Elizabeth Warren is angry, and if she isn't running, a whole lot of trees have died in vain

[ProfessorPlum]

In her book, "A Fighting Chance", Elizabeth Warren outlines the broad path of her life and political career. But one thing rings through all of the stories of fighting for consumer protection: her anger. She is actually upset at the way that the thieves in suits who run this country have repeatedly and thoroughly screwed average people - robbed them, conned them, cheated them, all the while having their well-bribed buddies in Congress make all of the robbery, theft, and chicanery "legal".

Why? Warren has _studied_ it. She has spent years actually getting into the details of what these banksters have been pulling off and the misery they've created and the injustice they've been the architects for. And it has made her angry.

Read the book. Her righteous fury at these well-heeled cutpurses is palpable.

If she isn't running for office, I see no reason for her to have written and published the book, because it is the most eloquent expression of purpose and justification for candidacy that I've ever had the pleasure to read.

She _has_ to be our candidate, because she is just about the only person on the national scene right now who can demonstrate that she gives a damn.

[polichick]

1. She's definitely putting herself out there...

and risking her own security to do it.

[brooklynite]

10. ...and definitely making it clear that she's not running.

[polichick]

20. Nobody is running...

yet.

[brooklynite]

23. ...but only one of these prospective candidates has encouraged someone else to run.

Seriously; as I've said before, I had lunch with her a few weeks ago. I take her at her word because I don't think she's an opportunistic politician who'll say whatever's convenient at the moment.

But perhaps you feel differently?

[polichick]

25. Have no idea why she's painting that big target on her back...

But it's always refreshing to watch a truth-teller in action.

[billhicks76]

31. I'm Impressed

I admire her very much. If course I don't want her to risk her life by taking on the war establishment and I love her and what she stands for. But Hillary=Bush and that's too hard to stomach. Someone else better step up.

[brooklynite]

72. Aren't Conspiracy Theories a violation of TOS?

You're seriously suggesting Warren would risk being killed if she ran for President?

[NYC_SKP]

73. No, Conspiracy Theories are not a violation of the TOS.

They are disallowed as subject matter for OPs in most of the forums.

I worry about how many members who serve on juries understand the rules of this place.

From the TOS:

Don't go overboard with the crazy talk.

Democratic Underground is not intended to be a platform for kooks and crackpots peddling paranoid fantasies with little or no basis in fact. To accommodate our more imaginative members we tolerate some limited discussion of so-called "conspiracy theories" under the following circumstances: First, those discussions are not permitted in our heavily-trafficked Main forums; and second, those discussions cannot stray too far into Crazyland (eg: chemtrails, black helicopters, 9/11 death rays or holograms, the "New World Order," the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, alien abduction, Bigfoot, and the like). In addition, please be aware that many conspiracy theories have roots in racism and anti-semitism, and Democratic Underground has zero tolerance for bigoted hate speech. In short, you take your chances.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[billhicks76]

75. What Planet Do You Live On???

Anyone who seriously challenged the Military Industrial Complex risks assassination. It happens. Its not a conspiracy theory...Presidents risk getting assassinated. You do know 500,000 people are locked up here in the USA on purely conspiracy charges right? That isn't a 'theory'. Im so sick of Coincidence Theorists who mock the idea that powerful people with vested interests might threaten those who could loosen their grip on power and money or conspire to take someone down...corporations do it every day all over the world...they support murdering union and environmental activists and police lie all the time about people they have killed too. You obviously believe conspiracy charges should only be reserved for poor people because your brain can't handle thinking those you mistakenly put trust in who hold positions of power could ever think to commit serious crimes including murder. Goodnight Brooklyn...Im disappointed in you. Why don't you go flag someones comments you don't approve of. Pathetic.

[brooklynite]

77. I see...and "THEY" (ominous music) apparently feel that being a US Senator is a harmless hobby?

[billhicks76]

100. Why Don't You Ask Paul Wellstone

Or Hale Boggs.

[brooklynite]

102. Back in September, 3 freshmen at my nephew's college rented a plane and it crashed...

...sometimes, planes crash.

[billhicks76]

103. Yes

My friends family all went down in a private plane. But if you haven't noticed it's always Democrats or controversial republicans like john tower who went along exposing Iran Contra. Just my opinion.

[VanillaRhapsody]

111. wouldn't we need a ouija board to do that?

[billhicks76]

133. I Prefer To Think

He's with the angels

[VanillaRhapsody]

140. then how is someone going to "ask him"?

and I don't believe in angels....or unicorns or leprechauns or the chupacabra !

[morningfog]

82. Cool story!

[billhicks76]

22. Should Risk

We have heroes who risk their lives every day in this world. If you want to be leader of this country and by default planet earth then you should be prepared to be JFK'd. People like the Clinton's who want to sip champagne sitting on their cushy bank accounts in their ivory towers disgust me and are an aberration to democracy.

[polichick]

30. Tragic that ours is a "democracy" that requires a candidate...

to risk his or her life by daring to speak the truth.

[billhicks76]

33. I Know...Our Country Died In 1963

And again in 1968 when the Lazarus-like RFK tried to resuscitate it. I would bet everything I own that Bush Sr was the middle manager point man for those assassinations at the behest of BigOil, the banks and the CIA/MilitaryIndustrialComplex.

[BobbyBoring]

89. I'm sure he was too!

Lots of blood on the hands of the BFEE.

[Demeter]

90. That's true of ANY democracy

we aren't the only nation that's lost good leadership to assassins.

I'm trying to think of a supremely BAD leader who was assassinated...wasn't there a Roman emperor taken out by the Praetorian Guard, to everyone's relief?

Ah, yes, Caligula! God, I LOVE the internet! I save so many trips to the library!

[VanillaRhapsody]

2. perhaps she wants VP..

[JDPriestly]

6. If she runs, it won't be as VP.

She would have a good chance. She is a woman, and women would like to see a female president for once. This is especially true of those of us women who are over 60. We want to see women's liberation and the sacrifices we made -- working and raising children and doing it all -- prove that we are finally EQUAL.

Hillary Clinton can't give us satisfaction because she is too tied to the coat-tails of her husband.

Besides, Elizabeth Warren is the true female super-hero.

As you learn from her book, and as the OP of Professor Plum states so well, Elizabeth Warren KNOWS what she is talking about.

Elizabeth Warren is not spouting ideology. She is not a theorist.

She crunched the numbers. She did the research. She KNOWS what others never bothered to learn.

If Elizabeth Warren runs, I am on board. If she does not run and Bernie Sanders runs, then I am with Bernie Sanders.

They are the greatest hopes for our country.

We need a complete revision of our tax and bankruptcy codes, and we need someone who has crunched the numbers to lead the struggle for just a little economic justice in our country.

Yesterday, a DUer referred me to information about Brian Schweitzer of Montana. He may run for president. I don't think he could win the presidency, but he would make a good vice presidential candidate for a truly populist presidential candidate like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. He knows Arabic and has a strong background in international relations.

Yesterday I thought he would be a good match with Bernie Sanders but not with Elizabeth Warren. I thought about that and changed my mind. He would be great with either Bernie or Elizabeth.

I wish Elizabeth Warren would simply come out and say she is testing the waters to see whether she should run. Because a lot of us are waiting for her signal.

[VanillaRhapsody]

14. and you know this how?

Surprise surprise....you don't. Yoy seem to think you know her mind...yet continue to call her a liar by suggesting she IS running...even though she said otherwise and divested herself of a PAC....

[cascadiance]

36. You're ignoring the FACT that corporate interests and their beholden like you would jump on her...

... and try to use the corporate media to push her down before she got started if she were to announce now. It is WAY TOO EARLY to make any kind of conclusion that she is running or not. She moreso than Clinton has far more of a disincentive to announce she's running now, as the corporate world WANTS someone like Clinton running and not Warren. You and others here (one of perhaps I can't read their posts here since I have that person on ignore now), keep trying to make it appear to be FACT that she is not running when you are NOT GOD and don't know that. Many of us who WANT her to run and aren' PREDICTING she will run like you are PREDICTING she won't, are just doing our jobs as citizens of a democratic republic to voice our OPINIONS that we WANT her to run and represent us when so many CORPORATE Democrats don't today, that some here want to still seem to prop up in power.

Now, if you don't care for her as much and DON'T WANT her to run, and feel you have good reasons to share on why she shouldn't, that would be worthwhile to discuss, though perhaps most here would disagree with you in hopefully a healthy discussion, but to continue just hammer at people voicing their opinions that we shouldn't express our opinions because you KNOW the future that she WON'T run, is not what facilitates democracy and the spirit of what this web site should be all about!

Many of us are quite tired of people continuing to just say they continue to know reality to deny a future that in our minds is possible and desirable, instead of having fruitful discussions. We've heard it far too many times, and it isn't new information.

[VanillaRhapsody]

40. YOU my friend ARE ignoring THE fact that SHE said REPEATEDLY she is NOT running AND

she signed the letter from the Ladies of the Senate that endorsed Hillary Clinton!

I don't give a rats ass if she does win...I PLEDGE to vote for whomever wins the Democratic Primary....How about YOU?

[cascadiance]

105. Encouraging Clinton to run isn't the same thing as "endorsing" her...

Everyone wants a good field of candidates to "run" for office so that we have a good choice. Just because we want some of them to run as a sign of faith of our democracy doesn't necessarily mean someone's going to VOTE for them.

I pledge to vote for the best person that has the values I support, which are pretty much of the values of TRADITIONAL Democrats out of the times of FDR, etc. I will vote for the candidate that is LEAST beholden to corporate special interests. That in most cases is the Democrat, but in many cases we're holding our nose because the Democrat is also beholden to corporate interests, but just to a lesser degree. I don't want to have to hold my nose when I vote this way. Do you?

Hillary Clinton also REPEATEDLY has reminded us that she hasn't entered the race yet either. I basically don't frickin' care whether she or Warren have announced yet. And I think this repeated BS we who are trying to encourage someone like Warren to run to stop doing so because you somehow "know" (WHICH YOU DON'T!) that she's not running.

I just pointed out something that you and others that keep up this barrage of repeated denial to us seem to ignore that someone like Warren is LESS apt to announce or give a hint that she's running, as she is MORE LIKELY to be attacked by corporate special interests than Clinton to shut such a campaign down if she has any real plans in the back of her mind to do so. It doesn't really do her that much good to announce one way or the other now, especially before the 2014 election is done, and will likely only do her harm to announce at this point.

I'm getting tired of continuing to remind you and other Hillary propagandists of this when you continue your attempts to derail any conversations we might have on this topic.

Again, I'm NOT predicting she will run or not. But I and others here are going to continue to postulate how she could help our country by running in as many ways that we see that happening, to encourage her to run. And we're not going to be stopped by this barrage of... CRAP!

[VanillaRhapsody]

116. hahahahaha you keep telling yourself that

While calling your candidate a liar! Why would you support a liar ?

[LawDeeDah]

19. Good post. +++

Warren has dedicated her career in her specialty on knowledge of the insider money theives and the impact they have had on the rest of america. She has finally come to the point where her voice is getting more well known, everywhere. Hillary has dedicated her career to.... ???? still can't find an answer. Maybe to accumulated more money and power? Anyway, polar opposites.

[VanillaRhapsody]

41. hahahahahahahah....right....another calling EW a liar!

yeah...THAT'S a good post!

[Jackpine Radical]

66. For the tense-challenged,

"I am not running" does not carry exactly the same meaning in English as "I will not run." Neither does "I have no intention of running," or any other similar construction employing the present tense.

For that matter, "I will not run" is historically one of the more commonly violated expressions of intention.

MR. RUSSERT: When we talked back in November of ‘04, after your election, I said, “There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your full six-year term as a United States senator from Illinois?” Obama: “Absolutely.”
SEN. OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things, but my thinking has not changed.
MR. RUSSERT: But, but—so you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?
SEN. OBAMA: I will not.

[VanillaRhapsody]

67. why are you tense?

cause Hillary Clinton and her 64% approval rating sure isn't!

[Jackpine Radical]

74. Oh, my! Please be careful.

A reach like that could dislocate your shoulder.

[Veilex]

151. +1

[cascadiance]

106. She had more than double Barack's approval rating only a year out from the election too...

Why are YOU tense that you have to continue to try and shut down any discussions about Elizabeth Warren. You quite frankly make more posts in many of these threads than many of us who are EW fans do. For someone who keeps claiming that Clinton isn't worried about Warren, you sure seem to waste a lot of time on dong posts in threads like these that you are in effect claiming are meaningless. Something that makes me question you're claims that she doesn't have anything to worry about...

[VanillaRhapsody]

117. but not 64%

[Veilex]

152. That 64% you're so proud of?

Yeah that gonna plummet just as soon as election season hits.
That much is historically proven.
Enjoy it, and your wishes for a corporatist front-runner, while it lasts.

[VanillaRhapsody]

157. and so would you be if EW or Bernie Sanders could say it!

But WE Democrats are not supposed to be proud that a female Democrat does?

[Veilex]

160. "But WE Democrats are not supposed to be proud that a female Democrat does?" Straw man...

and a pathetic one at that.

What I can boast is that Bernie sanders has a 97% approval across his entire state... I challenge you to find that kind of approval rating from HRC in ANYTHING... let alone just a state.

[VanillaRhapsody]

162. but Bernie Is not a Democrat so who gives a shit about that..

Unless he beomes a Dem who cares? Certainly not 64% of the Democratic Party!

[Veilex]

165. You do, clearly. And so do a notable number of people on this website and across the US.

I bet you just hate that.
You try so very hard to marginalize him.
But, fortunately, your opinion has absolute zero impact on if he runs or not

[VanillaRhapsody]

167. no I dont YOU do..

My pledge is to the winner of the Dem Primary.....since he cannot run in the Primary without becoming one he is inconsequential to me..

[Veilex]

169. Ahhh so not only are you a corporatist...

but your a corporatist zealot. You'll blindly vote for whomever the corporations put in front of you.
You're a very good yes man.

[VanillaRhapsody]

170. nope a democrat zealot....

[Veilex]

172. Riiiight...thats why you cling to a corporatists coat tails and go out of your way to marginalize...

anyone who's nowhere near as much of a corporate sellout as HRC.

[VanillaRhapsody]

173. I cling to whomever wins the Democratic Primary...

Because I am a Democrat....just like both my FDR voting grandparents were all their lives....my grandfather was also in the CCC's...now you going to call my grandmother that because she would also support Hillary ....Indie?

[Veilex]

174. Ahhh so now you're claiming your lineage somehow confers special status to you now?

How republican of you. Fits right in with your corporatist nature... I expect you're anti-inheritance tax too aren't you.
So why don't you explain to us all how your prescience has determined that HRC is the ipso facto winner, being that not only have the elections not even occurred, but they are quite a ways away. You say you cling to whomever wins the primary... tell us all about your magic crystal eight-ball.

[VanillaRhapsody]

175. are you betting or not?

The only thing I claimed is I am a Democrat....meanwhile IT IS YOU with a crystal ball that seems to be sure 64% Hillary will fail.....sooooo are you willing to wager on your prediction since you seem to rely on your Magic 8 Ball?

[Veilex]

176. Oh no, you're not getting out of this one.

You're the one consistently going out of his way to marginalize anyone not HRC...and who insists on trying to Deify her. You're the one who's consistently stated HRC will win. YOU get to be the one to explain yourself, oh clinger-to-winners.

[VanillaRhapsody]

177. I am not asking out of anything.....but you dont seem to

Want to put money on your claims...funny that huh? Hillary is 64% odds on favorite....even Vegas would take that bet.....are you willing to bet YOUR claim?

[Veilex]

178. Stop with the "money where your mouth is" defelection blushit and answer the question...

or cease and desist your incessant pontificating that you know the outcome before its even happened.

[VanillaRhapsody]

179. IT IS deflection on YOUR part because you WON'T stand up and back YOUR claim

that she WILL Fail....and you were full on DEFINITIVE about this bogus claim....you said she WILL....so do you support that belief or not?

I happen to be willing to bet that the candidate that already has nearly 2/3 of the Democratic vote is the likely winner.....


SOOOO are you willing to back up your rhetoric or not? Do you like your odds or not?

Oh and by the way....are you saying that 2/3rds of the Democrats are ALL Corporatists because like me they also support Hillary Clinton? 2 out of every 3 Democrats feel the same....

If you think the vast majority of the party are "corporatists" why are you even ON this forum?

[Veilex]

180. As I thought...

You DONT know the outcome... so stop pretending like you do.

[VanillaRhapsody]

181. NOOOO as I thought....YOU can't!

because you know its all bullshit!

Do you believe what you said or NOT? Are you calling 2/3rds of the Democratic Party Corporatists or not????


THAT is what you called me because I support Hillary....are you going to stand here on DU to say that the majority of Dems are "Corporatists"... all 64% of them?

don't just back pedal...bring it on....cause I ain't going anywhere this evening.....I got all night!

[Veilex]

182. I, on the otherhand, refuse to waste anymore of my time with you.

The vast majority of your comments consist of childish "I know you are but what am I?!?" style responses.

You are the only one I called a corporatist. Only you. And, up until you edited your own post, you even agreed.

So, I've decided I'm done with you. I'll no longer give validation to you or your responses.

I hope you enjoy waiting at the computer, cause I'm not gonna back pedal.
I'm just gonna slam the door in your face.
Welcome to ignore... population: you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

183. runaway...AS EXPECTED!!!!

I asked you a simple question about what YOU SAID you believed....

[cascadiance]

35. Yep, if she wins she will set the template for women in the future to run for office...

that we can all, women and men (myself included) can be proud of and elect more women to office in the hopes of restoring our country to the great standing of inspiration to the world that it USED to have before the messes of recent times. Many of us had hoped that Barack Obama would set a great template for helping get more people of color elected too in the future, but his time in office unfortunately has been a mixed bag and not the pivotal figure we'd hoped for to lead us out of the mess left by Bush and the Republicans. Now he of course isn't as bad as those on the left like to demonize him to be, but he's not been the leader many of us want to stand behind on all issues like his stances on the TPP, which leaves many of us walking away in those instances. Electing someone like Clinton I fear will have the same result in perhaps not being as much of a template to help get more women elected in to office, as I'm concerned she'll be the same mixed bag or perhaps even worse with her more visible corporate stances on things that Obama has been.

As VP, she'd be losing her power in the Senate for a job that really doesn't exert much power other than being in line maybe 8 years later. We need her as president, or we need her in the Senate. Perhaps as a VP to someone like Bernie Sanders, I might buy, but then we'd lose two great voices in the Senate, with both of them old enough perhaps making it difficult to follow the other in a subsequent term.

I'd like to see her be our nominee and someone like our own Jeff Merkley here in Oregon as her running mate that would bring the west coast votes to the ticket and be the progressive partner she's always worked well with on the Senate Finance committee.

And yes, she does have a long history of understanding the plight of the middle class, and is probably the best voice for them to take power. See this video from before even Obama was elected and before she was involved with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This shows her knowledge and how she cares for Americans before that time. When I saw this before the 2008 election, I really felt she was the voice I was looking for to speak out for the plight of the Middle Class that Bush was completely screwing at that point.

[Logical]

16. Perhaps Hillary wants to be her VP! nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

18. yea the one with 64% approval rating

That is not only IL-Logical...its downright ridic!

[billhicks76]

28. BS

VP means nothing unless you're Dick Cheney pulling the puppet strings. Hillary represents the 1% in her ivory tower looking down on the serfs. I cannot wait to see her lose as she had NEVER challenged power. I feel sorry for those who put all their eggs in her basket. She is an NSA loving war hawk that has not only played footsie with the elitists but she is one all the way through. She's a let them eat cake type whose time has passed. Anyone who used to be close with Nelson Rockefeller in the early 70s right after being president of the college republicans and then decides to he a huge admirer of Henry Kissinger for the next 40 years can vanish into obscurity as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't vote for her as VP of McDonalds let alone a country in need of help like ours.

[Veilex]

32. "Hillary represents the 1% in her ivory tower looking down on the serfs."

Simply not true!... The bank owns the tower she's looking down on the serfs from.
She's bought and paid for by corporate interests and banks. They loved her in the last election:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00000019&type=I&newmem=N
They'll be expecting some favors if she should become the president.

Its also worth noting that these are only the registered contributors.
The thought of what other 1% contributors have her in their pocket is truly terrifying

[billhicks76]

34. And I Truly Wish We Were United Behind A Warren Type

I don't relish arguing with my fellow DUers and it makes me sad we don't see eye to eye on Bush/Clinton alliances.

[VanillaRhapsody]

44. and THAT is fucking Bullshit!

when have you seen Hillary palling around with either George Bush?

Or are you talking about Bill...in which case you are misogynist!

[billhicks76]

60. Wow...You Are Going Low Again

So know if we don't vote for Hillary we are misogynists? You think Im a man?

[VanillaRhapsody]

118. no if she wins the Primary and you dont vote for her

YOU are not a Democrat....that is all.

[billhicks76]

134. I'll Make Sure

I do my best to hope she doesn't win the primary because I don't think she's very much of a Democrat. But I do know who does like her : Wall St, the military, police, pro-drug war groups, conservative southern democrats, NSA, war profiteers, Monsanto, Henry Kissinger and private prison corporations. Very sickening.

[VanillaRhapsody]

136. Tough shit....its the Democratic Party that decides the Primary....not the Dem leaning Indies!

THANK GOD!

[Veilex]

150. "its the Democratic Party that decides the Primary"

Negatory bucko... With only 31% of Americans identified as Democrats and 38% as independents, I'd say independents are gonna have a heavy hand in deciding the primary... as opposed to just dems, as you'd suggest.

Nice try though.

[VanillaRhapsody]

164. uh yes...its called a Primary election and Democrats

Dont care what Indies say about it! AND so far 64% them like one of them!

[Veilex]

166. 64%... at pressent. The election quite a ways away.

And that lofty percentage is gonna go into the toilet once election season starts.
History proves that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

168. yeah you want to put money on that?

Cause I will sure take those odds..put your money where your rhetoric hole is...

[Veilex]

171. Says the master of rhetoric

[Veilex]

50. I would love to be able to vote for Warren...

but I think Sanders had the right idea, that it doesn't matter who gets picked for office if the majority of the US isn't politically active on a regular basis. Obama wanted to be the next FDR, but the political will just wasn't there. People thought that they got what they wanted with the election and then sat on their laurels and did nothing. There are momentary exceptions of course, but to get the FDR style president we'd all love to have... we must all, as a country, push for that, long past election season.

[VanillaRhapsody]

138. OH is she an Ivory Tower Fancy Pants wearing Liberal now?

they ALWAYS expect favors....you think they won't if EW or Bernie wins? OMG....some folks around here are so freaking naive...

[Veilex]

153. Nope... she's your good buddy, the corporatist.

"they ALWAYS expect favors" And you're okay with that.

Good to know.

[VanillaRhapsody]

156. if she wins the Primary... you are damn skippy

She is....cause I AM a proud card carrying Democrat and I will vote for her. How about you?

[Veilex]

158. A card-carying Democrat wouldn't be proactively proud to vote for a corporatist.

You ARE aware this is Democratic underground right?
Not Corporatist Underground?
As you tried to suggest of someone else; I think you may be in violation of the TOS.

[VanillaRhapsody]

161. This and 64% would be proud to vote for her

Regardless of bullshit Dem leaning Independents think about THAT!

[VanillaRhapsody]

159. only fancy pants latte drinking LIBERALS live

In Ivory Towers

[VanillaRhapsody]

42. DO you feel the same way if she WINS the Primary?

because IF you do....you are in TOS violation!

[billhicks76]

62. She Wont Win

TOS Violation? Call the cops...thats what you seem to be all about. I admire your loyalty but thats about it at this point. The Clintons are tight bedfellow buddies with the Bushes...that is an established fact. And Hillary's family are well connected Republicans. She was buddies with Nelson Rockefeller in the early 70s for Gods sake...she is good friends with Henry Kissinger according to her own admonition. I don't like that this is the case...I was a Clinton supporter at one point. We don't want War Hawks in our party anymore especially now that the Wars are being directed back home on our own citizens. Turning up the volume doesn't negate these facts. Whats next....flagging me again? Ill bow out while Im ahead.

[VanillaRhapsody]

63. No its just what this one is all about.....

We are Democrats here....and right now...like it or not....she has a 64% approval....over the entire rest of the pack!

INCLUDING Elizabeth Warren!

[billhicks76]

68. I Know Thats Your Mantra...64% in the polls

Its just name recognition this early and meaningless as history has proven over and over again. I wish I trusted her because I agree that without her character flaws, allegiance to wars and mass incarceration, and servitude to Big Banks and Republican Icons I actually do think she would be the best candidate to win. I like Warren for her policies and not just for her gender but honestly I would love to see a woman as President. Im not stupid though...Condeleeza Rice is Black and female but her policies are too evil for my tastes regardless of how much she likes college football. And, sadly, I see Clinton as further continuing Bush foreign policy and was representing the contingent that bullied Obama into doing the same. Im sorry but I believe a Progressive can win because people are sick of this crap. I know the game is rigged but Im not caving. And you will watch that 64% nosedive quickly if a good candidate appears. The Democratic Party has shot itself in the foot by focusing so much on one candidate this early. Not smart politics.

[VanillaRhapsody]

69. Its not a mantra...its a FACT!

[billhicks76]

70. Not Clinging To 2014 Polls About 2016

Bush Sr's approval rating in early 1992 was 89% and he lost the election. Tom Harkin was up 65% on Bill Clinton the same year as the primary in 1992 and lost to him. This 64% is you quote like the Biblical verse is utterly meaningless. There isn't even momentum yet. People will tire of her once things begin as they usually do. In my opinion, if YOU really cared about the Democratic party instead of opining fingers you would work hard to find another candidate instead of recycling this one.

[VanillaRhapsody]

79. You don't have to cling...there will be more....but right NOW she is at 64%....THAT is a FACT Jack!

and THAT my friend is NOTHING to sneeze at.....Bernie Sanders would LOVE to have those polling numbers! In fact if Elizabeth Warren had a 64%....YOU would be over the moon about that!

[Hari Seldon]

88. Iowa will decide Hillary's future

If Hillary doesn't get 64% in Iowa she will be perceived as a loser.

If Hillary doesn't win Iowa, she will be perceived as a loser.

Iowa didn't like her last time, they won't like her this time.

I am afraid that it is Hillary that is running for VP, and there is no compelling reason for the Democratic nominee to offer it to her.

[VanillaRhapsody]

91. you might be afraid....I am not

And Iowa wont negate a 64% approval rating....you are grasping. .

[billhicks76]

101. Ok

Hey. I do respect your loyalty. And yes I would be happy if Warren has the name recognition to gain big numbers. But it's too early to matter much.

[VanillaRhapsody]

139. but she don't and she won't because

SHE AIN'T RUNNING.....I don't think she is a liar...why do YOU?

Yeah that 64% is just going to disappear.....good luck!

Just so you know......NO candidate has EVER had that high a number this far out from the election....not ANY ONE!

[Veilex]

154. "that is an established fact"

Oh Billhicks76, you can't argue facts with VH... those are just minor inconveniences that can be argued away by playing rules-lawyer... didn't you know? VH is always quick to conflate things as a possible TOS violation, but never seems to have the conviction to report those so-called TOS violations. Its what is know in psychological vernacular as barking.

[VanillaRhapsody]

163. but you wont pledge to vote for the Dem so no one

In the Dem party cares what Independents think of us or our candidates

[LawDeeDah]

78. Vanilla Sky

Wasn't that the movie where Cruise predicted the future?

[VanillaRhapsody]

80. No idea....I am more interested in politics than Tom Cruise movies...

La Dee Dah.....that's what you say after someone just bested you!

[cascadiance]

108. He probably likes the "Top Gun" Tom Cruise movie...

... where Tom Cruise depicted a character that was based on Randy Duke Cunningham's life!

[VanillaRhapsody]

109. BWAHAHAHAHA!

Great catch!

[morningfog]

83. You don't understand the TOS. Wait before you launch your witch hunt.

[VanillaRhapsody]

92. Oh YES I do!

To elect Democrats....If Hillary wins the nomination...DU WILL be supporting her.....so will I. HOW bout you?

[morningfog]

95. Hard to say.

The TOS does not require affirmative support. It does not require an oath of allegiance.

What you cannot do is support a republican opponent or a third-party opponent. There is a limit to how much disparaging of the nominee you can do. But, you can still criticize, you never have to affirm that you will vote or support them, nor do you have to vote for them.

[VanillaRhapsody]

96. not hard to say....if you are a Democrat..

Thats the whole point..

Oh and by the way....I added "after she wins the primary" to that post....at which time writing those words about the nominee MOST CERTAINLY would be against TOS...and besides....no Democrat should be outright trashing any Democrat on DU. That wasnt criticism.....that was bashing the very likely next Democratic nominee..

[morningfog]

97. We will be free to criticize any politician's policies, even during the primary.

My vote will likely not have an impact in my state one way or the other.

I will likely vote for the Dem nominee whomever it is. What I won't do is work to convince anyone to do the same if I don't agree with their policies. Nor will I donate time or money.

[VanillaRhapsody]

98. this wasnt criticism of policy as i already stated...

[Vincardog]

3. Agreed The country certainly needs her.

[VanillaRhapsody]

45. the country NEEDS her right where she is AT!

in the Senate!

[Marrah_G]

4. I would very much would like to see her in the white house

But if she does not want to run, she doesn't have to. She can continue the fight in the senate.

[earthside]

5. Gene McCarthy-RFK Scenario?

In March 1968, U.S. Sen. Gene McCarthy challenged Pres. Johnson for the Democratic Party nomination for president. McCarthy lost a close (seven percent difference) primary election to LBJ in New Hampshire, but 'Clean Gene' rattled the party establishment.

On March 16, RFK announce that he, too, was running for the nomination (Bobby is reported to have already decided to run before the New Hampshire primary). It has been speculated that McCarthy's good showing closed the deal for the run by his close showing -- one wonders if LBJ had won in a landslide if RFK would have gotten into the race.

On March 31, LBJ got out of the race and the rest is history (a very sad history).

Now, if Bernie Sanders challenges Hillary Clinton and does better than expected, or beats her in early primaries, I can see a similar scenario where Elizabeth Warren gets into the race or is flat-out drafted to run for the nomination.

2016 is the election for a truly progressive Democratic Party nominee. There isn't any Republican being talked about today that can win the general election. Why should we settle for less that a genuine, bold progressive ... be it Sanders or Warren?

[JDPriestly]

7. Sanders or Warren?

That is the real contest. Either one of them could get a lot of disaffected voters to the polls. That could turn the tide in America and start a renewal of the spirit that built our country.

Elizabeth Warren has a wonderful personality. Bernie is a little gruff, but utterly brilliant and is probably the cleanest politician in America. I think that Americans are sick of the dirt and slime that corporate money has brought to our politics.

Corporate money has been in our politics for a long time. But it has become so dominant, so obscene, so corrupt that people are sick of it.

Warren is also a clean politician. And that is what people will be voting for in 2016.

[brooklynite]

11. Um, you believe that Bernie Sanders will be able to complete nationally with Hillary Clinton?

Clinton got 17 million votes against a hugely ppopular Barack Obama in 2008; what makes you think they're going to shift to Sanders?

[billhicks76]

29. No Bernie

He should run to force Hillary to lie to us about adopting liberal positions to win but we cannot elect him due to stigma of Socialism word even if it's unfair. Like the word liberal it will take a decade to undo that stigma.

[earthside]

37. McCarthy couldn't compete with Johnson ...

... but look what happened.

Politics can be unpredictable and the more something is touted as a 'sure thing' the easier it is for an exigent or capricious event to upturn the apple cart.

The more Hillary is proclaimed as the 'all but coronated' nominee, the more I think that an unconventional and bold challenger like Bernie Sanders can cause her great trouble.

I can see a Bernie Sanders or a Brian Schweitzer capturing the imagination of Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2016 and an old, tired, conventional, elitist Hillary Clinton either imploding or -- if the polls show her losing -- changing her mind about running before the first caucus or vote is held.

I don't know when primary election filing deadlines are, but Warren could get into the nomination completion later than most and still be victorious.

[brooklynite]

71. McCarthy was, by Bernie standard's, very mainstream

...and could run on an issue where the Party was clearly divided. I don't see a comparable situation Sanders can take advantage of.

[NorthCarolina]

86. We'll never know if he doesn't try. Anyone can "speculate" about his chances, but the proof

is in the pudding. He'd have my vote.

[cascadiance]

122. I think Warren would be a better primary match for us in the primaries than Sanders...

... but not on issues as I think Sanders would make just as fine a president as Warren would.

The reason I like Warren in a primary against Clinton, is that it takes out the "woman identity" issue (pro or con) out of the picture, and then the two candidates would have to focus on issues instead of gender identity as an election issue. America needs candidates engaging with its citizens on their stances on issues and a debate on them.

In the last election, we had a lot of discussion on both sides of how Barack's skin color or Hillary Clinton's gender was affecting both those who supported them or those who voted for the other side, which distracted us from having them push those "issues" aside and focusing on the REAL issues that should have been discussed so that we would have had better commitments than just "Hope and change" and other more nebulous stances instead of detailed campaign stances that we could have held Obama's feet to the fire on now. I think a Warren candidacy against Clinton for the primary will best serve us to have that discussion in the primary season. Sanders will also be very good, but just wait and see what happens when the corporate media plays the "gender card" then in efforts to distract us...

Also, Bernie's defining himself as a Democratic Socialist will also be used by the corporate media to distract us from issues, as the "socialist" label card will also serve to try and oversimplify things, even if many of us would really like more of what is described as "democratic socialism" and how it is practiced in many countries in northern Europe now. The "socialist" label will definitely be used to distract and divide us unfortunately, and Elizabeth Warren won't be the same victim of that labeling scheme as she hasn't defined herself the same way Bernie has, even if they share a lot of the same viewpoints.

[brooklynite]

123. ...except for the part where she doesn't want to run (see #10)

[cascadiance]

124. Except that this is a MEANINGLESS theory at this point born out by history!

It really kills me that so many here continue to point out this THEORY of theirs that is meaningless to try and derail conversations that they say doesn't really matter, because "she won't run".

If you really feel these discussions are as meaningless as you imply, then why do so many of you in effect post more posts than we do in these threads that I would presume would be a WASTE OF YOUR TIME, if they are really as meaningless as you claim!

[brooklynite]

128. So that I can hopefully avoid the annoyance in 2015...

...when the anti-Hillary crowd discovers that 1) Clinton is running; 2) Warren isn't; 3) there isn't someone else suitably progressive to vote for, and thus 4) complaints abound that they're "not being given a choice". I'd be far happier if the people who want a progressive standard bearer did the hard work of convincing someone to take on the job, rather than just fantasize.

[cascadiance]

129. It is people like YOU that are cluttering our attempts here at hard work to convince Warren to run..

Trying to dismiss it as "useless" or is there some other purpose you all continue to have to keep saying that our discussions are pointless because you think you are GOD enough to KNOW that she's not running!

Please define us more appropriately. We are the anti-corporatist/1% crowd, which Hillary has chosen to be a part of. We'd be just as anti other corporatist candidates as Hillary, and it has nothing to do with her being "Hillary" that we look for someone better to represent us. And if you take issue with us being anti-corporatist, please explain how that is NOT a good thing for a Democrat to be and really BE a Democrat. I know the Third Way/DLC seems to think we should embrace corporate slave owners for some reason, but pardon us for not accepting that notion!

[brooklynite]

131. But you're not...

You talking in a echo chamber to each other about how great it would be if she ran and how each morsel of information tells you she will. There's no effort to organize a writing campaign, a phone tree, a twitter blast or a personal delegation. If you think she's secretly reading DU to find out what real Democrats want, you're being naive.

FWIW, I -have- reached out to an alternative candidate (Brian Schweitzer) in case Hillary doesn't run. I emailed his staff directly and scheduled a face-to-face meeting to talk about what I'd be willing to do to help; didn't cost me a penny in contributions.

[cascadiance]

135. It is "echo chambers" like this where people like us talk to each other and share ideas...

... on how to organize such campaigns, or is that something your brain not capable of understanding? Movements are organized in many different spaces. This is just one of them, and is an areas where people of like minds can talk amongst each other on how best to do the other activities you claim no one is doing or wants to do.

If you are just coming here to offer suggestions on how to make such a campaign really count as a way to help us organize it better, than great, but many like you keep cluttering our threads with dismissive comments, that tells me you are wanting to shut down such movements, even though you seem to claim that the future is already etched in stone against us. The fact that you are here documents that it isn't "etched in stone" or you wouldn't be wasting time making the comments you are making.

It is just frustrating for many of us where we have to spend more time arguing with those like you than working on such plans. But then, I get it, that is probably the design of pro-corporatist people like you that can't seem to find other ways to shut folks like us down, since you know you can't dismiss us based on our stances on issues, which are what the Democratic Party has traditionally believed in.

[Veilex]

155. +1

I'd be all for HRC if she wasn't so firmly buddy buddy with all the corporations and banks as she is.
No amount of schmoozing will win me to her side as actions ALWAYS speak louder than words... and her actions in partnering up with big corporations have spoken loudly indeed.

[Betty88]

8. love her but not as pres

I want her in the senate doing good for the next 20 or so years I think she will do wonders there

[NCTraveler]

9. Would love to see her run for the White House.

I still think she might be in a better place where she is now to influence legislation. At odds with what you are saying in your op, she might be right where she needs to be.

[jtuck004]

21. " I still think she might be in a better place where she is now to influence legislation." Would you

Last edited Tue Oct 21, 2014, 05:45 PM - Edit history (1)

have said the same thing about FDR? <-And when I say FDR, I mean Mrs. Roosevelt. She was the one who drove the relief, not the asshole she was married to.

Or is it because she is a woman, people can't see it?

On edit: Don't take asshole wrong. He was an asshole who was out for the betterment of his country, and was balanced by her need to invest in people. (If two politicians agree, you only need one of them - and she WAS a politician in her own right,and thus made the pair valuable to us.).

That description is is in direct contrast to the assholes of today, who are simply out to feed their ego whatever it demands.

[NCTraveler]

84. ok. Take care. nt.

[fbc]

12. Obama announced on February 10, 2007 - she has time

She wouldn't announce before the midterms.

[VanillaRhapsody]

46. she ALREADY announced.....

that SHE is NOT running!

[Beacool]

52. They are covering their ears while repeating in sing-song, "I can't hear you".

If she wrote it in blood, they would still not believe her.

[VanillaRhapsody]

57. and yet they would follow this person whom they don't believe is telling them the truth....

unbelievable! It's loony...

[dionysus]

145. and where have you been, young lady? i made something for you.

[Beacool]

184. Dionysus, how have you been?

How's my buddy? I don't come here that often anymore. I'm tired of all the negativity. Although I do miss nice people like you.

Thank you for the lovely bunny banky.

[sadoldgirl]

13. Yes, I hope that she will run, and

yes, she still has time. And while ISIS and Ebola may fade as issues, the economy will not.

I do believe that a lot of this depends on the results this November. Should the Senate go to the Repugs, I hope she will stay in the Senate, because nobody can fight the total Congress.

Thus I fret about this election now.

[VanillaRhapsody]

47. so you think she is a liar too???

[MannyGoldstein]

15. With stiff back Warren will drown in sea of Third Way fire

Warren must agree, as do all Americans, that only Dear Wall Street Leader has the brilliance and determination to move our nation forward!

Our Brilliant Financial Comrade will destroy all Red hegemony through wondrous feats of triangulation and impressive disco moves. Flat-footed Professor Warren will flee back to her Ivy Tower for defense, where she will find only Larry Summers, who will administer the final blows.

Regards!

Ready-for-Dear-Wall-Street-Leader Manny

[beerandjesus]

17. Hahaha! Can't wait for the replies on this one....

...except that they'll probably be the same as all other replies from Third-Wayers on here.

[aikoaiko]

24. Maybe she just wanted to express herself to the book reading public

I find your premise that there is no other reason than he prepare for a presidential campaign specious

[freshwest]

39. Agreed! She knows we must put the facts out before the public. It's not about her ambitions.

The media driven horse race politicking is used to get Dems to ignore 2014. She is focusing on keeping the Senate. If we lose it, Warren and Sanders will be nothing between now and 2016. The GOP will make permanent changes. There will be no coming back to even this difficult point in time, no escaping the Tea Party dominance given them in 2010. Her book is about educating the public, not running for POTUS because:

A GOP Senate's First Target - Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Protection Agency
For years, House Republicans have been trying to gut her greatest accomplishment.

By Erika Eichelberger - Sep. 26, 2014



If the GOP wins the Senate, they'll no doubt use the opportunity to push through a range of measures that are kryptonite to Democratic voters—new abortion restrictions, limits on the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to combat climate change, a relaxation of the rules reining in Wall Street's worst excesses...

Half of their work is already done. The House has passed a bill that would limit the bureau's power by replacing its director with a five-member panel, and subjecting its budget to the congressional appropriations process—meaning that hostile lawmakers could starve it to death. (Unlike most federal agencies, the bureau is bankrolled by the Federal Reserve, an effort to free it from the whims of partisan politics.) House Republicans have also introduced legislation to let other financial regulators overturn CFPB rules, to eliminate a fund the bureau uses to compensate consumers who've been defrauded by an institution that's gone belly-up, and to restrict the kind of data the bureau may collect from consumers. (Republicans have charged that the CFPB's collection of credit data is a violation of privacy, even though the bureau does not collect any personal details the consumer doesn't volunteer.)...

A Republican-controlled Senate would also likely try to eviscerate portions of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform act. In 2011, Shelby introduced a bill to beef up the requirements that force banking regulators to conduct cost-benefit analyses prior to issuing any new rule—a significant hurdle. Last year, the House passed a handful of bills to deregulate derivatives, often-opaque banking products that have been demonized as "financial weapons of mass destruction." In June, House Republicans passed a bill chipping away at consumer mortgage protections...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/republican-senate-would-gut-elizabeth-warren-consumer-protection-bureau

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. I'll rec for general wishing it were so, but...

I don't think we're getting her to run in 2016 even if I'd be thrilled if she did.

[greatlaurel]

27. We need to worry about 2016 after this November. GOTV 2014.

Every post about Warren or Bernie or Hillary before the November 2014 elections is helping the GOP suppress the vote.

[Enthusiast]

38. Dump Hillary.

[VanillaRhapsody]

48. Stop telling Democrats what to do....

when you become one we can talk!

[Enthusiast]

81. When I become a Democrat? I believe you overstepped your charter.

I've been a Democrat since my birth in the early 1950s. I've voted in every election since I turned 18, always for Democrats. I should alert on your post.

I can make any suggestion I want with regard to prospective candidates. In my opinion HRC would be a disaster for the Democratic Party and for the nation.

Dump Hillary! Dump her because she is a DLC/Third Way candidate that will work against the interests of the American working class.

[VanillaRhapsody]

94. do you support whoever the party Elects in the primary?

If not you are now a Dem leaning Independent....regardless of your history...

[Enthusiast]

99. Hey! LOL!

You are the decider, lol.

[VanillaRhapsody]

110. nope...just a loyal Democrat on a Democratic forum

[cascadiance]

107. You talk about "Democrats" or "Independents" as if they are football teams...

... where you just root for them because they're your "team" in your city or college, rather than the values they represent.

That's pretty much what has become wrong and describes the DLC/Third Way cancer that has infected this party.

[Enthusiast]

113. I must agree, cascadiance.

I think some special interests, particularly on the corporate side, would like to reduce elections and politics to a football team type mentality. Then candidates wouldn't have to worry about what they stood for, only what color their uniforms are.

[cascadiance]

121. It's this kind of mentality that is fueling the mess of "top two" primary laws being passed

Many people are leaving both parties and becoming independents in places like here in Oregon, and are being deluded in to thinking that top two primaries will fix this corporatization and corruption of the two major parties by making party membership meaningless to allow everyone to vote in one big primary at a time when less people vote before the general election. If we had parties that cared less about corporate contributions and "winning" as a football team, and more about the values they champion based on the citizen engagement they had in the past been a vehicle for and still should be, then measures like this would get tossed aside and more meaningful ones like instant runoff voting would get passed instead to help fight off the money influence that's been "buying the field" lately, and will have even more control of the election process if prop 90 passes like it has earlier in California and Washington and not made any real positive changes there.

http://www.blueoregon.com/2014/10/why-vote-against-measure-90-because-its-pointless-and-unnecessary/

[VanillaRhapsody]

114. I know which party comes the closest to my beliefs..

And I am also a realist. I know that even if Elizabeth Warren ot Bernie Sanders became President.....the Republicans are not goi g to magically disappear.

[cascadiance]

119. Then you should talk more about those beliefs and how Hillary Clinton best represents them...

... and why that makes her a better candidate than Warren, instead of just talking about polls, etc. when comparing the two in an effort to shut down Warren. A challenge to you, that would make for an interesting discussion rather than the ones many of us feel are more of a distraction when trying to talk about how Warren works for our values, and needs to represent us for that reason.

[VanillaRhapsody]

126. my beliefs are that Republicans suck

The same position that my FDR voting grandparents were and I do what it takes to keep the people that don't believe in government out of mine...

Whats your excuse?

[cascadiance]

130. Sounds like the cheers I heard in a football game which proves my other earlier point...

I would like Eisenhower more than many of the "corporate" democrats that would support Social Security, moving more towards peaceful solutions than military ones that the military industrial complex loves, and the rights to unionize, etc. less than he did. I support Democratic VALUES! Not just that someone is supposedly on my "team". If a team loses its sense of values, it loses its purpose in my book.

[VanillaRhapsody]

115. and only Independents are obsessed with this

Bullshit meme of Thirdway...Thirdway are about as likely to effect the outcome as Dem leaning Independents are..

[cascadiance]

120. I care about traditional DEMOCRATIC VALUES, which many here choose to ignore...

... and I would warrant they are more of the third way types that care more about polls and contributions than substance of how candidates stand on issues. Some can try to apply labels to us as "independents", etc. If the Democratic Party has left its traditional values, and can't be taken back from the DLC/Third Way cancer, then ok, many of us will be independents in recreating the traditional Democratic Party and let the existing diseased Democratic Party go the way of the Whigs.... But many of us still believe that in the two party system we have enforced over us now that only has third party and independents as spoilers, that we have to take back the Democratic Party from within, no matter what we are "labeled". I'm guessing many of the "traditional" Republicans that were being ambushed by "Tea Party" insurgents in their party were calling them independents, etc. too. Tea Party people may not have had their main motivation in removing the corporate influence of their party like we do, but they did see that they had to take over the Republican Party in this environment instead of trying to get elected as a third party, and in that respect, that's the way we have to work to get rid of corporate cancers out of our party too, no matter what we are called in the process of doing so.

[VanillaRhapsody]

125. and I care about a Democrat winning not a

Republican.....I don't need verbosity to back up my positions because I am a realist.

[cascadiance]

132. Your confusing "verbosity" with "depth"...

If you conflate anything than just cheering for Democrats without any reasons to do so, and against Republicans without any reasons to do so, then your showing a severe lack of intelligence that the powerful want to enforce on us with the barriers the PTB put towards kids getting advanced education these days, or you show that you are unwilling to admit that you don't WANT to talk about these details, because you can't find any detailed positions your sort of Democrats want that is what a real progressive Democrat wants.

It is attitudes like this why so many voters are leaving both parties and unfortunately fueling the 1%'s effort to shut down parties altogether here in Oregon with the likes of Measure 90, which California and Washington already made the mistake in passing earlier.

[VanillaRhapsody]

137. NO you are confusing word salad with a point!

Dem Leaning Independents are not going to decide...Do you see what the FRINGE did to the Republican party?

[cascadiance]

141. Do you have anything more to say that just engage in name calling?

There is more to life than just labeling people "Democrats", "Republicans", and "Independents", and judging them solely based on those labels without any concern for what they stand for and mean. Show yourself more than a robot and show that you can do more than that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

142. I AM saying it.....YOU just don't like what I am saying!

I am NOT letting Independents take over the Democratic Party or Democratic Underground!

[cascadiance]

146. Then do as you you are saying and leave here so that we don't have people masquerading as Democrats

trying to call us names and try to destroy what had been an honorable name that the term "Democrat" used to mean before people like you try to split us and still divide us all by labeling us.

I'm not letting people like you label many of us who ARE FRICKING DEMOCRATS and don't like people that just want to destroy Democratic Underground by changing it in to a spate of name-callinhg crap.

Now the next time you call me a name again, you're joining wyldolf on my ignore list of troublemakers that don't want to engage in constructive discussion on progressive politics that I no longer have time or patience to be distracted from.

[VanillaRhapsody]

147. I dont have to...I plan to vote for whomever wins

The Dem Primary election.....that makes me a real Democrat....not just a "leans Democrat Independent".

How about you? Can you pledge the same?

[cascadiance]

148. If you are such a "Democrat", then why do you continue to tell us to not want THIS Democrat...

... as president. You keep badmouthing a DEMOCRAT in Elizabeth Warren as if she isn't worthy of championing for president here in these threads and label yourself as a "Democrat" even though you want to diminish those who would want her AS A DEMOCRAT to become our president.

That in my book is someone masquerading as a Democrat!

[VanillaRhapsody]

149. Because THAT democrat said she is not running

And she ended her PAC....If you are so supportive of her .....why are you calling her a liar?

[bigwillq]

53. ....

[stonecutter357]

87. .

[bigwillq]

43. She says she's not running. I believe her.

I believe everything a politician says.

[VanillaRhapsody]

49. so she is JUST another politician?

no to some folks....some seem to think she will walk on water! AS IF the obstruction of the Republican Party will stop if ONLY Elizabeth Warren were President!

[bigwillq]

54. To me, she is just another politician.

Folks can believe whatever they want.
She would have my support if she ran.

[VanillaRhapsody]

55. question is....would ANY Democrat that wins the Primary election....have your support?

[bigwillq]

56. I already answered that.

I said Warren would have my support.

[VanillaRhapsody]

58. EXACTLY!!!!

so what right does a Democrat leaning Independent have to tell ACTUAL Democrats what to do politically?

See the point is....you are voting for Democrats....whom members VOTE to decide who is their leader....someone who is Independent only VOTES for Democrats....they don't support the Party...they just do not have a viable organized Party that DOES support their "principles".

[bigwillq]

59. What?

Who are you talking about? Me or Warren?

[VanillaRhapsody]

61. If you cannot say you are in support of the Democrat that wins the Primary....even if it isn't

Elizabeth Warren.....why should the Party "adjust" to suit you....since they have a method to let the majority decide.....they come to a "consensus". Otherwise it is like saying...if a Republican were to win the Presidential.....that that President is not REALLY your President....in fact its not even really your country when you really adjust the analogy....because you are saying you ONLY support that Democratic majority vote...IF that majority selects who YOU want!

[bigwillq]

65. I don't think the Party should adjust to me

Last edited Tue Oct 21, 2014, 09:46 PM - Edit history (1)

And I am all for letting democracy take its course. May the best man or woman win. I don't have to support everybody that the majority supports. But I content with what the majority selects, even if it's not who I want.
That's the process, for better or worse. And I am glad it's that way.

[Beacool]

51. Whatever.........

Did it ever occur to some of you that not every politician wants to be president? Besides, what makes any of you think that she could handle Congress any better than Obama?

[Hutzpa]

144. The same way some of us think Hillary can't handle

Congress.

[AtomicKitten]

64. I am invested in her candidacy.

She is precisely what this country needs.

[mmonk]

76. Agreed. Only her and Bernie. The rest are too timid.

The others worry too much about polling or advisors to take stands for what is right.

[Blue_Adept]

85. Please stop taking our senators

We'd really like to have some stay there for a bit and actually do the work WE put them there for.

We had a great run between Kerry and Kennedy, but since then it's just been a mess.

So please, stop. I can't imagine any MA based candidate doing well on a national level for quite some time to come because of the tone and mood of the country these days.

[grahamhgreen]

93. How bout Van Jones a VP??? Any takers?

[Vattel]

185. Please no

empty suits are not what we need

[lonestarnot]

104. K & R!

[msanthrope]

112. I bet her emails would be well-recieived on this board. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

127. I guess if anyone writes a Best Seller....but

Doesn't run for President is just murdering trees....So glad I bought the audio version of Elizabeth Warren's book. Bonus points I got to hear it in her own words.

I guess the writer of thi OP thinks that all of EW's accomplishments in her life are not worthy of a book if she doesn't run for POTUS. What an insult to someone they claim to respect

Oh and since I heard her read the book in her own voice...I sure didn't cone away with this OP's impression.Its a good read whether she runs or not! Ignore this OP!

[dionysus]

143. _ok_ or she wants to both get her message out via book, and make some _dough_