Elizabeth Warren to 'think' about Senate run against Brown

[ProSense]

Source: The Hill

Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard law professor tapped by President Obama to set up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), said Monday she would think about running for Sen. Scott Brown's (R-Mass.) seat in 2012.

In response to a question, Warren told MSNBC that she needed to go home and think about whether to run against Brown.

"I’ve been working 14 hours a day on trying to stand this…agency up, really for more than a year now," she said. "When I go home, I’ll do more thinking then. But I need to do that thinking not from Washington."

Warren's comments on Monday mark the clearest indication yet that the liberal hero is at least thinking about running for the Senate. She has been recruited by Democrats in an attempt to reclaim the seat once held by Sen. Ted Kennedy, and a liberal grassroots group on Monday launched a campaign to convince her to run.



Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/172023-elizabeth-warren-will-consider-run-against-scott-brown

[jmowreader]

1. And if she runs against Brown, she'll show up to campaign

As opposed to the LAST time Brown ran for office...Martha Coakley seemed to think the (D) behind her name guaranteed her the seat. Even in Massachusetts, one of the five most Democratic states in the nation, that's not the case.

If Elizabeth Warren runs for the Senate she'll win, but only because she'll earn every vote she gets.

[TrollBuster9090]

3. The fact that Romney was Governor of Massachusetts and Clinton was Governor of Arkansas proves that

There is no such thing as a solid blue or a solid red state. You're right, nothing should be taken for granted.

Having said that, I would be very happy to see somebody who can make THIS argument in the Senate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

[No Elephants]

18. Martha Coakley spent the first part of her campaign against Brown (as opposed to the primary) trying

to raise money.

The DNC gave her no help, no money, no Party stars, no strategists or old hands at campaigns. The Dem running for Ted Kennedy's high symbolic seat and the 60th seat in the Democratic Caucus while hcr was still pending, no less. A woman who had never run for any federal office. A woman running againt a Koch money candidate, using Romney's campaign team.

Bill Clinton showed up here to campaign for her during the primary, which only helped her defeat a more knowledgeable and experienced potential candidate, Rep. Mike Capuano. (He lacks charisma, but at least he knows issues.)

None of the Party stars showed up to campaign for her during the general. Romney, McCain, bloody sock in the Baseball Hall of Fame Red Sock Schilling were all over Brown's campaign, like poop on Brown.

As her poll numbers skidded toward oblivion, the WH was asked over and over if Obama would be going to Massachusetts. Over and over again, the answer was "President Obama has no plans to go to Massachusetts." Toward the end, Vicki Kennedy, still in mourning, showed up at some rallies. .

Finally, with voters due to start voting at 7 a.m. on Tuesday morning, Obama decided at the last minute--preventing advance publicity--to show up Sunday night.

Was Coakley the best candidate? No. Had the DNC try to put up a better one in the primary? No. Did anyone but Vicki, not even a pol, even try to help her before Deus Ex Air Force One arrived Sunday night on next to no notice? No.

(I live in Massachusetts and this is a sore spot for me.)

[karynnj]

24. I agree that the DNC took it for granted that she would win and did little

I agree that an early appearance by Obama, where he could have laid out the stakes could really have made some unmotivated voters reconsider. He could have re-iterated that Brown was speaking to the right about being the Senator to deny the Senate Democrats a supermajority. Obama could have asked people if they want their Senator joining the roadblock Republicans emphasizing that Brown was exciting his base saying he would do just that. References to "41" were commitments to join the filibusters that have led to a broken Senate. I suspect that the Obama team may have thought such an appearance could make it seemed they were uncertain about her winning.

One lost opportunity can be seen by imagining what Howard Dean could have done if he still was the DNC head. Ignoring any argument of how he organized the party better than Kaine which I agree with, consider that if he were still DNC head, he would have been well positioned to be a Democratic star reaching out to one group completely disenchanted with Coakley and not totally happy with Obama and the Senate. Brown won with votes that were close to the votes McCain lost with in a landslide. Dean was a hero to many of the people who were questioning whether or not to vote for Coakley - with a few even suggesting a vote for Brown because they were unhappy with because the public option was not in the plan. Some were concerned that a Democrat winning the Senate seat would likely be there for life and they suggested that having a Republican there for two years who they could throw out would let them have a more progressive Senator for many years. This ignores that neither Kennedy or Kerry were run of the mill average Senators and both had an election (1994 and 1996 respectively) where they could have lost. (I really hesitated writing this paragraph because I do not live in MA - but these comments reflect what I read on left leaning blogs and DU - I will immediately concede if you say what I remember was completely not representative.)

After Coakley lost, there were comments that she told the DNC that did not need help raising money or running her race. This seemed to me like the DNC trying to deflect blame. On the first, there is NO politician I can think of that likes the task of raising money and the general election was so short that ANY time spent on that was not spent on campaigning. Even if Coakley gave them the impression she needed no help, they should have questioned it - especially given the stakes and the fact that it was the only race that they had to worry about. But she did get a little more help than you suggest.

John Kerry sent out emails to raise money for her (linking to her page which shows she accepted his offer to do so - likely implying that the DNC argument that she turned down money is not likely) and he was there on the night of the primary before returning to DC for the marathon votes that led to vote - I think on Christmas Eve that passed Health care. He did speak in Boston one morning when no votes were scheduled on what was gained in the health care bill for MA - countering the arguments that Republicans were using to say that MA, which already had its own HCR, got nothing. (He was given less media than Guilliani when he was there - indicating the media bias.)

He was not there in early January, because he was in the hospital for a hip replacement, though he met with people in the Haitian community after the hurricane about 1 week after surgery and did a few rallies for her the next week - likely long before his doctor would have wanted, but I would bet his audiences were filled with people already voting for her.

Bill Clinton was also there in the general election before Obama, but in both their cases, it may have been too late in what turned out to be an intensely nasty campaign. It might have been a case that in December, the Republicans succeeded in negatively characterizing her - making it hard for the dropped in appearances of Clinton and Obama to actually win many voters.

I think you hit it on the nail in speaking of Coakley spending time fundraising.

[No Elephants]

33. Karynnj, much as I value your agreement, I never said the DNC took it for granted that she would win

Indeed, her poll number went down fairly rapidly and quite far soon after she won the primary. I cannot imagine a sane politician taking it for granted that she was going to win. And that's before we even get to Koch money, Romney, McCain, Guiliani, Schilling and others propping up Brown.

"I suspect that the Obama team may have thought such an appearance could make it seemed they were uncertain about her winning."

Since when is campaigning for a Democrat by the head of the Party in a special election of that importance a sign of uncertainty? And, even if it were, so what? He had very high poll numbers then. An early appearance and then another later on would have made a big difference.

Some were concerned that a Democrat winning the Senate seat would likely be there for life and they suggested that having a Republican there for two years who they could throw out would let them have a more progressive Senator for many years.

What fool of a Democrat would assume a Republican's gaining incumbency in that seat would better the chances of a liberal getting it later, and take that risk? I am not familiar with this theory and cannot imagine anyone with the least knowledge of politics ever actually believed that. Who is the "Some" of whom you speak? And how do you know they sincerely believed this? Besides, the DNC and most of the Party today is not even inclined toward liberals. And Coakley is no conservative anyway. She has indeed been a "fierce advocate" for gays, for example.

This ignores that neither Kennedy or Kerry were run of the mill average Senators and both had an election (1994 and 1996 respectively) where they could have lost. (I really hesitated writing this paragraph because I do not live in MA - but these comments reflect what I read on left leaning blogs and DU - I will immediately concede if you say what I remember was completely not representative.)

Well, I'm flattered, but I do not have your knowledge of all the ins and outs. I really did not even start to pay attention to politics until about 2003. However, I've since heard Kennedy speak about that election a number of times.

Dissembling and disassembling Romney did give Kennedy a run for his money at first--until Kennedy, who had been used to cake walking to re-election, woke up.

What woke up Kennedy, oddly enough, was a question from a reporter after Kennedy had been saying telling the report that his (Kennedy's) and the Democrats' policies were to those of Republicans and Romney, namely, "Then why are you having such a tough time beating Romney in this race?" (Remember when reporters used to think on their feet, instead of just reading the next question?)

Kennedy was stumped into silence. When asked years later what had silenced him, Kennedy said he had been thinking, "That's a very good question. Why am I having a tough time?" Then he (and his advisors, I assume) figured out the answers and won. (My editorial: Because, yes, our policies are better than theirs, if only we stick to them.)

After Coakley lost, there were comments that she told the DNC that did not need help raising money or running her race. This seemed to me like the DNC trying to deflect blame.

Agree. DNC's alibi was not at all convincing. (And where was the WH and the rest of the Party?)

Even assuming that she did say that (and she has never struck me as arrogant and looked extremely grateful to both Vicki Kennedy and Obama when they did show up), why were the DNC and the WH and the rest of the Party not all over that race like white on rice?

It was the ONLY race going on in the country at that time and was a highly symbolic seat, as well as the 60th seat. And her poll numbers were skidding downhill like a drunken snowboarder on solid ice, while Brown was getting all kinds of help from Republicans. Excuse me, but on that race alone, Michael Steele earned ALL his salary as RNC head.

Bill Clinton campaigned for Coakley in the primary. I have no recollection of his being here during her general campaign, but I am not infallible.

As far as Kerry: Not sure how being at the primary could have helped Coakley defeat Brown. And I would be shockefd if he took sides then against his fellow Massachusetts Congressional delegation member, Capuano, who was also seeking nomination.

I was all for Capuano in the primary, but, bless his heart, he lacks charisma. Not that Coakley oozes with it, though both are likeable enough. Plus, Emily's list hit Coakley early on with over a million bucks, and many women and women's groups followed suit. Capuano, who still lives in a two family home, couldn't keep up. Unfortunately, Coakley spent all or most of her wad during the primary.)

January, esp. early January, was the pivotal time, when she was out of money and trying to raise some so she could buy ad time, etc. (Brown ads had been flooding media all along.) I think the vote was January 21, so the window was small. However, if he was having surgery, he was having surgery. I've never blamed him, anyway.

I just had the general feeling that she had been left to twist in the wind by herself--and that could not have been an accident, given the uniqueness and importance of that election. If she wasn't left to lose deliberately, then the stupidity was monumental and pervasive, top to bottom.

I have another post upthread on this, but your post sounds as though you already read it.

[karynnj]

40. Some attempts at answers

The time period I was referring to when the DNC etc seemed to be taking a win for granted was immediately after the primary - when she was in one poll 30 points ahead.

The concern that Obama was "needed" was raised by the media in various races, including when Obama campaigned for Corzine here. (Corzine was so unpopular here that there were people on the bus going from my county to the shore town that Obama and Corzine were together in who were speaking of possibly not voting - and this was a county Democrats chartered bus!)

There were some here on DU who were arguing that there could be a better long term Democrat - which amazed me at the time and always had people saying just what you did.

Clinton was at a rally the week before the election - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x15608 (the MA forum is easier to find things in - as you can still see all the threads)

I thought Kerry was at the victory rally for the primary win, but I might have misremembered (sic) that, he was there when she lost - he did not endorse anyone in the primary - just as he said he won't this time. (He had a town hall in Sommerville on HCR in September and Capuano was there - I assume Kerry could have done a town hall anywhere - so did not know then whether to take that as a low key unspoken endorsement.)

Incidentally, I found the warning after the primary win by my friend MBS incredibly on target:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=158&topic_id=15359&mesg_id=15379

[onehandle]

2. Checkbook open and ready. nt

[Exultant Democracy]

4. I would work pretty damn hard for that campaign.

[janet118]

5. Would love that campaign . . .

Warren could get nationwide support in a heartbeat. Brown is pretty popular because no one has held his feet to the fire for his schizophrenic voting record. Warren is excellent at explaining supposedly complex issues in a way that everyone can understand and she has cred for taking on Wall Street which is a very popular issue.

I live in Mass. and await her decision with bated breath.

[mzmolly]

6. ...which is why she doesn't want the job with the CFPB.

Where are all the reactionaries, now?

[chill_wind]

13. But doesn't "she have a husband !" and tenure at Harvard

and didn't want a long-term commitment to Washington, which is why she Told Barney Frank she didn't want the CFPB, beyond setting it up? And didn't a great many concur that surely had to be so, and that she "had a better job/life outside of Washington"?

Why the "reactionaries" baiting, mzmolly?

[mzmolly]

15. Why not point out that some jump to conclusions and assume the worst, without an ounce

of evidence?

It is possible there were a variety of reasons she wasn't interested in the job, isn't it? In fact, tonight, on Maddow, she said REPUBLICANS made her appointment impossible. She also pointed out that President Obama is THE reason we have a consumer protection agency.

[chill_wind]

16. It isn't clear at all that she didn't want the job.

And it was certainly never clear that she didn't want the job because she was anxious to leave Washington and return to family and career at Harvard. People had a right to react to, and to question and dispute that all-knowing, and in many cases, derisive consensus based on pretty much nothing.

And it's not any more clear now, despite your contention, that that a planned or considered Senate race was the reason she didn't want the job. We don't know when she might have begun considering it, IF she is seriously considering it.

What was always only clear is that Republican obstructionists would have never let her get appointed
by conventional means. It's not clear still that she would have refused a recess appointment.

You don't know that. I don't know that. And I take issue with the pointed baiting on this, especially when the Obama-protective rationales (as I see them from some) being pushed keep shifting as unquestioning givens.

[mzmolly]

27. Given she told friends for months she didn't want the position

I think it's pretty clear. She also said so immediately, in various television interviews when she was appointed to get the bureau up and running. You are free to feign a bizarre Obama conspiracy to keep Warren from heading an agency she created and envisioned, if you like.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/18/995872/-Elizabeth-WarrenI-never-wanted-the-chairmanship

[No Elephants]

20. LOL! Posted by the one who jumped to conclusions in Reply #6.

I love irony.

[mzmolly]

26. How so?

She's been toying with a senate run for sometime. She said Republicans are the reason she's not heading the Consumer Protection Bureau. I don't think I jumped to conclusions. I waited for information, as is contained in the OP.

[No Elephants]

28. She's been toying, or people have been suggesting one to her of late? And, yes,

you jumped to the conclusion that a senate run was why she did not want to remain head of the agency.

It's quite possible that her not wanting to remain at the agency for 5.5 years, which she said some time ago, and her considering a Senate run are two totally independent things.

Unless you are psychic (and I believe some people really are), you really have no way of knowing why Elizabeth Warren or anyone else makes any decision unless she or he says so. And even then....Sometimes the person in question doesn't know all of his or her motivations as well as DUers purport to know someone else's.

That you do not see that, even after having had it pointed it out to you, is perplexing.

[mzmolly]

30. I suggested it was likely, partly why. Given she has said for months she didn't

want the position, I'm guessing my so called jump to conclusions is more relevant than yours?

"Elizabeth Warren - I never wanted the chairmanship"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/18/995872/-Elizabeth-WarrenI-never-wanted-the-chairmanship

I've watched Warren say more than once, that she wasn't interested in heading the bureau. She said this from the time of its formation. I have no idea why those who pay attention, would believe she was being dishonest.

[chill_wind]

35. No. You made a simple statement of fact. And then proceed to bait

by invoking the shine of it for all the "reactionaries" to come and see.

I've stayed away, for my own part, from hard assertions either way that I could read Elizabeth Warren's mind. or unlike so many, putting words directly in her mouth.

I have instead mainly been pointing out the fallacies in the arguments that it began and ended with a quote way back to Barney Frank. People that pointed out that, whether it was known or not if she may or may not have changed her mind since Frank's remarks last September, what WAS known was that Barney Frank and 89 Dem lawmakers DID urge Obama by letter to recess her in and stayed in session in hopes of that, among whatever else reasons. People here were actually called LIARS and for pointing that out.

I "feint" nothing. To this day I do not know what her final desire and thinking was, and you cannot pretend you do, either. She had a very good opportunity to lay that out last night on Maddow and plainly say it, when asked about it: "On behalf of myself and for those still questioning why President Obama didn't appoint me, let me end the confusion. of hell-bent destructive Republicans and regardless of Washington speculation, I did not want a permanent role."

She did not. She rightfully credited Obama with his support for the agency. She talked about the Republicans obstructing her all they way. She never once said I would have refused the appointment, even if recessed.

And unless I've missed it - somebody correct me- neither has Obama corrected the the speculation by saying "Elizabeth Warren always made it clear to me that she would not serve beyond this phase. I would have supported her all the way for the job. She would have made a superb appointee but THAT is respectfully why I did not ask her to take this job. Next question."

Whatever the case, I don't think conspiracy thinking is required- at all - to see that Obama seems very loathe to certain of these kinds of gridlock battles. Dawn Johnsen is a very good living example of that. I resent the continued condescension and the usual baiting all over the place right now that a clear case has been proven about any of it in her own simple words. It hasn't.

[mzmolly]

36. Did I?

What a shame. :nopity:

1. Elizabeth Warren said from the beginning of the CPB formation (in several televised interviews) that she didn't want to head the agency. However she stated that she would help get it off the ground.

2. She reportedly told close friends repeatedly, that she didn't want the job.

3. She also told friends that she was considering a Senate run.

FYI - I'm drawing conclusions based upon credible information. Unlike many of the "reactionaries" here who speculate out of thin air, daily.

Lastly, I don't think the President should waste his time correcting every BS rumor that floats about on liberal or conservative blogs. Elizabeth Warren said for months, HERSELF that she wasn't interested in the position. That should be enough.

[chill_wind]

43. Didn't you? There was no "likely, partly why" or even maybe.

I believe I read yesterday one of the msm reports here that when press tried to contact WH to extract quotes on the speculation that she was being passed over, as the press very often do, WH declined to comment. If ASKED, it would have been a very easy notion to correct.


Instead, I guess we will just have to take Chuck Schumer's final word on it, then. "She never wanted the job!!"

Oh wait--

Well, the White House dropped consideration of Elizabeth Warren because the Republicans in the Senate said they will not let her pass. Period,” Schumer said. “Even were the President to try a recess appointment, they wouldn’t allow the Senate to recess. So the President was just facing reality when he said that he couldn’t nominate her because she never would have been approved. Forty-four senators I believe signed the letter; 44 Republican senators that wouldn’t allow her to come.”

http://www.politickerny.com/2011/07/17/schumer-says-obama-just-facing-reality-on-warren-nomination/

Obama dropped consideration because of the pukes. Arm twisting to try to break the gridlock (Collins, Snowe? who else perhaps?) wasn't mentioned as a plan. Maybe they tried.

They aren't going to want anybody she recommended, either.

GOP to Block Obama Pick Cordray, Leaving Consumer Watchdog CFPB Toothless

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/07/19/gop-to-block-obama-pick-cordray-leaving-consumer-watchdog-cfpb-toothless

I look for other things other than thin air arguments, myself. We are never going to see this in the exact same manner. I question the official authority of some of the DU insistence that she did not want the job. You do not. It doesn't give you the right to bait or condescend. I have nothing else to add to that.

[mzmolly]

49. I'm going with Warren's statements vs. a partial, politically motivated quote by Chuck Schumer.

Thanks anyhow.

"Frankly, on her behalf, I talked to David Axelrod earlier this year, and I said, 'You know, Elizabeth doesn't want a full five year term. She'd like to set this up,'" said Frank. "She told me that, and I told Axelrod that." ~ Barney Frank

Here's more on her potential Sentate run:

"Warren is a professor at Harvard Law and is said to be interested in running against Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown. Brown claimed the seat of the late Ted Kennedy in an upset victory two years ago, but will have to stand for a full term next fall. Schumer, who guided the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to big victories in 2006 and 2008, was recently seen dining with Warren in Washington. Asked today whether Warren would make a good candidate, and whether he had discussed the possibility with her, the senator was unusually reticent. “I have had conversations with Elizabeth Warren on a whole variety of subjects but I’m going to keep those to myself,” he said."

[mvd]

42. Yes.. She would have never had such speculation (top pick) if she didn't want it

I can buy the argument that she didn't want to go through the rigorous process. And she'd be a very worthy Democrat to be the next Democrat in Kennedy's seat.

[chill_wind]

45. Typing correction for clarity:

(what she could have responded when Maddow asked)

"On behalf of myself and for those still questioning why President Obama didn't appoint me, let me end the confusion, regardless of hell-bent destructive Republicans and regardless of Washington speculation, I did not want a permanent role."

[mzmolly]

51. If you'd have paid attention to previous comments on Maddow

by Ms. Warren, you would be aware that she said from the outset "I'm not interested".

[mvd]

55. IMO

Warren would have flatly refused if she had no interest. I believe she was waiting to see if it was worth holding out for, or if she could do better elsewhere.

[JDPriestly]

48. Listen to the Rachel Maddow interview.

Unlike some in D.C., Warren believes in making policy changes that will help the middle class, not just the rich.

Watch this lecture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

Hoping the link is good. It is a lecture by Elizabeth Warren at UC Berkeley on the coming crisis of the middle class. It is and was spot on. She is brilliant and compassionate beyond belief -- and would be the best president in our history if elected.

[reformist2]

57. I wish everyone would mail their friends that lecture of hers!

It's the most cogent analysis of what's happened to the middle class that I've ever seen.

It's long, but it is so worth it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

[JDPriestly]

60. I e-mailed it to three people so far.

[No Elephants]

19. You know this how? She dropped you a note? Gave you a call?

[mzmolly]

31. She said she wasn't interested in a permantent leadership position at the CPB, for months

in various interviews.

[JDPriestly]

47. Please note that on Rachel Maddow last night, Elizabeth

Warren made it very clear that she wanted the job but that the Republicans would not allow her to have it.

[chill_wind]

56. "I want to be clear, the reason I cannot run this agency is because of those people."

(Senate Republicans).

Schumer: There would have been a Senate stalemate. The Senate Republicans would not have let her pass.

So the President was just facing reality when he said that he couldn’t nominate her because she never would have been approved. Forty-four senators I believe signed the letter; 44 Republican senators that wouldn’t allow her to come.”

http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/75121/schumer-says-obama-%E2%80%98just-facing-reality%E2%80%99-on-warren-nomination/

[mzmolly]

59. I saw the same show. She simply stated that Republicans are where

any blame is to be placed. Perhaps she declined an offer because she didn't want to be a distraction?

[BeliQueen]

7. If she did...

I would move to Massachusetts just so she could be my Senator. :-)

[No Elephants]

29. We'll leave a light on for ya!

[JDPriestly]

8. Elizabeth Warren would win hands down.

In fact, she could be president for the asking.

She communicates well.

She communicates that she understands complex data, events and relationships.

She communicates that she cares.

She would make a great president -- or at least a great Senator.

In fact, Obama should fire Timothy Geithner and hire Elizabeth Warren as his Secretary of the Treasury.

(I know. He is far too sold out to do that. Sigh.)

[mzmolly]

10. I agree.

:hi:

[Volaris]

12. Agreed, Timmeh!!! is one of the Wall Street, Wile E. Coyote Super-Geniuses

that got us into this mess, and here's my take on all THAT...

lets say that the economy is like air travel...

If an airplane falls out of the sky, and all the planes are grounded until I find out what went wrong and get it fixed, I am going to hire a bunch of really smart people who all possess a really deep knowledge about how airplanes stay in the air...IF my goal is to put everything back the way it was before the crash. On the other hand, if my goal is to make long distance travel more efficient than it was, maybe I'm considering moving in the direction of high-speed rail, INSTEAD OF AIRPLANES....

This is what happened when the President kept Bernanke and hired Geitner. These are men who fundamentally understand the economy AS THEY HELPED BUILD IT, so who better to put it back the way it was (to put the planes back in the air, so to speak)? Our problem with this (as Liberal Progressives) however, is that NONE of these guys know the first damned thing about how to build (or run) the RAILROAD we want; they were ordered to put the planes back in the sky.

Liz Warren knows about (and seems very much to like the idea of) TRAINS.

And as an aside, I've come to the conclusion that being upset about this is like being pissed at a rattlesnake for having poison in its teeth. I understand that poison is the NATURE of that creature, and it serves the snake well for its intended purpose. Not being pissed at the snake, however, should NOT EVER be confused with me being dumb enough to PUT THAT RATTLESNAKE IN THE BABY'S CRIB. THAT action is the idea that was sold to the Tea Party as a GOOD idea (by a bunch of OTHER rattlesnakes, apparently), and now that kind of dumb is starting to manifest itself in the House GOP caucus.

The problem with this is that the series of events that are to follow, are pretty easily predictable to those who understand the nature of rattlesnakes.

[chill_wind]

14. She would be FANTASTIC. n/t

[No Elephants]

21. I believe she would make a far better Treasury Sec. than Timmeh.

Also certain she would make a far better Senator than the Brown turd. What worries me is whether she'd make a better candidate for Senator than the Brown turd.

As for her communication skills, they are professorial, great for people with minds and attention spans, not necessary political.


Few things would make me happier than to find my worries unfounded. I got too used to Kennedy and Kerry, to ever accept Brown.

[karynnj]

25. I wonder though if she could campaign by starting where Brown is weakest

The Democrats have made an issue of Brown not having a town hall. I suspect that is why Kerry had 5 this year - 6 if you call the phone "townhall" with ARRP that Brown missed because he was busy preparing for his less than 10 minute Senate speech, where he managed to sound somewhat incoherent reading a prepared speech. (The latter suggests his staff actually thinks his incoherence is charming or "real". )

From the times that Warren has been on various talk shows, she seems very comfortable answering questions. It would be interesting if she started to campaign setting up townhalls, starting in the liberal/intellectual areas where she is most comfortable, than continuing in some place like the Berkshires - blue, but not Boston. (Obviously, she would need to study some issues - like foreign policy, but I would bet that she has strong opinions that are well thought out about most things.) The skills needed to be good at town halls are likely not far from the skills needed to be a good professor.

Not to mention, it would be hard to characterize the candidate taking questions regularly from citizens as aloof and elitist, while ignoring that Brown refuses to even take questions from reporters most of the time. (Yes, I know the same could have been said of Kerry and Bush, but the difference is that the US was far too big for Kerry to have actually been seen by enough people with their own eyes to counter the media driven images of him and Bush. )

I also think that Warren could paint Brown as the Senator who ALONE made the taxpayer put money aside to pay for the next "TARP" rather than allowing the bill to pass as it was with the institutions that might need it paying for it via a tax. (The tax would also cause them to be more prudent in their practices because it would give a greater weight to cost to all institutions of risky investments.) If the tea party was really independent of party, this alone should have made Brown less popular with them than any Senator - including Bernie Sanders.

[No Elephants]

32. Maybe.

She knows her stuff--or will admit immediately when she doesn't--and she is a prof. No reason on earth she would be uncomfortable answering questions.

That is not my worry. My worry is, will people listen? And appreciate her? And be stirred and inspired by her/ Bear in mind, while Massachusetts has indeed been a blue state, most voters are actually registered Indie.

Think of Kerry, a wonk in almost every relevant area, debating an intellectually inferior Dummya. Kerry knew so much that he would qualify everything he said, interrupt his own sentences to go off on a tangent, etc.

I can diagram sentences, but, when he spoke during that campaign, my mind started to wander. Didn't matter for me. I was going to vote for him, even if he spoke gibberish for a year. But, I'd want to shake him because I felt, if he was losing me, he was sure losing an undecided.

I maintain to this day, though, that, had Keryy spoken in simple sentences, he would have gotten enough votes to win, even with machine tampering. Instead, Dummya got more of a favorable audience reaction from "Need any wood?" than did Kerry with scholarly, albeit dense, explanations of complex points.

Now, that is not Warren's style. She can and does finish a sentence in under six minutes. However, you get my point. (BTW, I noted great improvement in Kerry after that election.)


Can she bob and weave, or is straightforward her one suit? Can she toss out memorable one line zingers, like "He was for it before he was against it?"

How about one line humorous remarks? (I saw her on The Daily Show, but don't recall her displaying any humor.) Can she make up slogans as she goes along?

Can she eviscerate Brown, if necessary? Can she drive points home by pounding the lectern ala JFK? Can she be as slick as Slick Willie? And so on. And, if she can't, will she stir Massachusetts out of re-election an incumbent?

And I portraying a caricature of a politician? Maybe. But I think I am also hitting on the kinds of things that drew voters to some of our more charismatic pols, like FDR, the three Kennedy brothers and Bubba.

Maybe the best thing would be someone charismatic and clever, like Teddy Kennedy, giving her a solid introduction before she speaks, pointing out her good points and telling people that, while she may seem like a professor, she is really a bull dog who will fight for the little guy until everyone else says "uncle."

[JDPriestly]

39. Elizabeth Warren is from Oklahoma. She has just a bit of southwestern

charm and common sense. Her intelligence is not an impediment.
Ordinary Americans will identify with her biography and her toughness.

Mind you. I really liked Kerry and worked very hard for him, tabling every week at the local farmer's market. In the last couple of days before the election, I walked three Los Angeles precincts -- three, talking to voters and hanging GOTV notices on doorknobs.

But Kerry was a prep school graduate and it showed. He was aloof and seemed to have a habit of imitating his prep school professors.

Elizabeth Warren is intelligent, but she has a great smile, a natural, nurturing smile. You get the feeling that she is really down-home and just like you when she talks.

I think she would go over especially well with professional and working and middle-class women who would see the struggle she has had in her life and identify with her.

[JDPriestly]

38. Warren is from Oklahoma. She is not just an airy intellectual.

She knows small town, southern, midwestern America a lot better than Obama does. She will appeal to working people because she is clearly a caring person.

The Republicans and the bankers treated her very badly. They should be ashamed.

But that will make Elizabeth Warren all the more popular. She really is a champion of the people. I think she would do quite well in a Senate race and could give Obama a fight for the nomination.

Obama does not understand consumers', finance, just how Wall Street and the banks have harmed ordinary Americans. Obama does not understand economics or the role of demand in the economy.

In fact, recently, Obama talks as those he has complete wandered over to the darkness of supply-side economics. His field is international affairs. I think that is what he majored in as an undergrad.

I wonder sometimes how good he is at math. Elizabeth Warren understands numbers but also understands and has a lot of empathy for people.

And Elizabeth Warren has integrity and has not sold out to anybody. She is sincere and you know it.

[JDPriestly]

50. Warren is a real lawyer, not just someone with a law degree

who kind of went through the motions.

That means that she has learned to think analytically. The wonderful thing about Warren is that she not only can think analytically so well, but that she is also compassionate. On top of that if you listen to this lecture, you will learn that she really knows the situation of the American middle class today, the struggle we are all going through, and has compassion for us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

Elizabeth Warren also has a positive attitude and is hardworking.

Elizabeth Warren would be a great president, in my opinion.

[JDPriestly]

37. I think you are wrong about her communication skills.

She has raised at least one child I believe. She knows how to explain things in simple terms.

And people will love her because she is a very midwestern, southern woman. She knows how to charm. Her biography is more similar to the biographies of ordinary American women than is Obama's.

She is from Oklahoma, took a hiatus in her studies because of a marriage at a fairly young age. She has a great story in that she was a good student and won a debate contest at the age of 16 and achieved professional success through hard work and against the odds.

Compared to Elizabeth Warren, Obama had a childhood of privilege.

[karynnj]

41. Many people have raised small kids and are not good at speaking in simple terms

I know - I am one of them. I raised 3 daughters.

A better argument is that she is outstanding in explaining things in the forums that we have seen her in. I agree with what No elephants is saying because he is saying it as a possibility. In addition, he is not speaking of what is usually referred to as communications skills - as you see from his comparison of Bush and Kerry. Kerry's answers were completely articulate, but he spelled out every caveat and exception. Bush was often incoherent in his answers. I suspect that part of the reason Kerry was more precise and exceptionally detailed was because of the way the media was parsing his answers. If he simplified an answer, there was an excellent chance that the Republicans would have tried to call him on it - twisting it into a mistake. Bush had no such worry as the media really brushed off anything he said - including that he did not really care if he got OBL! (Imagine if Kerry had said that - the noise machine would have been deafening.)

It is not clear that Warren can speak in the sound bite mode.

[Tx4obama]

9. K&R n/t

:kick:

[TomCADem]

11. Democrats Have Been Pushing Her To Run For The Past Few Months

But how is she going to compete with the millions of corporate blood money that would be poured into the Scott Brown campaign?

[JDPriestly]

52. That's where town halls come in. She is really kind and sweet by

nature, and Republicans could not throw here off.

Her stance on the problems of the middle class would overcome the lies and Republican propaganda.

She is genuinely modest, outgoing and extremely knowledgeable (needless to say she is brilliant) but also quick to apologize if she is wrong.

[No Elephants]

17. This will not be popular here, but I wonder if winning public office from a popular pol will be her

strong suit?

Public speaking? Sloganeering? Bending the truth? Charming folks, whether you find them repulsive or not? Sucking up?

For all I call him the Brown turd, many found him charismatic, including our fawning local media. And no, he does not have anything like her brains, but do vpters fall over themselve for wonks?

Does she deserve to beat him? Without a doubt. Can she? I don't know. If she runs, I hope so, but I think a hot looking former Red Sock or Patriot, if we could find a Dem among them, would have a much better chance.

[MBS]

22. I agree with you

She's a very smart and worthy person, and she absolutely should have been head of the consumer bureau (and, yes, she was robbed), but I just don't see her as a viable Senate candidate.
After the Coakley fiasco (don't get me started on that non-campaign --correctly dubbed "political malpractice"), we just HAVE to put someone up with the political savvy and the will to FIGHT for this seat.

We do need someone with charisma. But surely we shouldn't have to turn to the Red Sox or the Patriots. What about simply a good, qualified, experienced politician that also has the Gift? SETTI Warren is my guy.
See this interview on Blue Mass Group:
http://bluemassgroup.com/2011/07/setti-warren-solid-on-jobs-deficits-health-care-soft-on-mars/

[JDPriestly]

54. Elizabeth Warren has more charisma than Obama, a lot more.

That is because she is genuine (sincere) and alive.

[JDPriestly]

53. She is utterly charming.

Women especially would identify with her.

This is here at, I suspect, her nerdiest, yet she remains humble, interesting and alive.

Not only that, but is talking about things that every middle class voter in American knows instinctively are true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

She would be talking about things that are absolutely familiar to everyone, ordinary things -- and explaining why they are as they are and suggesting what to do about it.

I think that people would really love her. She was great on Jon Stewart's show.

She teaches law students, and that means she can explain complex things to people who are very busy. She is probably very good at coining phrases.

Watch the lecture. She uses practical metaphors that anyone can understand.

She is not the ivory tower professorial type that Kerry was.

In fact, she is a lot more down-to-earth in her presentation than Obama even though she is talking about, God forbid, numbers and statistics.

[karynnj]

23. Brown was uniquely responsible for weakening the bill that she gave strength to

The Democrats needed a 60th vote to get pass the filibuster. Brown, after saying he was on board, extracted as his price things like getting the $19 billion for the fund for future bailouts from the returned TARP money (ie US taxpayer money) rather than via a tax on the financial entities that will be insured because of it. Brown actually insured that US taxpayers are prepaying a future bailout.

It is ironic that the tea party that catalogs the TARP bailout in their litany of sins seems curiously unaware that this "prepayment" on the next TARP can by attributed to one Freshman Senator - their darling Scott Brown.

To the working class voter, who see in Brown, someone who came from where they are - this should be a huge issue. At a point where Brown filibustered extending unemployment insurance and filibustering TANF and a summer jobs program in a deep recession he was willing to give $19 billion for "insurance" for the big financial institutions that were raking in record profits and paying huge bonuses to their CEOs. Any of these people who think Brown represents them, need to rethink who he really is working for. It is not for a person like the young Scott Brown, who benefited from the very type of programs he voted against.

Brown's "goodies" for holding Dodd/Frank hostage are probably more likely to become an issue if Elizabeth Warren runs against Brown - even if she does not become the nominee. (Not to mention, on financial issues of any kind, imagine the debate between Warren and the mostly incoherent Brown - though the same might be said of other possible nominees.)

[mvd]

34. She has the intelligence and charisma to win. And..

she has time to learn the political ropes. She would definitely fight for this seat.

[Yavin4]

44. Checkbook and Pen at the Ready!

She'll get $200 on the day she announces.

[JDPriestly]

46. I think that Issa's desperate attempts to blacken Elizabeth Warren's reputation

prove how much they fear Warren as a candidate.

She is just the kind of woman who would appeal to other women and to independent voters.

[Scurrilous]

58. Kick

:thumbsup:

[Kingofalldems]

61. Kick this one