I'd prefer to see Elizabeth Warren as our next president. But if Hillary Clinton

[Cal33]

should win in the primaries, I'd of course vote for her. I'd also be hoping that
with Hillary as president, it will not be simply a matter of "more of the same."
Our nation can't take this "more of the same" much longer. We need someone
who is clearly "left of center."

"Right of center" Democratic presidents only help to keep the Right-Wingers
in power longer, and thus prolong the degeneration of our country and the
suffering of the American people.

That's the way the present situation appears to me -- looking at the whole
broad picture. How do other Democrats see it?

[warrior1]

1. Elizabeth Warren will not be running for president

she's signed a petition for Hillary to run.

I'm going with Hillary for President.

[NoOneMan]

4. What is funny is that whenever there is a Warren for president thread, this lie...

is immediately put out there.


Yes, according to a single quote, a secret letter was signed by all Democratic women to encourage Hillary to run. In no way should that simultaneously be construed as a public endorsement, or even a declared intention not to run for any specific woman who was presented with that.

As of now, this rumor of this secret letter is being systematically used to undermine any Democratic women's potential candidacy. Why should we allow the voice of women to be muted with this political trick?

[brooklynite]

20. It's not a lie...it's an informed analysis

Informed by the fact that she said she's not interested in running for President.

and informed by the fact that she asked someone else to run for President.

But fantasize all you want.

[mazzarro]

23. "Secret letter" or not and whether she said she will not run - both are of no regard to me

I still will hope and wish and press for her to run. Elizabeth Warren is far more preferable to me than anyone else in the Democratic Party at the moment.

[NoOneMan]

24. I don't think encouraging allies to run rules out you will run as well

And we've all been around long enough to know candidates are against running until they are in favor of it.

Its 3 years out. To make any suggestion that 1 candidate is inevitable is silly. Its also silly to suggest another potential candidate wouldn't toss their hat in the ring within that time. We don't know anything yet, besides the fact that the dirty tricks are already in play

[brooklynite]

27. First - it's NOT three years out..

...because to seriously run for President, under the rules we currently have in place, you have to get started now: organizing support, lining up financial backers and collecting political chits, etc.

Second - nobody is saying Hillary is inevitable. What Hillary supporters are saying is that they want her to run and are working to achieve that goal. What Warren supporters seem to be saying is that if they wish real hard, despite the available evidence, Warren get into the race sometime down the road...maybe. Seems like pushing your luck, from my point of view.

[NoOneMan]

32. Im not pushing anything. Im annoyed at the whole Warren supports Hillary lie

Its everywhere here. Why let a lie repeat itself? Why?

There is a quote that suggests Warren encouraged Hillary to run by signing onto a secret letter with 15 other people.

There is no evidence that Warren supports Hillary winning the Democratic nomination.

Yes, there is a drastic difference in encouraging someone in secret to run and publicly endorsing them as the sole nominee.

The real question I have is why are so many people quickly and systematically spreading this lie?

[arely staircase]

75. Warren supports Hillary nt

[NoOneMan]

82. Warren encouraged Hillary to run. We have no idea who she wants to win the candidacy

We should encourage whoever to run that we feel will make the democratic primary process the strongest

[arely staircase]

134. Im gonna guess she wants the person she is encouraging to run to win. nt

[NoOneMan]

136. Why? And why is that the only person you think she wants to run?

She didn't originate the letter after all. She is just the target of its lies.

We should want everyone that will make the Democratic Primary process the strongest to run together. That undoubtably includes Hillary, though she isn't the first I'd want to win.

[arely staircase]

137. well I can think of a few reasons to encourage a person to run for office

A. Iwant that person to be elected to that office.

B. I really dislike that person and I know they are unelectable and want to watch them get beaten.

C. The are a Republican and are so nuts that there nomination would help the Dem in the general.

A seems most likely in this case.

[NoOneMan]

139. Did you ever think that having a variety of candidates that represent different views...

All help test the current political climate and allow the Democratic Party to pivot and focus on the issues most important to the unique times of 2016?

I think Hillary should run. I don't want her to win, but I encourage her to. Itd be great if Dean ran (he wont), or Deblasio and Warren. Lets trust the Democratic primary process to select the best person for the times.

You can't do that if you don't have a real primary. We should definitely encourage all the party leaders to get out there and rally the people.

[arely staircase]

140. i don't think we should just give it to anyone

I am all forb competitive primaries. I am leaning strongly toward Hillary. I was in 2008'as well. But I quickly went to Obama and am proud of that. If Warren wants to run she should. If I had to choose between them today i would go Hillary. That isn't set in stone.

[Whisp]

105. Warren really had no other choice than to support when it was put to her, did she?

How could she possibly say: No, I don't support Hillary Clinton for President?

Maybe she meant she would support Hillary for the President of TwoFaceVille.

[arely staircase]

135. sure she did

I haven't made up my mind. Let's see who all runs.

She could have said that.

[MADem]

31. The letter is no longer secret since its existence has been leaked.

Warren has also said, in other venues, here in her home state, that she is NOT running.

Who would vote for a person who doesn't know their own mind, who is too stupid or shy or confused that they don't know what they want out of their political future?

I think when someone says they aren't running and they do not WANT to run that they should be taken at their word.

That said, I think Warren would be great as a Fed Chair.


http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/09/30/new-york-times-think-elizabeth-warren-will-run-president/

[NoOneMan]

34. "so you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?", SEN. OBAMA: "I will not."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15304689/#.UoErvPnUBNs

SOP.

BTW, the letter is still secret. Sure, someone suggested it exists, but I sure as hell haven't see any proof of it. Maybe I missed that. In any case, it doesn't change the fact that when people signed on in confidence to encourage a candidacy, they most assuredly weren't making a public endorsement of a single person (especially if other secret encouraging letters exist that people had more class to keep secret). Equating the two is a lie.

Warren may absolutely endorse Hillary publicly. She hasn't yet.

[MADem]

39. Oh please--for shame! You can read as well as I can, and you have been disingenuous.

You don't "win" that way. You simply weaken your case.

First, let's review your post:

NoOneMan
34. "so you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?", SEN. OBAMA: "I will not."
View profile
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15304689/#.UoErvPnUBNs

SOP.

Let's read ON....shall we? From that same transcript, from your VERY same link, now:

MR. RUSSERT: You will not.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, the—that was how I was thinking at that time. And, and, you know, I don’t want to be coy about this, given the responses that I’ve been getting over the last several months, I have thought about the possibility. But I have not thought it—about it with the seriousness and depth that I think is required. My main focus right now is in the ‘06 and making sure that we retake the Congress. After oh—after November 7, I’ll sit down and, and consider, and if at some point, I change my mind, I will make a public announcement and everybody will be able to go at me.

That is--to put it kindly--the OPPOSITE of a "Sherman statement." That exchange basically says "Oh hell yeah I am running, but I'm just not declaring right now."

Still "unclear" as to his meaning? Read further beyond that cheesy "cherry pick" of yours, and we see this:

MR. RUSSERT: But it’s fair to say you’re thinking about running for president in 2008?
SEN. OBAMA: It’s fair, yes.

MR. RUSSERT: And so when you said to me in January, “I will not,” that statement is no longer operative.
SEN. OBAMA: The—I would say that I am still at the point where I have not made a decision to, to pursue higher office, but it is true that I have thought about it over the last several months.

MR. RUSSERT: So, it sounds as if the door has opened a bit.
SEN. OBAMA: A bit.

So, my question to you is--were you thinking you could pull the wool over my eyes with an out-of-context quote that wasn't accurate to then-Senator Obama's actual intent, that I wouldn't actually read the link?

Do you have a letter, signed by Barack Obama and a slew of other Senators--say, the Dem freshmen, asking Hillary Clinton or another candidate to run?

Are there any quotes from Obama that say "I don't WANT the job," "I'm not interested in running," or "I want to stay in the Senate and focus on (insert special interest here)?" Did Barack Obama refuse an invitation to Tom Harkins' little pick-a-nick to parade the Democratic colors? (Answer--he did not. But Elizabeth Warren DID.)

Do you have something more solid than a quick and dirty, coy, get-off-my-back "I will not?" that was rescinded in eight or nine months?

I'm genuinely interested in your answer. I'll check back for it.

[NoOneMan]

40. "I am not running for president in four years. I am not running for president in 2008" - Obama

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-11-04/news/0411040384_1_freshman-senator-election-day-party-leaders

And from the interview I cited:

"And so when you said to me in January, “I will not,” that statement is no longer operative."

So this conversation started from another definite statement Obama made and walked back on in January.

Warren has 3 years to walk back on any definite. Obama certainly walked back on it and won. Its plain as day and the transcripts exist.

[MADem]

43. Again--show me the letter Obama signed endorsing another candidate.

Show me the newspaper article that says Barack Obama has told Tom Harkin he's not going to speak at his little hayfield party.

You can't--because he never did these things. Warren did, though.

Elizabeth Warren is not a stupid woman. She's very bright. She's said NO. And she's said it ways that aren't "coy" or open to interpretation.

There comes a point when people need to accept that NO means NO. The "Tom Harkin" clue is a big one. The letter -- a definitive, declarative statement--is another. The private "hell to the no" comments by her aides should give one a hint. And then there's the public statements she has made.

None of that kind of stuff came out of Obama's Senate office--EVER. He was always "in the mix" and Joe Biden was one of the people stirring the pot, even as he nursed his own ambitions. None of that kind of thing is happening, here.

[NoOneMan]

45. Show me the letter Warren signed endorsing another candidate

Pssssssst. It doesn't exist

Warren did, though.

Please don't use DU to spread lies. The common knowledge is 16 women in the Senate signed Boxer's letter in secret to encourage her to run. That isn't an endorsement. You know the difference.

NO means NO

I think that if people did that with Obama, President McCain might be on his second term. No one has a crystal ball, you know. Thats the great thing about primaries: they'll work it out for you.

[MADem]

49. When you encourage someone to run, that's an endorsement. You can pretend it isn't, but it is.

Elizabeth Warren is my senator--she's covered fairly well in our local media, and when she says "no"--which she has said at least four times, and her staff has said more frequently--I believe her.

Obama never signed a letter endorsing another Dem, and Obama never turned down an invitation to Harkin's steak fry. And Obama's staff never ran around putting out "Will he run?" fires.

You can dream, but your dreams will not be realized.

[NoOneMan]

50. I guess one of us is in pretend land

Endorsements normally include someone publicly promoting a sole candidate as the nominee and asking their supporters to line up behind them. I have not seen Warren make a public statement nor make a case to her supporters to line up behind Hillary. Until that time comes, rumors of her endorsement are not only a great exaggeration, but a lie

[MADem]

64. You don't have to reply to the same post more than once.

But here's a clue you haven't grasped--you don't formally endorse someone until they've declared for the race.

You can do a conditional endorsement, or you can urge someone to run, like EW and the female Dem Senators have done, like Chuck Schumer has done, but you've got to wait until the hat gets tossed into the ring before you issue a formal endorsement.

Clinton hasn't declared yet. When she does, I'm betting EW will be an early "formal" endorser.

That might annoy you, but you're not Warren's campaign manager and you're obviously not on her staff--if you were, you'd know that she ain't running.

[NoOneMan]

68. Ok, but instead of saying Warren endorse Clinton, you should say you bet she will

And that's fine. But to broadcast a prediction as a fact that has already occurred can be perceived as very deceptive.

[MADem]

69. She signed that letter.

And we know she did, because she's not shy.

If someone was telling a lie about her signing a letter that she actually did not sign, she'd pipe up and say "I didn't sign that letter." She's had plenty of opportunities to correct any misapprehensions.

I think people should take EW's advice.

Go relax--she's not running:

[NoOneMan]

70. The lie isn't about whether she signed it, but that signing a secret encouragement is an endorsment

She may endorse Hillary. She has not at this time.

[MADem]

71. It's an informal endorsement, as I said. You can't formally endorse a person until

they declare....but "please please please run for the Presidency" is the closest thing to an endorsement that one can give to a candidate who hasn't yet declared for the office.

You don't, in the company of your peers, urge someone to run if you want them to lose. That shit only happens on internet discussion boards and in people's dreams.

[NoOneMan]

73. An endorsement is a public announcement by definition

Can you find the definition of an informal endorsement that includes writing a secret letter without knowing that secret letter would be announced publicly? Why would you informally endorse someone in secret? What is the point of a secret informal endorsement? How is saying "you should run!" in private the same as saying to the world "this person should win!"?


Yeah, now you're just making shit up.

[MADem]

77. Look, you can play all the games you want. She signed the letter.

The letter is part of history now.

Barbara Boxer, and others who signed the letter (all the D women Senators) aren't liars.

The roll out of the letter was likely understood by every single signer of it before it was "leaked" to the press in a "tee hee--oopsie" kind of way...it's a device, designed to create "buzz" for a candidacy.

I can't believe how naive some of the approaches to this are--including yours.

I'm not making a thing up, and why are you getting so .... ANGRY?

Here, have another look at Liz--she wants you to RELAX, already:

Get over it. Stop accusing people of "making shit up" when you need to regard your own conduct as pertains to that charge.

If you're not ready for Hillary, you might want to adjust your POV:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/female-democratic-senators-sign-secret-letter-hillary-clinton-20729861

[NoOneMan]

78. She signed a secret encouragement to run. She didn't publicly endorse of her as the candidate

A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie. Doesn't matter how many words you twist. Warren has not endorsed Clinton for president, formally or otherwise.

[MADem]

84. And that really BOTHERS you!!!! Waaaah, she signed a secret letter!

And that makes it a lie....because it's SECRET!!!!!!! And it's not a FORMAL endorsement!! It has to be FORMAL, so THERE!!!!!

So hold out foolish hope that she's gonna run....well....BECAUSE!!!!!!!!!!



Now you're just making it all very silly, indeed.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/female-democratic-senators-sign-secret-letter-hillary-clinton-20729861

[NoOneMan]

86. Using DU to spread lies should bother everyone here

And until (and if) Warren publicly endorses Clinton as the nominee, saying she already has is a lie.

[MADem]

87. There you go, calling me a liar again. You really need to not do that.

It makes you look .... well... let's just say "less than optimal."

You're coming across as rude, disruptive, hurtful, etc. You need to get a hold of yourself and just quit the self-destructive conduct.

I know you just hate it, but here's the bottom line--by signing that letter, Elizabeth Warren is saying that she is "Ready for Hillary."

You can be, too, ya know!

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/female-democratic-senators-sign-secret-letter-hillary-clinton-20729861

[NoOneMan]

88. I didn't call you a liar. I've proven that a specific statement you are making is a lie

Until Warren endorses Hillary Clinton (by making a formal public announcement), saying she has is a lie. She has encouraged her to run in secret. She has not publicly endorsed her as the nominee.

You may want that very badly to be true, but it take more than simply wanting it.

[NoOneMan]

56. Google: define Political endorsement

Political endorsement is the action of publicly declaring one's personal or group's support of a candidate for elected office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_endorsement


And no, that hasn't happened yet. A lie has happened

[MADem]

62. Poor Widdle Elizabeth is being LIED about...she's being BULLIED....she's being pushed into signing

LETTERS....

Yet she'll be a great leader!!!




Look, she's an adult who signed a letter because she agreed with it, who said she didn't want to run because she doesn't want to run, who turned down Tom Harkin's invitation because she doesn't want her obsessive fans to misconstrue, who has told her staff to tamp down speculation because she means what she says...

And yet, a few Wanna Believers will insist she doesn't know HER OWN MIND, that she sits helplessly by while people spin "lies" about her.

Oh kay....

[NoOneMan]

63. You are doing the lying. She has no control over your lies. I doubt they'll affect her decision.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.

[MADem]

67. No I'm not, but you're losing it, here.

There's nothing more to say. You're making up stuff, you're calling me a liar, and you're being, generally, rude and uncivil and jerky just because you WANT something to happen that is not going to happen.

This conversation has become completely unproductive. When Elizabeth Warren does NOT run, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to apologize for being so personally insulting and nasty to me, as well as calling me a liar, simply because I read what she said and you didn't.

[Whisp]

109. No one is going to declare this early in the game. Not even the inevetible has declared.

to do so for Warren, or anyone, is to give the Clinton Trickteam a way heads up to besmirch. Let's be real, this is politics.

[longship]

58. Why? Because she wants to be a US Senator and not a President. That's why.

So, you can want Warren to run in 2016 all you want. And you can post Warren 2016 threads on DU to advocate it.

But the fact is that even outside of her kind of/sort of endorsement of another 2016 non-candidate, Hillary Clinton, she apparently wants to stay in the Senate, where many of us here think she will do awesome things. Plus, she's said that she's not interested in the presidency.

What's wrong with that? Why don't people understand this simple thing?

[Cal33]

59. "Why don't people understand this simple thing?" I think that many of us have been

seeing this nation of ours going downhill slowly but steadily, and for so long, and feeling
that there is nothing we can do to stop it. We are being cheated, even at the voting
booths -- our last foothold on democracy. And those Democratic leaders who are in a
position to do something about that simply look the other way.

Some of us are becoming desperate.

[longship]

60. But Elizabeth Warren has already said she's not interested.

So why are people here -- smart people!! -- still posting Warren 2016 threads three fucking years before the election? People need to give it a rest, already.

Then there's this "minor issue" of taking back the house in 2014. One would think there would be as much activism on that. Apparently the non-candidate for 2016, Elizabeth Warren, is more important. It boggles my mind.

[Cal33]

65. This is what could happen when people are grasping at last straws.

[NoOneMan]

76. You mean like the way Obama said he wasn't going to run?

So why are people here -- smart people!! -- still posting Warren 2016 threads three fucking years before the election

I think that Hillary skillfully convinced the nation that a woman should be the next president. She just can't convince everyone she should be that woman. Naturally, those who will never buy her look for the rising left of center leadership figure who seems to be Warren. She is the front-running female darkhorse.

[longship]

89. Because it's three fucking years to the election.

And because no matter who runs or wins in 2016 we are going to want a Democratic Congrees. And then there's the minor issue -- apparently minor only to the Clinton/Warren/Grayson (plug in anybody you like this week) 2016 -- of a nationwide Congressional election one year from this month, an off year election which often does not help the President's party.

But by all means keep trumpeting for all those people who will not be running until probably late 2015, or later. And pretend like it will make any difference two years from now.

I have no problem with people liking Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren or Alan Grayson or any other Democrat. But this is insanity that every time a Democrat does something good they should then run for president. Especially three years from the next election.

Let it rest and get to work on 2014. There will be plenty of time to discuss 2016. Now it's just wasteful blather.

[NoOneMan]

91. Look, I agree with you more than you realize

My only participation here has been to diffuse a lie that is already being used to prematurely influence the 2016 race. In any case, yes, its 3 years and ridiculous to obsess over

[longship]

92. Thanks.

I hope my passion did not offend. Certainly none was intended.

[Whisp]

11. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the Clinton's who put this 'letter' nonsense out there themselves.

That's their M.O.

They released that 'story' during the 2008 primaries about Obama and Ayers - they started it in Europe and then Drudge picked it up and then Obama was harassed with that nonsense by the puggers and baggers and tv know nothings endlessly.

That is how the Clintons operate.
Hillary will be more like a Reagan or a Thatcher than anything. Where people get this that she is left of anything puzzles me.

[NoOneMan]

12. Boxer organized the secret letter of encouragement

Hagan made the rumor public, which is being used to undermine the other Democratic women now.

16 women signed it supposedly. But I've only seen it used, systematically, to suppress a Warren run.

[Whisp]

14. Boxer has been a Clinton minion for a long time.

I don't think she would just come up with this herself and out of the blue.

Maybe I'm wrong, but this letter thing smells exactly how the Clintons operate.

[Cal33]

18. Both Clintons have been in politics all of their adult lives. Hillary herself had said so when she

left her post as Sec'y of State. At that time she said she thought she needed a rest,
and afterwards might take a stab at doing something in a different field. Politics is
all they have done.

Yes, there are people who, as you say, systematically try to suppress a Warren run.
It's not impossible, I suppose, that the Clintons themselves might be in on this. It
would be hard to imagine that some of the characteristics ascribed to politicians did
not rub off on them after their having spent a whole lifetime in that field.

[MADem]

41. EVERY Democratic woman Senator--including Warren--signed it.

So, there's that.

Why are people championing Warren for the Presidency, and at the same time, treating her like a bullied dolt who doesn't know her own mind, who can be goaded by Barbara Boxer to sign a letter, who will turn down an invitation from Tom Harkin to his little meet-n-greet party to showcase the players seeking power?

So, if anyone is "suppressing a Warren run," I'd say the blame needs to be put on that person who says "I don't want it," and "I'm not going to do it," and who signs letters of support and turns down the most important pre-campaign Beauty Contest in the Democratic sphere.

[NoOneMan]

42. Obama said quite the same...that he wasn't running. Look who beat Hillary last time.

Funny how that works.

[MADem]

48. Your answer is non responsive. Show me the letter Obama signed endorsing another Dem.

Show me the newspaper article where he refused Tom Harkin's coveted invitation and didn't speak at the steak fry. Show me the comments by Obama's Senate staff, saying "Hell to the NO" in response to the "Will he run?" question.

You can't. Because these things--which are indicative of a desire to NOT participate in the process--do not exist.

When those things DO happen, though, the individual in question is NOT a candidate.

Funny how THAT works.

Elizabeth Warren is a very bright woman. She's not being pushed around, or bullied, and she's not a dunce. She knows what she wants, and it's not the Presidency. That is why she's running around (and her staff is doing likewise) closing doors that her "fans" keep trying to open.

[NoOneMan]

93. Show me a letter Warren signed publicly endorsing another candidate

The existence of such an endorsement is a lie

[MADem]

114. Yes, because Barbara Boxer is a big fat LIAR!

She pretends to write letters that her peers sign off on!

And so are all the Democratic women of the Senate! They pretend to sign letters that Boxer pretends to write!!!

And the media!!! They report on "pretend" letters from Boxer signed by all the D women in the Senate!

Yeah, that's the ticket....!

[NoOneMan]

115. The letter Boxer had them signed in secret is no public endorsement

And suggesting it is is simply a lie.

[MADem]

118. Waaaaah!

EW supports HRC's candidacy!!!

This must not stand!!!

Pants on fire....and margle-bargle YEAH~!

[winter is coming]

52. I'd be surprised if that *didn't* lead back to the Clintons,

both the existence of the letter and it's "accidental" release.

[NoOneMan]

95. Boxer organized the secret letter of encouragement

[Beacool]

100. As usual, your comments are nonsensical.

Remove the tin foil hat, is a tad too tight.

[Whisp]

101. yeh, I know. The Clintons are so straight up and honest.

It must be me/us/we that don't believe their schtick and that can actually read their history and what they are really about that are Alcaned Foiled weirdos.

ha.

[Beacool]

106. You make up stuff about them all the time.

[Whisp]

107. Don't have to make stuff up, it's all on record.

This, the expected First Woman President of The United States. And how she handles pressure and surprises and legitimate questions - goes unhinged: On a question about the Columbian Free Trade Agreement:

''Your husband received $800,000.00 for speaking engagements ostensibly in support of the trade deal , umm you've given your money to the campaign, is that a conflict of interest?'''

yeh, I'd trust her with that red phone at 3 am, if she weren't so tired all the time.

[bluestate10]

79. Warren is awesome. I would love to see her run. But I am behind Hillary and

wouldn't want to see a primary fight between Hillary and Elizabeth. I think having both on the eventual General ticket may not work. I am torn, I love Hillary, but Elizabeth is an awesome candidate who is a true populist fighter for every day Americans and who is fast on her feet on the campaign trail and in debates, I love that about her, I think that Warren would be an exceptional President, but I feel that way about Hillary also.

[Scuba]

2. I'm for drafting Elizabeth. I can't imagine being inspired to work for Hillary's election.

We do NOT need another corporate Dem in the Oval Office.

[whathehell]

3. Yup, I feel the same. n/t

[Chan790]

5. ^^^This. +1 n/t

[Cal33]

7. Do you think it possible that there will be a movement to draft Elizabeth? We still

have three years to go before Nov. 2016.

[AgingAmerican]

19. "Drafting" is an exercise in futility

nt

[HappyMe]

8. Agreed.

If there's no primary, and Clinton is the only choice I'll vote for her. I don't see myself doing phones or sending money.

[ScreamingMeemie]

9. Yup.

[bigwillq]

37. I am not inspired for Hillary at all.

I will actively work against her.

[MADem]

44. Well, if she becomes the nominee, you'll have to take a holiday from here.

I invite your attention to the TOS if you don't take my point.

[Whisp]

54. There have been many actively working against the President from the get go.

You might even be one of those.

So anyone bringing up TOS is being silly. Unless the admin really change the rules, Obama has been riddled with 'work against' him' and apparently that's okay!

[juajen]

94. Ah, Hell, what in the world is this controversy?

As of this time, this dear woman just does not have the experience to get the nomination. Hillary's experience is now legend, as it has to be in order to get a woman elected. Remember, though African-American, Obama is first and foremost, a man.

No, you cannot compare Elizabeth to Obama. He is in a class by himself. So, is Hillary. Elizabeth can get there, but she needs more before that can happen. This tirade is not helping Elizabeth. She will need all the help she can get in the future as she runs again for the Senate and maybe the Presidency. Lay off her. This is not helpful to the party or to the brilliant Elizabeth Warren. She will need Clinton supporters in the future. No need to aggravate them now. Get real!

[Scuba]

97. Yes, let's all support a DINO, because, unity, or whatever.

Fuck that.

[Corruption Inc]

98. "Get real" LMFAO

The entire financial system of the U.S. collapsed in 2008 after decades of supporting policies such as NAFTA and deregulation of banks.

How's that for reality? Get real, get real, get real, get real, get real. If I say it 100 more times does it get anymore real?

[Beacool]

103. That's OK, there are millions who are plenty inspired and will work very hard to elect Hillary.

[Scuba]

123. Why? In case the TPP doesn't get signed before Barack leaves office?

[Beacool]

129. Why?

Because she's the best qualified person to run for office in years and because I think that she's also a terrific person who does care about people. Since most folks here haven't even shaked hands with her, I don't really care what they think of her.

[LWolf]

6. No disclaimers here.

I'd prefer to see ANY left-of-center, "old," non-neoliberal/3rd way/centrist/"new" democrat as our next president. I don't care WHO it is; just what he or she stands for. I agree with everything you said EXCEPT the disclaimer in the 2nd sentence. Your 2nd paragraph illustrates why.

[Cal33]

13. The second sentence of the 1st paragraph is: "But if Hillary should win in the primaries, I'd

of course vote for her." Well, I definitely would. Not voting or voting for a
Republican would only hurry up the disaster that would befall our nation.
Voting for Hillary would, at least, buy us a little more time until some
left of center Democrat like Elizabeth comes along.

I'd be for people like Sanders and Grayson, too, if they should decide to run.
But I couldn't possibly vote for any Republican.

[LWolf]

16. I'm pointing out

that the reason WHY "'Right of center' Democratic presidents only help to keep the Right-Wingers in power longer, and thus prolong the degeneration of our country and the suffering of the American people" is that Democrats keep voting for them.

I'm also pointing out that not voting for "right of center" Democrats is not the same as voting for a republican or not voting at all; there are always other options. Some are persona non grata at DU, so I'll pass them by.

I don't vote for anyone I can't truly support. When there's no other choice, I write in a better Democrat.

I'd like to make sure that there's always a decent choice somewhere on the ballot. That's why I won't perpetuate the "get in line and vote for the lesser evil" meme.

It helps perpetuate the very thing you warn against: keeping right-wingers in power longer, thus prolonging the degeneration of our country and the suffering of the American people.

[vi5]

10. No more of the same.

However, I'm afraid there is just no way we're going to get a liberal or even slightly left of center democratic candidate any time over the next 20-30 years, barring some sort of major uprising or revolution. The powers that be in the Democratic party have become too entrenched in money and wall street and business interests.

The Democratic party has pretty much now bought into some of the most destructive and basic tennets of Republican thinking. Taxes are bad, unions are bad, public spending is bad, the private sector is great, public schools are in decline and it's teachers unions fault, abortion is icky, etc. etc.

It's going to take a fuck of a lot for us to reverse course on this, and electing Hillary will be nothing more than entrenching this third way thinking even more than Obama has.

[Arkansas Granny]

15. I supported Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries, but when the nominee was chosen,

I had no problem supporting and voting for President Obama. I don't know if Sec. Clinton will run in 2016 or not, but, in the end, I will support the Democratic candidate for President. The way I see it, any Democrat will be better than any Republican.

[starroute]

17. This entire thread assumes conditions in 2016 will be just like 2013

I can see any number of things happening between now and then that will change the arithmetic.

For one, the very fact of the "Hillary is inevitable" talk indicates there is already a battle going on for control of the Democratic Party, between what we might call the corporatists and the reformers. If the 2016 nominating process is played out in the context of that struggle, all the candidates and issues will scrutinized in terms of which side they're on.

For another, the Democratic Party is currently suffering a definite crunch in terms of candidates. Part of this is because the GOP holds more than its share of statehouses and has more figures who are viewed as likely candidates than the Democrats do. The other part is that the media seems dedicated to playing up those Republicans and ignoring any potential Democratic rising stars. But we really don't know what's going to happen over the next two years or who might suddenly rocket to prominent out of nowhere.

A third factor is what might loosely be called social discontent. If the economy is still stalled two years from now, things will be a lot different than if it has taken significant steps towards recovery. But either way, I expect that a lot of young people are still going to be feeling screwed and are going to be extremely distrustful of establishment candidates. Elizabeth Warren has the credentials it takes to avoid the Boomer label -- Hillary doesn't.

And there is also a high potential for radical outbursts of one sort or another between now and then. Occupy 2.0 is a real possibility if they figure out a new tactic. Or the baggers and gun nuts may finally decide it's time for Fort Sumter 2.0. Or maybe both at once. A 2016 election campaign fought under conditions that approximate those of 1968 would be very different from a "normal" election year.

For all those reasons, I don't like to even speculate about 2016 any more. But the one thing I'm fairly sure of is that any significant degree of upheaval would leave Hillary stranded, because she can't campaign on taking us back to the good old days the way a Republican might and she can't campaign on being the person to lead us into the future.

[Cal33]

22. You've brought up many points that merit deeper thought. But the one about Hillary's

not being able to "campaign on taking us back to the good old days the way a Republican might and she can't campaign on being the person to lead us into the future." can be readily answered: She can point to Bill's success in not only having stopped the deficit spending, but also having brought about a surplus for two years in a row, and unemployment rate had dropped to an all-time low. Our
nation was prospering with Bill as president, and she could claim that she would be doing the same thing.

[starroute]

66. That might fly with the 50 year olds but not with the 30 year olds

I just can't see a bunch of Millennials getting enthusiastic about a 70 year old woman promising to bring them back to the glory days of NAFTA, welfare "reform," Wall Street deregulation, and the original tech bubble.

It's one thing with the people who are old enough to remember prospering in the 90s and to have a certain nostalgia for that era. But anyone who was still in grade school when Clinton left office isn't going to share those emotions. And with the GOP having the old white voters locked up for the foreseeable future, the Democrats are going to remain dependent on firing up the youth vote.

[Beacool]

104. Excuse me, but the Clinton years were the best this country experienced in my lifetime.

So yes, "she can campaign on taking us back to the good old days".

[hrmjustin]

21. I support Hillary but if Warren were the nominee I would be happy and vote for her.

I like Warren.

[bluestate10]

81. 1,000,000,000,000,000+ %. nt

[Cal33]

99. Elizabeth Warren's hopes and aspirations for what she would like to do and achieve

for America and her people correspond very closely to those of my own.

And the personal qualities of honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, diligence ,
courage and high intelligence, topped with a sense of humor and tactful
diplomacy, tell me that she will succeed extremely well in her undertakings.

With all the above going for her, she can't help but be a winner. And if
Democrats should win both houses of Congress to boot, Elizabeth would
be the person who will see to it that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,
will not be tampered with as the Right-Wingers are hoping to do, the
superrich will be paying their fair share of taxes, and she will be preparing
the groundwork to make the single payer health care system the law of
the land.

Elizabeth Warren will be president of 100% of the American people.

[hfojvt]

25. that seems like a strange hope

First you say you will vote for a "more of the same" person. Then you say "I'd also be hoping that with Hillary as president, it will not be simply a matter of "more of the same." "

Why would a "more of the same" person suddenly get all radical once they got elected President?

First we would hear, "well she has to move to the right so she can get re-elected."

Then, once re-elected, we would see - voila, even more moves to the right.

How many times do we have to see the sun rise and set before we figure out how the world turns?

[Cal33]

26. One can always hope. What's wrong with that? I didn't say that I expected it would happen with

Hillary. But with a Republican in office, there would be no hope. Period.

[hfojvt]

29. the trouble is, though

With Hillary in office there is also no hope. Period.

Heck, even the hope of Obama proved to be disgustingly false.

With Hillary there simply is none.

[Cal33]

53. You mean you think Hillary would rush our nation into self-destruct as quickly

as a Romney, Palin or Bachmann?? If so, I doubt it. I think, with her,
there will be more of the same as we are having right now. We are
heading towards self-destruct, yes, but more slowly. This, in my
opinion, will buy us a little more time until a left-of-center Democratic
president comes along after her. It's not much, but it is something.

Of course, it might also be too late. But, at least there is some chance
of having a real Democrat for president in the future. Elect a Right-Wing
nutjob for president, and we might never again have another election --
or, at best, a token election for show only -- the way it was in the USSR
under Stalin. All we need to do is look at the vote-fraud being practiced
in the red states right now: gerrymandering, voter suppression, phony
electronic voting machines ... etc ... Too many Democrats don't seem to
mind it too much. We need a left-of-center president to push the people
to put a stop to this BS. Right-of-center presidents won't.

[hfojvt]

61. maybe more so

consider the Bush tax cuts.

After they were passed in 2003, Bush called for making them permanent in every state of the union after that. But even though Republicans controlled the Presidency, the House and the Senate, they could not make those tax cuts permanent. Senate Democrats would not allow it.

Ah, but put a Democrat in the White House, and with Democrats in control of the Senate, and instead of dying in 2010 at the end of their ten years, 100% of the Bush tax cuts are extended for two more years PLUS an accursed payroll tax cut is added to the mix.

Two more years down the road and even after being re-elected, this Democratic President, with help from a Democratic Senate and Democrats in the House, makes 85% of the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Furthermore, instead of being outraged at this giant give-away to the rich, the public is told, by this Democratic President - to celebrate it as a victory.

This President keeps trying to achieve some sort of 'grand bargain', something Democrats would be UNITED against if a Republican was President. What is Hillary's position on the 'grand bargain'? Back in the 2008 primaries, Hillary was one of the FIRST, along with the putz Richardson, to take a strong stand AGAINST raising the payroll tax cap.

Seems to me that the Democratic party is MORE likely to accept a disgusting grand bargain with a Democrat in the White House than they would with a Republican there. Just like suddenly there was NO Democratic opposition to making most of the Bush tax cuts permanent.

[SidDithers]

28. Looks like it will be the Warren people who are the PUMAs this time...

Well, some of them, anyway.

Sid

[MADem]

47. How will they reconcile Warren's EARLY support of Clinton's candidacy, though?

Why do they act like Warren is a stupid fool who has been "bullied" out of opportunity...yet they tout her as a "great leader" who will solve all our problems as President?

Geez, where I come from, you lead, you follow, or you get the hell outta the way.

Warren knows her own mind....it's just that her acolytes won't accept it. It's like Elvis teenybopper fans, wishing and hoping that he wouldn't join the Army, or marry Priscilla--as though wishful thinking would make their dreams come true.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

108. rather simple actually

Had i been one of those asked to sign a similar letter i would have had no qualms about doing so even if i planned to run myself.

and if the same thing happened and the 'secret' letter was leaked when or before I announced my run and I was asked about it(and you can almost guarantee that atleast one reporter would latch onto it) my answer would be roughly along the lines of: I encouraged 'name' to run because i believe having them involved in the race will help to strengthen the country as well as the party'(or something of a similar nature).

[MADem]

112. Well, a real leader would just not sign the letter, and discourage the

preparation of the letter in the first place, telling Boxer it was "awkward" if she were planning a run. There wouldn't be a cutesy "Oh, DO run!" with a backtrack later--that's just undercutting and underhanded, and that's not how EW plays things--she is a plain-spoken straight shooter, and playing games like that isn't in her DNA.

But she's not planning a run. She's said NO at least four times in print interviews and "No means no" when it's backed up with stuff like this letter, the comments from her personal staffers saying "No shit, she really DOES mean NO," her turning down the invitation to speak at Harkin's Steak Fry Democratic Up-n-Comer Beauty Contest, and this "Go relax, I ain't running" announcement from just over a month ago:

She'll probably be a great Fed Chair. I would not be surprised if that's where her interests in future lie.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

124. unless she actually belive it would strengthen the race neh?

why discourage somebody from running just because you plan to? And signing a letter of encouragement in no way implies a person does not plan to run themselves, it just means the signer thinks the person the letter is for should run. (there is nothing underhanded about that)

And i know that 'no means no' as you have stated in this thread a few times(and I don't really think she will run yet even tho i am a Norwegian i hope she decides to), but that is a statement i take with a grain of salt even with Wa rren since nobody knows what the future holds and something can happen in the near future that changes her mind.

[MADem]

128. No, because that's not how Democratic women in the Senate do things.

They believe in consensus, not confrontation, and they wouldn't pull anything so underhanded as that--and it is underhanded, because, despite the fact that some here are insisting that the letter is not an "endorsement," it is. It is a "defacto" endorsement, and it is predicated on inside information that these women--HRC's former colleagues, most of them--have, that we do not have.

The Democratic women in the Senate have a reputation in that they say what they mean, mean what they say, and they don't bullshit one another--that's one of the tightest, watch-each-other's-backs bunch in that chamber.

Elizabeth Warren, like I said, will make one helluva Fed Chair. Or a Treasury Secretary. But not a President.

[GoneFishin]

30. I consider the "she has a D after her name, vote for her or the republicans win" game to be a scam.

I won't play. If they run another corporatist they won't get my vote.

Anyone who thinks that is not being pragmatic consider this. How much incentive is there for them to run a progressive candidate when a bunch of "progressives" are publicly announcing that they'll vote for any corporatist DLCer that runs, no matter if it has the effect of pushing the party farther to the right.

[One_Life_To_Give]

33. Because she doesn't want it

Elizabeth is my choice in part because she doesn't want it. In my cynical years I am suspicious of anyone who want's the job.

[NoOneMan]

35. President Obama stated he didn't want to run in 2008 more than once.

Its what politicians say. The reluctant candidate is more attractive to many than the overeager one.

[tularetom]

36. I saw a post here about a speech Clinton gave in SF where she blamed "both sides"

for the fucked up state of political discourse here in the US.

Then I read another post where somebody said she was the only Democrat who would far enough to the left to "stand up" to all the wing nut bullshit coming from the republicans.

At that point I gave up, stopped reading posts and poured another glass of Jack Daniels.

As much of a DINO as Obama is, she is ten times worse.

[Zorra]

38. Yes. A US president who is left of center both economically and socially is

very important.

I want to enjoy my democratic, and newly recognized human rights, and prevent unregulated capitalism from destroying the planet so that I can continue to enjoy those rights.

[NuclearDem]

46. If Hillary wants my vote she'll have to disavow and fight against TPP.

Anything else is a deal breaker.

[NCTraveler]

51. I will look at those in the primary and make my decision then.

As of right now we have no clue who is running. I will say that I would probably go for Warren over Clinton in the primary. I only say probably because Warren hasn't been fully vetted yet. Senators aren't normally vetted in the same manner Presidential candidates are. Hillary has been vetted to the moon and back.

[Skidmore]

55. As much as I would like to see Warren in high office, unless Dems and "progressives"

get out there and put a working Congress and Senate in place, then the best place for her would remain the Senate. I saw someone on GD post earlier that he/she would not be voting the next election. Stay home and don't vote and you become part of the problem.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. I'm not a moderate, centrist, Neo-lib, New Democrat, or 3rd Way. I vote for progressives.

I'll not settle for "more of the same" or "not as bad" when I vote.

[B Calm]

72. I wonder if Joe Biden will run for potus. . .

[bluestate10]

74. I agree. 2016 is time for the nation to start moving more toward the Left of the

political spectrum. If done right, the Left is a better place because there people become more important, gaining a foothold against profits, fair immigration policies become a reality. The next Democratic President must start us on that path. I am a Center-Left Democrat who would prefer not to see Hillary and Elizabeth have a fight for the nomination to be our party's representative for President, but I know that I will be 1 million percent behind the eventual nominee.

[graywarrior]

80. Warren is staying here, in MA.

I say so!

[MADem]

85. So do I....and she'll sit in "Ted's seat" until President Clinton nominates her as Fed Chair. nt

[HappyMe]

90. President Clinton?

Cart before the horse.

[MADem]

113. Yes, President Hillary Clinton.

What cart before the horse? It's a logical progression. Not only is HRC the most likely candidate, you don't think she'd regard Elizabeth Warren as a STRONG candidate for Chair of the Federal Reserve? Particularly if EW applies her fundraising clout to retaining the WH for our party AND helping to elect the first female president in US history?

Sounds like a win-win to me.

[HappyMe]

125. She's NOT the president.

You have quite awhile and an election before you can call her that.

[MADem]

126. Neither was Barack Obama in 2006.

I'm looking forward to President Clinton's two terms.

[HappyMe]

127. lol!

[graywarrior]

96. Maybe Deval could run for her seat.

Other than that, there's no one else strong enough here in MA ( I hate to say it )

[MADem]

120. Deval might just want to be Attorney General of the United States.

He'd need to really do some fundraising, organizing, GOTVing and assorted management to get a crack at that job, but he has been on that short list before.

If he wanted the Senate seat, he could probably take it.

Nikki Tsongas has some stuff--she might be able to grab and hold that seat should EW go to the Fed Chair. Or how about another Warren--Seti? He's got some style. He's fresh to the "state" scene, but he's got that charisma thing working.

Ya gotta look around, but we've got some folks that are worth a second look.

[Jamaal510]

83. Without a House majority and Senate (super)majority,

a President Warren (or Clinton) would be in the same predicament as Obama is right now. Some of us wonder why Obama's agenda hasn't been as progressive as we had hoped, but that there is a big reason why. For someone who is supposedly "right-of-center", Obama has indeed come out in support of things like raising top taxes, supporting gay rights, public option (before compromising on ACA), infrastructure, and a Jobs Bill, but has been unable to accomplish those things. The other party has been so unyielding and extreme that it's pushing our country's politics rightward.

[Beacool]

102. Are we going to have another three years of the Left

bemoaning the fact that Warren doesn't want to run for president?

Let the woman be, she barely got into the senate 9 months ago. Her first elected position, mind you, and some of you are already pushing her to run for president?????

She speaks against Wall Street. Great, what else qualifies her to be president??????????

[Deep13]

110. My concern with a Warren nomination...

What do Mike Dukakis, John Kerry, and Mitt Romney have in common?

[ecstatic]

111. An elected democrat can only govern "left of center" if we have a filibuster proof

majority. It doesn't matter who is the nominee in 2016--Kucinich, Warren, or Clinton--the direction of policy will be determined by what can actually pass the House and Senate.

[fadedrose]

116. I'd rather see..

Any of 53 Dem Senators, 219 Dem house members, 20 Dem governors, plus Biden, Dean, or, why the hell not? A looker like George Clooney.

If all of these people are not available and refuse to serve, get Clinton..

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

117. I'm so sick of this shit! This entire thread and threads like it don't mean SHIT!!!

We need a Congress packed full of PROGRESSIVE Democrats in BOTH chambers!!!

Hillary! Liz!! They won't mean shit if we don't have progressive Democrats in Congress!!

My God, DU!! Haven't you learned a goddamned thing in the last 5 years other than just bashing the president? Haven't you seen why he can't get shit done?!? Few progressive policies? No closing of Gitmo? No immigration policies? Hello??

Why the hell are we contemplating about Hillary and Elizabeth when we need to be focusing ALL of our energy on 2014 and taking back the House? Retaining the Senate? State legislatures? Governorships?

I don't hear the Teabaggers and ReThugs creaming themselves too much over 2016!!! They are focused!! They are obsessed with 2014!!!

FOR GODSSAKES!!! WHY ARE WE NOT MORE FOCUSED ON 2014?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[MADem]

119. I can walk and chew gum at the same time.

No one has to tell me to "get serious" about off year races.

See, I 'get serious' about LOCAL races.

There isn't an election day--even one in March or May--where I'm not going back and forth, taking bodies to the polls so they can vote.

I find this "Don't discuss THIS issue, you must discuss THAT issue" stuff tiresome. It's not like threads are rationed here. If people want to start threads about 2014 races, they should start them. They should make them INTERESTING and worth READING.

That is a better tactic than shitting on other threads, yelling at people for talking about what is going to be a BIG DEAL of a race, as we work to elect the first female President in the history of our republic.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

121. There's 50 million Hillary threads that up daily, both pro and con.

Now, there's 50 million threads that pop up daily about Liz Warren.

No one's suggesting that we can't walk and chew t the same time!

My frustration lies with the fact there's absolutely no discussion regarding 2014 strategies for targeting congressional races. There's some talk regarding governors and some high profile Senate races, but those threads are few and far between.

The larger point being: It won't matter who the president is if we don't have both House and Senate. Even more...we need more progressives, not just a majority. Obama enjoyed a majority but we saw how Blue Dogs sided with Republicans on a lot of issues important to us.

Perhaps I came on too strong, but I won't back down from my argument that we really need much more of a focus on 2014.

[MADem]

122. If there's no discussion, that's on you. You want discussion? Fire it up!

All politics is local. My congressional rep is solid blue. So's my state. I do my bit by getting voters to the polls. From my spot on the map, we're holding up our end.

Sure, those of us who do not live in a tough district can send twenty five bucks to the candidate fighting the Red Tide, but that's all we can do, if we're not rich and cannot afford to go play a carpetbagging volunteer campaign aide.

The people who need to start up these vague "Let's focus on 2014" threads are the people who know the issues, who live in the districts involved, who can point us to the backgrounds of the candidates, who can do a little schooling so we can have a substantive discussion on those races.

All of this carping about "Waaah, Hillary, Waaah, Elizabeth Warren" and "Why aren't WEEEEEE talking about 2014?" is just, frankly, nonsense. It's trying to guilt people in a cheesy way, and I am not buying it (I'm not aiming this at you, specifically--there's more of this kind of hyperbolic crapola in other threads--finger-wagging scolding coupled with personal insult, like that's the way to motivate people--it's bullshit, if you ask me). People CAN walk and chew gum at the same time. Everyone has the same HIDE THREAD button that I've got; they too can avoid subjects that disturb them. Everyone has access to auto-trash by keyword, too.

Griping about threads that don't say what "certain people" want them to say is just laziness overlaid with a didactic attitude. People who want to see threads about topics they want to see need to START those threads instead of yelling at others for not doing the work they should be doing. And they'd better make 'em timely, fun, full of good information, and a real sweet read, otherwise, they will sink like a stone. And that won't be the fault of DU--it'll be the fault of the person who can't write an interesting OP but wants everyone to eat their broccoli by pretending to be interested in a dull, boring thread.

Again, all politics is local. People on the ground in contested districts need to fire up their typing fingers and give us some of that local flavor.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

130. I've been active in politics all my life. And I've been screaming about local politics on this forum

for many years. I won't stop, either.

Of course, all politics is local. And thread like this don't reflect that #1 rule of thumb.

I'm not going to read all of the other gibberish in your post because it is of no consequence.

The bottom line is that we need to be focused on what is important.

We can talk about Hillary or Elizabeth all we want for 2016. Come 2014, if we don't have the Congress we need, none of that Hillary/Elizabeth discussion will matter.

You know I'm right, that's why you targeted me. That's why you took offense. That's why you have to make yourself sound self righteous.

It's o.k., because at the end of the day, we still have to work to get Democrats elected to office. No about of self-righteous indignation will change that fact.

[Cal33]

131. You're correct. We've got to make sure that many more Democrats will be voting in

Nov. 2014, and win both Houses of Congress with more liberals and progressives.
And Nov. is only 11+ months away. We've got to expose and bring to court all
the criminal dirty tricks practiced by the Right-Wingers as they ply their numerous
ways of election and voter fraud.

We must win both Houses come Nov. 2014. It is a matter of life and death for the
Democratic Party. You can be sure the Right-Wingers will be fighting just as hard.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

132. When it all comes down to it, we are on the same side. We're fighting for the same things!!!! :)

[MADem]

133. That's wonderful that you've been active in local politics all your life.

Start threads on that, then.

Stop complaining about what other people want to talk about.

Use HIDE THREAD and KEYWORD HIDE to avoid topics that bother you.

Don't tell people what they are "allowed" to discuss. It never ends well. People will talk about what they want to talk about--even if that's Hillary 2016.

And don't flatter yourself-I didn't "target" you (and, on edit, if you'd bothered to read what I wrote--which you PROUDLY said you didn't read--you would have read, quite specifically, that I SAID I was not targeting you specifically...but hey, get mad instead of reading, that always works, not). And I'm not sounding "self righteous" either--I'm sounding accurate. If you don't like what I have to say, you can also use IGNORE and avoid that, too!

I'm not the one here trying to limit conversation--you are. How's that working out for ya?

[upi402]

138. not hillary

no way.

sick of republicans from our party.

i want my party back - i want a real choice - not another corporatist.

[Cal33]

141. But it looks like another "corporatist" is what we will get, if Elizabeth doesn't run. That's the

way it looks right now, no one else can prevail over Hillary. But I wouldn't worry yet.
We've still got three years, that's a long time for many still unforeseen events to
take place --I hope.

In the meantime, let's look at one or two of the glaring weaknesses of the Democratic
Party: Electronic voting machines (especially those by Diebold) have been used since
2000, I believe, and they are still used in too many states today in 2013. Voter
suppression practiced by the GOP in so many ways: gerrymandering, deliberately
telling voters to go to the wrong voting addresses, ...etc... ad infinitum.

Democrats occasionally put up a weak squawk, but that's about all. How many of
these voter crimes have ever been brought to court? And how many of those criminals
have ever been jailed? You can count them on your fingers. And yet, the above has
been carried out by the thousands over the years -- nationwide.

Just imagine if the reverse had been true. The GOP wouldn't have put up with such
nonsense and for so many years. Thousands of Democratic fraud practitioners would
have been jailed!

The fault, dear Brutus, lies within ourselves. Too many Democrats are simply too
lackadaisical -- they just don't give a shit!

Nov. 2014 is less than a year away. Let's try to wake up these lackadaisical Democrats.
Let them know that if they don't give a shit about correcting these wrongs, more shit is
what they'll get !! And squawking after the shit has hit the fan is usually too late.