distracts from the fact that a major newspaper (albeit a Massachusetts one) is officially encouraging Warren to run.

DonViejo has posted the Globe editorial in a separate thread:

Boston Globe Editorial: Democrats need Elizabeth Warren’s voice in 2016 presidential race

[MADem]

40. No slam on the Senator, but the Globe's endorsement doesn't mean what it used to mean.

They endorsed Baker in November, which I did note in my post.

There are some who speculate that the goal is to push her into the race to get her on the defensive, and take her eye off the ball. I don't know if that's an accurate assessment, but it's as interesting as any I've heard.

Our local Dem blog, BMG, had some interesting conversation going on about the endorsement as well:

http://bluemassgroup.com/2015/03/globe-initiates-full-court-press-to-get-elizabeth-warren-to-run-for-president/

What is notably absent from any of the four opinion pieces in today’s Globe is a realistic assessment of the downsides for Warren of tossing her hat in the ring. All of the pieces assume that Warren would be more influential as a presidential candidate than she is as a Senator. But why should that necessarily be so? Yes, she will get a lot more national press coverage, especially because if she jumped in, she’d probably see a quick bump in the primary polls that would make her appear competitive with Hillary. But much of the coverage would be on horserace nonsense, about the latest perceived gaffe, and about the latest tidbit that some RWNJ managed to dig up about Warren’s past, as it always is. A bunch more of it would be on international affairs – ISIS, Israel, Russia, all stuff that is squarely in Hillary’s wheelhouse and that is not likely to help Warren much. Relatively little of it would be about what Warren really wants to spend her time talking about, namely, income inequality and related economic issues. Query whether, as a presidential candidate, she could generate more favorable press coverage on those issues than she can if she participates in the campaign actively, but from the Senate.

And think about it: when was the last time that a primary candidate was able to direct the nation’s focus to particular issues to which he or she wanted to call attention, and actually achieve something substantive? I can’t think of one. Maybe Warren would be different. But maybe not – and if not, she likely returns to the Senate less influential for having failed than she is now. Unless she wins … but honestly, there is precious little evidence that that’s a realistic outcome.

This commenter, no HRC fan as you can see by the comments, has a similar view:

The Globe’s new-found enthusiasm for Ms. Warren further convinces me that she made the right decision by staying out of the race. To me, these op-eds primarily demonstrate the increasing irrelevance and superficiality of what was once a fine newspaper.

I like it that she can stay in office as long as she likes. I am impressed by her skill at choosing issues to focus on, and by effectively moving our party towards her positions on those issues. I find Senator Warren far more effective than Senator Clinton was. It seems to me that Hillary Clinton ran for the Senate as a stepping-stone to other pursuits. In contrast, it seems to me that Senator Warren ran for the Senate because she wanted to be a Senator.

I see a host of negatives in Ms. Warren running for President, and not many positives.

I hope that Ms. Warren stays right where she is. My enthusiasm for Ms. Clinton continues to wane as her identity as a public official separate from her husband continues to emerge.

And then, there's the All Politics is LOCAL angle:

First of all, Warren does not want to run and has never expressed an interest.

Second, she can be more effective as a senator. As a senator, she can focus on the issues that she knows best and work as a real advocate. She would not be able to do this as well as president, and the presidency also requires foreign affairs work that is simply not her forte–or her interest, frankly. She can do a lot of good building the progressive wing of the Senate, which is of great importance because Congress creates and passes legislation.

Third, if she were to run and–hypothetically–to win, then her seat would be vacant, and Baker would get to appoint the interim senator until a primary and general special election. Joe Kennedy would probably be eying the seat, and he’d be a downgrade from Warren.

That highlighted piece is a fair point, should an unlikely result occur.

Another non-Clinton fan takes a different approach:

Note that the Globe does not say that Warren should be president, or even the nominee, or that the Globe would support her if she ran.

Rather the Globe says that it would be kinda sad, or at least boring, if she or someone didn’t run against Clinton, because gosh what fun is that.

The other argument in the editorial (which represents the paper) is that her candidacy would beneficially advance her issues and “enrich the political process for years to come.”

I have no doubt there will be many causes for regret in a Clinton candidacy and presidency. That’s what lesser-evils choices do. Warren running this particular gantlet will not change that.

The image of a Presidential bid advancing an actual agenda is a civics-lesson fantasy at odds with the money-choked reality of today’s corrupted political landscape. I’m not saying it could never be possible, but not in 2016.

Want to change that? Okay, elect more Elizabeth Warrens to Congress from other states. And leave her where she can do some good.

Anyway, some good conversation with a local perspective.

[RiverLover]

41. No slam on you, MADem, but don't you think harassing EW supporters on this thread with

SEVENTEEN posts is rather trollish? From 10:11 am to 8:55 pm.

I love how Hillary people come here to trash our threads in a "safe haven" group, but say it should be ok because they "like Elizabeth" & "helped elect her" and then go on to harass members. Like that's OK. It isn't.

I'd like you to -try- to do the classy thing here & refrain from posting anymore on this thread. If you want to argue, there's the GD.

If you post again here, I will have to ban you so that the term "safe haven" has some kind of meaning. Otherwise, what the hell is the point of this group?

I know you like to have the last word, but really, don't you think you've said enough? You've already posted more than anyone else.

[MADem]

42. If you will note, most of my replies are to someone who repeatedly

insulted my character. I don't see you banning that individual, who repeatedly called me names while I refrained from responding in kind. Had that person not repeatedly impugned me, most of my replies that you are crabbing about wouldn't even be here. But hey, that's CONTEXT--and we can't have that, now, can we?

Is this a "fantasy baseball" type group, or is it a "real" group where people are honest about what's going on, here? This is not the "Warren For President" group--and I've not said one derogatory thing about her, because I LIKE HER, as I have said repeatedly. I have respected "safe haven" completely, and I rather resent your suggesting otherwise. I think she has a tremendous future, both in the Senate and on the national stage. Just because I don't think she'd succeed in a Presidential race doesn't mean I "disapprove" or "dislike" her (unlike disruptors to the HRC group, with their "Turd Way!" and "Keystone!" accusations)--and if playing the "Happy Happy Glad Glad Game" with regard to that chance is what is required here, the group is mis-named.

Perhaps you might want to petition for a name change, to Warren For President, if that's the charge of the group? That way, people like me, who think EW is just swell, who have contributed to her campaign, but who side with Barney Frank on her decision to NOT run for President, can avoid a "scolding" for daring to state what so many see as obvious?

Go on and ban me, then, if you must--I'm really starting to tire of this insistence that people be "banned" or "punished" for respectfully speaking their mind, anyway--it's impossible to have a frank conversation about what's real, and what is a pipe dream. I could see it if I came in here and called EW names, or mocked her in any way, or said rude things to the membership here, but I didn't do that--I simply discussed the article and the possible motivations behind it. POLITELY, too--in the face of personal abuse.

Nothing I said was untoward, so I'll take the "badge of honor" rather than be censored for saying nothing wrong.

Indeed, YOU can have the last word! Nice knowing you!

[MannyGoldstein]

3. And why does her organization want Warren to run? nt

[MADem]

6. I think the answer is in her article....? nt

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Do you think she played some part in getting MoveOn to

back Warren?

[MADem]

14. Maybe you should ask her. I'd guess the answer to that is YES. nt

[djean111]

4. This is the Warren group, and we know that.

Unsurprising you would stop in and remind us.

[MADem]

8. What's wrong with telling people who the person is who wrote the article?

Perspective matters. That doesn't mean it's a "bad" thing. It simply is what it is.

[djean111]

11. Again, why would you think we would not know that?

No one said it was wrong, by the way, we are just pointing out that your post is unsurprising.
No exploding heads, no hair on fire, none of the hyperbolic crap that gets flung about in other groups towards those of us who have different preferences in candidates and policies.

[MADem]

15. It was news to me--I initially thought the writer was Globe Staff.

I don't have the officials at MOVEON committed to memory--I don't think most people do.

[djean111]

17. A lot of Warren supporters signed the MoveOn petition for asking Warren to run. Familiar with

Move On. I do think other Warren supporters would have investigated as to who the author is - but then, I don't think Warren supporters just blindly accept anything. First thought for me is to read the article, and for some, first OR second thought is how to deflect from the article by saying something about the author. Different strokes and all that.

I enjoyed the article, doesn't matter to me who wrote it, as I don't let articles decide my decision making as such. I do feel kind of sad that I will never be able to summon up even the faintest twinge of an iota of enthusiasm for Hillary. But I believe you Hillary supporters have that covered!

[Demeter]

12. I took my email off her list--told her I'd be back in touch when she ran for Prez

a lamentably small incentive, to be sure, but I meant it.

I am glad that her value is recognized by the Boston Globe. They usually poor-mouth their local pols.

[A Simple Game]

24. But she is much more powerful and can get more done as a Senator. At least

that's what all the Hillary supporters tell us. Say, why don't the Hillary supporters want Hillary to run for Senator again if it is so much better than President?

I had Hillary for a Senator once, I don't want her as my Senator again or in the White House again.

[L0oniX]

25. If she ran as a republican I would vote for her.