Boston Globe's Editorial Board calls on Warren to run for President.

[merrily]

Last edited Thu Apr 2, 2015, 10:25 AM - Edit history (1)

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

For those of you who may not know, the Boston Globe is to Massachusetts as the New York Times is to New York, but perhaps without the same level of national and international awe as the NYT enjoys (or enjoyed). Some years back, the NYT acquired the Globe, so it's not even analogy level anymore. Both those papers were once very liberal, but have become less so.

The Globe is still far more liberal than its chief competitor, the Boston Herald (which Murdoch once owned).

Enjoy.

Edited to add: To clarify, the NYT did acquire the Globe, but has sold it. Tip of the hat to Fla Dem.

[Jefferson23]

1. Excuse me, but has any other newspaper called for Warren to run?

wow!

K&R

[merrily]

2. I don't know. I live in Boston.

Mr. Google might know though.

It's by the entire editorial board, too, not only something that appears on the editorial page. I am not sure what the difference is, but it seems cool.

[Jefferson23]

3. I think this is a first, but could be wrong. The entire editorial board, very interesting

development. Warren being asked to run after she said no, how many times? hmmm

Perhaps she ends up standing by her claims, but what is important here is that
her voice on issues seems to be compelling others to continue with their pleas
for her to do otherwise..very telling.

Thank you for posting it.

[merrily]

4. My pleasure. I thought this group would enjoy it.

Glancing at this forum, River Lover and other posters have been doing a great job of showing who all is calling for her to run.

[ellennelle]

5. um

you do realize this editorial is well over a week old, do you not? you do realize in just the past day or two, she said flatly she is not going to run, do you not?

folks were all excited about this on the 21st of march when it ran, but she has put the kibosh on it.

carry on.

ps. is it too much to ask of folks to check first the dates of whatever it is they are posting, and then perhaps if it has been posted here before? truly appreciate the sentiment; i'm in MA and would dearly love liz to run, but no need for this to run so late; it's a dead story now.

[Jefferson23]

6. Thanks..I did not check the date of the OP. n/t

[merrily]

11. Don't worry about the date of the article. Warren has said many times she is not running.

Her lawyer has even written the FEC. This week, she added, give Hillary a chance to lay out what she is running on.

I know of no reason to count the most recent time more than the rest, nor did the "gracious" ellennelle state one.

[Jefferson23]

27. No worries, I hear what you're saying. I should have checked the date though..as the

impression I had was the newspaper decided to call her to run after her last no.

Thanks, merrily.

[merrily]

7. Thanks for snarky condescension. However, this is not LBN and she's been saying she will not run

for a long time, including "flatly." (By that I mean, saying "I am not running and will not run, as opposed to only "I'm not running.&quot

I am sorry if it's a duplicate. I did take a fast look and did not see another thread on it. (Still don't, though I saw a thread about an OP Ed, this is different.) However, judging by Jefferson's reply, some people haven't seen it yet anyway.

is it too much to ask of folks to check first the dates of whatever it is they are posting,

I knew the date, but again, this is not LBN.

Is it too much to ask that, if you have something to say to me, you drop the superior attitude and simply say it? It's not as though I stole your lunch out of the company fridge. I simply posted something positive about Warren in the Warren group because I thought people here would enjoy it.

Wait. According to your profile that was your first post in this group?

[RiverLover]

8. "I simply posted something positive about Warren in the Warren group."

And we thank you!

Their endorsement is a huge deal to many people.

[merrily]

10. You're more than welcome RiverLover.

[Divernan]

9. Ummm backatcha! Don't be such a Debbie Downer!

I missed the story a week ago and think it is well worth posting again. This is often the case for DUers who have busy/complicated lives - many times a story/report is posted but happens to sink before making it to the greatest page.

You claim you're "in MA and would dearly love liz to run", but you ridicule someone for posting a VERY significant development. Can we say cognitive dissonance, boys and girls? Look up the term "groundswell".

Following your logic-for-posting, there would always and only be one OP allowed for any development. Such as no more posts on HRC's private emails, no matter what surfaces. Come to think of it, that's the standard approach of the Clintons. Deny until you're forced to admit something, and then minimize it by claiming it's "old news."

[merrily]

13. Cognitive dissonance. Her first post in the Warren forum is to lash out at me for posting

a link to the Boston's Globe's editorial board calling for Warren to run?

Sounds like the oft-repeated Third Way Manny line: " SHE IS NOT RUNNING!"

[RiverLover]

12. "but she has put the kibosh on it." So before their endorsement she said she would run?

Reality check, we want her to change her mind, & there is still time for that.

Please see:
The sudden surge of Third Way tactics to take down the draft of Elizabeth Warren for President
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12653221

We see you.

[Divernan]

17. Agreed. Should HRC's candidacy never materialize, or stumble/self-destruct

before the primary, it's important to get the word out far and wide about what a powerful and personable candidate Elizabeth Warren would be. In addition to the myriad potential bombshells of all those emails HRC attempted to deep-six, but which may be produced at any time by the senders, receivers or hackers of same, there's the whole issue of HRC's health history, both the known episodes and the unknown. Warren is dynamic and energetic and looks to be in good physical condition. HRC? None of the above. This is not about physical attractiveness; it's about health history, physical fitness and personal energy level and being able to handle the demands of the campaign trail and the Oval Office.

I'm close in age to both women, have MANY female friends in that age bracket, and many of us have to struggle to keep our weight under control (Damn you, Cadbury Easter eggs!) That would be a lot easier if I could afford a personal dietician, a physical fitness coach and the latest high tech exercise equipment. HRC has the financial resources to avail herself of every possible method to maintain a healthy weight. So why is she an unhealthy, obese, size 18? Obesity is an abnormal accumulation of body fat, usually 20% or more over an individual's ideal body weight. HRC is at least 50% over her ideal weight. Obesity, as we all know, is associated with decreased energy levels and increased risk of illness, disability, and death.

When she left the SOS office and pretty much disappeared from public view for months, I expected her to make a gargantuan effort to get herself back in a healthy physical shape in preparation for a campaign. She'd watched Bill lose a significant amount of weight, and should know what is required to do so. One explanation is that she may be on some medication which results in weight gain. Prescription drugs used for mood disorders, diabetes, high blood pressure and seizures, among others, can have that effect.

Bottom line: any candidate's health is a legitimate concern, and weight is a major factor thereof.

[Scuba]

16. You might enjoy this ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026449854

[JDPriestly]

28. She is in my opinion the Democrat most likely to win.

Let's see how the primaries sort themselves out. Hillary could find herself not running. Warren could step in. All kinds of things could happen. I firmly believe that Elizabeth Warren is the best candidate we could have, and I am sticking by her whether she likes it or not. I want a Democrat who will win the votes of people who don't ordinarily vote as well as the votes of us regulars. Elizabeth Warren is that person. She is exciting. She is humble. She knows what she is talking about. She speaks for ordinary people. She will be the best candidate. Too early for her to opt out in my opinion.

[TheCowsCameHome]

14. The Boston Herald is no competitor.

It is alternative organ written by tea party freaks and other malcontents. Pick up the paper any day and see for yourself. They make no effort whatsoever to hide their bias.

Personally, I hope Elizabeth Warren stays right where she is and continues to kick ass and take names. She is a great senator.

[merrily]

15. The Globe's wiki calls the Herald the Globe's chief competitor. I agree.

It's about dollars, not content. I thought my comment about Murdoch gave a clue as to content. However, the Herald did get an award from Editor and Publisher.

[Fla Dem]

18. The NYT no longer owns The Boston Globe

In 2013, the newspaper and websites were purchased by John W. Henry, a businessman whose other holdings include the Boston Red Sox and Liverpool F.C.

For most Bostonians, (except the RWer's) and in fact most New Englanders this was a wicked awesome event. No longer owned by a paper from NY and now owned by someone who actually cares about the region.

[merrily]

20. Thanks.

I knew that. I had even double checked wiki before posting. Unfortunately, my post gave a wrong impression anyway, by not giving complete into about that point. I should have just posted the link!

Thanks again for clearing it up.

I am going to edit the OP so it doesn't mislead anyone who may look only at the OP.

[Fla Dem]

26. No prob.

[djean111]

19. The fact remains that nothing Warren says will make HRC more acceptable or palatable. To me.

And, really, if some DUers can post "Warren says she is not running" umpteen times in GD, ALWAYS meant as a jeer, IMO, in the spirit of Rahm calling liberals retarded and also saying who else they gonna vote for - then an extra posting of something positive about Warren is always nice for me to read in the Warren Group.
So, thanks!

[merrily]

21. Do you have any thoughts about why they think it so important to kill any hope of a Warren candidacy

To stop some DUers from continuing to support a draft?

People with so much more influence than we have are supporting a draft and their numbers have not lessened with each denial, but continue to increase. So, what's so important about raining on the parade of a subset of DUers they say she can win the general without?

[djean111]

22. Part of it is, and all of this is IMO, sheer hubris. Which may have been the HRC is inevitable

problem the first time around. The hubris is very off-putting and makes me ponder just what is it to be a Democrat these days. That hubris sometimes translates into them coming into this group to lecture and scold.

Also - for some reason - IMO, of course - the Third Way seems to have fallen into the trap of considering Warren's personality the only important thing about her - to voters. Obviously they feel threatened by her ideas, or they would not have penned that childish rant in the WSJ, whining that Warren was getting out of hand. The sheer fucking arrogance of that is another thing that has made me question what being in the Democratic Party means these days.

The banks have been breathtakingly open about not wanting to give any Dems money if Warren is not stifled. So, trying to squash mention of her by supporters might be one way that the Third Way hopes to marginalize her.

I think the sudden enthusiasm for O'Malley has something to do with that Look! There's a kitten! trick - but O'Malley, I think, is just angling for VP, and whatever liberal stances he has will be soon forgotten.

Another thankfully brief test balloon was, I think, seeing if floating the idea of Warren as VP would help make HRC more palatable to Warren supporters. Um, nope. That would just marginalize Warren. That would be astoundingly fake and cynical.

Then there is the attempt to gloss over HRC's Wall Street and corporate ways with references to her stances on some social issues, as if we were required to TRADE economic issues away in order to keep social gains. As if social issues were not supposed to be the assumed bedrock of being a Democrat.

The hysterics over SCOTUS and "sticking together" are other feints by the HRC camp. I think it hilarious, the transparent We must all unite! Right the fuck now! calls to action. Um, wait until after the primaries, sweeties.
I get the feeling this was supposed to be a cakewalk that went askew. Probably would have worked better before we all learned to look up stuff on this internet thingy and only looked to slogans and bumper stickers and name recognition. And now, groups who support any candidate can easily find each other. That is a big game changer. We can look at the whole menu, not just the selected specials that management is pushing.

And then, there is Hillary's silence on "what she is running on". OMG. That means she is just going to adopt whatever the polls say will work with the voters, and will be discarded like Gasparilla Day beads and confetti, the day after the parade. Choosing campaign blather.

And then, there is the yawningly obvious thread-jacking. Here is some advice - it does not work any more. The same people jack threads with the same bullshit. Does not change anyone's mind. Really, it only leaves distaste for the hijackers, and cheapens anything they might post.

In any event, I cannot support anyone who supports the TPP/TTIP. So I just laugh at the HRC shenanigans.
Sorry if this is long-winded, but this is just stuff I have noticed.

Oh, and the raining on the parade? They are afraid they cannot win without the Warren supports, they believe it is not Warren's ideas, but her personality, that drive us, and IMO they really really wanted/want no one to contest HRC in a primary, and consider that Warren was a threat. O'Malley will just be, IMO again, a foil who will be offered VP.

Just some random thoughts, my opinion only, and I am not going to "defend" them, because there is no need to. They are my thoughts, I am not trying to tell others what to think or to herd them into a group.

[Divernan]

23. Good post - thanks. Re your SCOTUS

mention, I say that the single, most important, overriding issue to HRC's corporate/Wall Street/Big Banks/Koch Brothers backers/supporters/donors/handlers is that of SCOTUS appointments. That is the issue where the quid pro quos will come home to roost. There is no way in hell she would appoint someone without the implicit, back stage approval of her wealthy, profiteering BFFs, and quite possibly an ex parte backroom sit down with an appointee to make sure his/her judicial philosophy is in sinc with corporate profiteering.

Ya know - someone can be liberal/progressive on gay marriage and abortion rights, as long as they know which side the Clintons' bread is buttered on when it comes to issues the One Percent gives a damn about.

The SCOTUS appointments are the the sine qua non of corporate control of the U.S. economy

[djean111]

25. Exactly. I believe Hillary would appoint a corporate Jamie Dimon-approved judge,

and fill her cabinets and appointments with people similar to Larry Summers and Rahm Emanuel.

[merrily]

24. I think you may well be right about O'Malley

In fact, I would not be at all surprised if he is the anointee for that spot and was recruited to enter the race in order to get national exposure. He's younger than she is, so we have the flip side version of Obama Biden in terms of age. He's Maryland, she's NY out of Arkansas. He's "law and order" and some posters are saying he's also Third Way.

As for Webb, I think Hillary should be donating to him, as McCaskill donated to Todd Akins. He can only make Hillary look good. The only point of a primary for me would be a challenge to Hillary from her left. Otherwise, it's rigged. JMO.

As for what Hillary's running on, a WSJ article from January said she had over 200 campaign advisers already.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=394507

And her Iraq War speech is an oopsie for which, eight years later, she said was a mistake, so no point to bring it up again, right? Riiiiight. And they don't. But I do and I will.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026441003#post3

[JDPriestly]

29. Totally on board with your post. I will not give up on Warren.

She is the hope of the Democratic Party. O'Malley is a nice guy, has some good ideas but does not have the charisma of Warren.

As for the gossipy stuff about Warren -- her failed marriage, her statements about her family's race/ethnicity. Not important when viewed in light of her stands on middle class economics and breaking up the big banks (hopefully some other biggies too. After all, Roosevelt did it.) We need a fresh start on our economy. The banks really are too big meaning that very few control a huge chunk of the world's economy. That's a bad thing because a lot of smaller businesses have been pushed out and it is in the smaller businesses that see innovation. We still have innovation with internet companies, but that is close to about it. We need an economy with more possibilities for young people. And that means doing away with student debt burdens.

I could go on and on. We really, really need Warren for president. The only other potential candidate that I will support and work for right now is Bernie Sanders.