Warren: I'll serve my full Senate term if reelected

[DonViejo]

Source: Politico



DORCHESTER, Mass. – Elizabeth Warren said she would serve her full six-year term in the Senate if reelected this November.

“Yes, that’s my plan. I’m running for the United States Senate in 2018,” Warren told reporters Thursday, when asked if she would commit to serving out her full term. “I am not running for president of the United States. That’s my plan.”

The Massachusetts Democrat had notably dodged the question in a March 11 interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” fanning speculation about her 2020 plans even as she told host Chuck Todd that she was not running for president.

Warren clarified her intentions after participating in a moderated town hall event Thursday evening at the Boston Teachers Union.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/05/warren-pledges-full-senate-term-2018-505308

[democratisphere]

1. We need Elizabeth Warren in the Senate. She always has done a spectacular job!

[BeyondGeography]

2. Wiggle room detected

[thesquanderer]

6. Yup. No "clarification" there. Exactly what she's said before.

And does not rule out, for example, running as VP or serving in the cabinet of a 2021 Dem president. No guarantee of 6 years, merely a "plan" and of course, plans are subject to change.

[brooklynite]

8. Four years ago, people here INSISTED that her "I'm not running" statements weren't real...

...that she might not have decided to NOW, but she could decide later.

I'll take her at her word.

[BeyondGeography]

9. Four years ago there was Hillary

Big difference.

Nobody ran except Bernie Sanders (a late entry, who probably would have sat it out if Warren had run) and a bag of hockey pucks.

[Hortensis]

13. I regretted Warren didn't run to Hillary's left early on,

but not a hundredth as much as I have since. If she lost the primary, she would then have thrown herself behind Hillary the way Hillary did with Obama and done everything she could to make sure Democrats took both the white house and congress.

[BeyondGeography]

15. Me too

IMO, Warren is by far the most authoritative voice we have re. the economy. I hope she gives it a try this time around. She would elevate the quality of the entire conversation, even if she didn't ultimately win.

[Hortensis]

16. Yes. She's an excellent voice. She keeps it simple,

not nearly as much explanation as Hillary gives. That kind of message is compelling, and in her case comes from a person of good character and judgement.

I miss Barney Frank. I remember a Nobel-winning economist who once said that Frank was one of only 3 people in congress who had a good understanding of economic issues. (!) Frank still speaks out occasionally, like this in March.

Why I would vote 'no' on Senate bill to amend Dodd-Frank: Former Congressman Barney Frank says there are things he likes and doesn't like about the bill. Here are four reasons why he wouldn't vote for it if he were still in Congress.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/01/barney-frank-why-i-would-vote-no-on-senate-bill-to-amend-dodd-frank-commentary.html

Headlines for Warren's version included words like "attacks" and "slams." And a lot of people paid attention.

[thesquanderer]

10. She could speak more plainly if she wanted to, she is an excellent communicator.

If she's leaving open any wiggle room at all, I'd say it's intentional. I'm sure she knows how to be Shermanesque if she wants to.

And there is nothing wrong with leaving options open. She may have no plans to run for President, or VP, or take a position in a hypothetical 2021 Dem cabinet (all things that could prevent her from serving 6 years as Senator, though only the first is entirely under her control)... but circumstances can change.

[Grins]

3. I don't recall Rand Paul having to answer that question...

...in 2011. In 2014. Or in 2015. At all.

Sure helps to have a Republican controlled Kentucky Senate!

[NewJeffCT]

5. Not sure about Rand Paul

but, I know it's been a fairly common question asked of potential candidates over the years.

[TranssexualKaren]

4. Shes just too good a person to be president....sorry

[Hortensis]

14. Huh. Could anyone be too good to be president?

It's a tough job, all right, but hugely important for our national wellbeing. Seems to me that lacking the conviction to do what it required would mean they were unfit for office, a weakness, like a nurse who refused to turn patients over if it hurt them or got sick at the sight of blood.

[yallerdawg]

7. 2016 pretty much clarified her presidential aspirations.

Beloved by the left and independents, she didn't run for president.

Given the opportunity, she didn't join the Clinton ticket for VP - which would have been a game changer! Tim Kaine?

No, that ship has sailed. She doesn't sound as coy as she did. We should believe her.

[getagrip_already]

11. even wth a republican gov, her seat wouldn't be at risk....

if she resigned to take a federal appointment or vp slot.

Dems control the legislature, and when kerry ran they changed the rules so the legislature would pick the interim senator instead of the gov. They switched it back under patrick I believe, but they can switch it again if needed.

[murielm99]

12. We need her where she is.

I think she is more effective as a Senator.

[onetexan]

17. ditto

She's a good senator but i dont think she's a unifier that would make a good presidential candidate. Compared to the idiot occupying the WH now, by far i'd prefer her any time over him, but she is not my ideal candidate.

[getagrip_already]

18. I think she would make a great potus, vpotus, or

head of any agency that will need to be rebuilt.

But she is very effective in the senate. She could easily spearhead a new wave of corporate safeguards if we ever win back all three branches.

[murielm99]

19. One of the reasons

I don't want to see her taken out of the Senate is our need to build and keep a majority there. We need all the Senate votes we can get. What if someday we can build a supermajority? We could get rid of 45, undo some of the damage the repiggie Congress has done and get good Supreme Court justices handily. Every vote will count.

Another reason is the need for visible, recognizable leadership.

We lost Al Franken. He should have been the new lion of the Senate after Ted Kennedy's death. The right wing would love to see Warren taken out, just like they loved seeing Franken taken out.

It takes time to build effective leaders. They seldom spring up overnight. And when we do get them, we have to understand that they will be vilified by the right and treated unfairly by the media. Our own people will vilify them, too. Just look at how Nancy Pelosi is treated by so many on the left. You can see that right here at DU.

It gives me an uneasy feeling to hear her mentioned for higher office. Let's build a majority and build the bench. When that is done and we win back the Executive Branch, maybe we can consider her for a cabinet position where she can be effective. Let that be further along in her career.

It is too early to think about 2020. And maybe there is someone, a governor, who would make a great President. They often win Presidential elections. Don't ask me who that would be. things can turn on a dime in politics.