If not Warren, then whom? If not now, then when?

[Laelth]

While I appreciate the wisdom of those who regularly remind us to keep our eyes on the 2014 prize, the fact is that many of us on the left want to see a real liberal elected President in 2016, and we're running out of time to recruit a candidate. It must be done now. The machinery of the campaign needs time to grow, and, with only three years left before the 2016 contest, time is running short.

So, I ask DU: If not Elizabeth Warren, then whom?

We need to nominate a woman. This is almost conventional wisdom, now, in the Democratic Party as Noam Scheiber, the Senior Editor of The New Republic, argues in a recent essay. I also think we greatly improve our chances of winning by running women in this political environment, as I argued here.

So, if we need to nominate a liberal woman, whom should we choose? Who's the third best fundraiser in the Democratic Party? It's Elizabeth Warren, who falls right behind Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Before she was even elected, her fund-raising e-mails would net the party more cash than any Democrat’s besides Obama or Hillary Clinton. According to the Times, Warren’s recent speech at the annual League of Conservation Voters banquet drew the largest crowd in 15 years.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare

To those of you who proudly and definitively announce that Elizabeth Warren isn't running for President, I ask you this: whom else should we try to recruit? Elizabeth Warren is the best shot we've got to get a liberal in the White House. She's liberal, she's brilliant, she's articulate, and her record is, to my knowledge, spotless. She carries no baggage. Plus, she's an excellent fundraiser.

I would also add that she's a savvy politician, and that she keeps her options open. She may have said she wasn't running, but Barack Obama said that too. Big deal. What Scheiber's essay shows is that she is focused on her policy goals, and she doesn't care how she gets there.

The proper interpretation of Warren’s prodigious p.r. efforts, then, isn’t that she’s especially taken with the idea of media stardom. It’s that she is relentlessly, perhaps ruthlessly, maybe even a bit messianically, focused on advancing her policy agenda. Everything else is merely instrumental.

This is what the banking industry and its Republican allies (as well as internal opponents like Geithner) didn’t fully appreciate when they effectively killed Warren’s hopes of permanently heading the consumer agency in 2011. Anyone who knows Warren will tell you she had no particular ambition to be a senator. She decided that the Senate would suffice as a way to agitate for her issues only when Obama stiffed her for the CFPB job—an enormous disappointment after she spent months lining up support among banks. “It’s poetic justice. At end of the day, if the banking community hadn’t been so apoplectic, everyone could have decided it’s this little tiny agency, who really cares?” says Anita Dunn, Obama’s White House communications director in 2009. “Instead, she ends up as a senior senator from Massachusetts on the banking committee, blocking Larry at the Fed.”

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare

What Scheiber shows is that Warren, if she could be convinced that running for President was the best way to achieve her goals, might just do it.

If not Warren, then whom?

And, if not now, then when?

Now is the time to work on recruiting her (drafting her, if necessary) to run in 2016. We can't afford to wait. While I appreciate the efforts of those who want to see the Democratic Party re-take the House and hold the Senate in 2014 (and I support those goals, obviously), the fact is that Elizabeth Warren has to be thinking about this issue now, and she needs our encouragement in order to put in place all the pieces necessary just to preserve her option to run.

So, I invite all liberal Democrats to write, e-mail, or call the Senior Senator from Massachusetts, and let her know how you feel.

If not Warren, then whom? If not now, then when?

The Honorable Elizabeth Warren
317 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: [phone]

E-mail her here.

Donate here.



-Laelth

[xchrom]

1. du rec.

[Laelth]

146. Thanks for the rec. n/t

-Laelth

[madrchsod]

2. no one at this time

there`s no other women that has the national attention right now. i do think that there are several women in the future that will be really good candidates. .

[Laelth]

147. Agreed. Thanks for the response. n/t

-Laelth

[oasis]

3. Hillary! That's who.

[zipplewrath]

9. Different goals

The OP was addressed about people who want a vastly more liberal candidate than HRC. It's focused at people who object to the movement the DLC has pushed the party through.

That said, and I say this as a Warren supporter and early funder. I think alot of people perceive her to be more liberal than she may be. She is fairly aware of the unfairness of the current regulatory environment, especially as it pertains to the banking and finance sectors. On the rest of the classic democratic issues, it isn't clear.

Many of us let ourselves project a more liberal image on to Obama, mostly because of his opposition to the Iraq war. Then we end up with a president that wants Chained CPI, sustained troops in Afghanistan past 2014, rather "look forward than backwards" on Gitmo torture, pushed single payer and the public option off the table and kept the mandate on the table, and has completely reversed course on NSA spying and telecom cooperation.

Warren's good, I'm not sure she's Feingold, Sanders, or Kucinich.

[Jackpine Radical]

26. I agree with your caution about Warren's overall stance.

However, reining in the power of the banksters & other corrupt big-money forces is the primary task for the next decade; nothing else can happen until that happens, and I think Warren has the best credentials for that purpose.

[tblue]

38. DLC = social liberal + fiscal conservative

They suck us in with the first, and then proceed to be the second, never doing much to alter the balance of economic power. That is the definition of "3rd Way."

Elizabeth Warren will take the part of the 99%. That's the missing piece we can no longer afford to leave to chance. Hillary will never fit that bill.

[hfojvt]

48. but Obama ALREADY takes the "part of the 99%"

He made 85% of the Bush tax cuts permanent. Who got most of the benefits of that $3.7 trillion tax cut?

Answer - the 99%.

The top 1% got $600 billion in permanent tax cuts
the bottom 99% got $3.1 trillion in permanent tax cuts.

The trouble with this whole 99% garbage is that "the 99%" includes the bottom 80% as well as the top 19%. And if you divide the money between those two groups.

The top 19% got $1.8 trillion in permanent tax cuts
The bottom 80% got $1.3 trillion in permanent tax cuts.

The bottom 20% only got $300 billion, but they are not important. It's the 99% that is important, and the 99% got taken care of. It's just that the top of it got taken much better care of than the bottom of it.

[Laelth]

200. Well said, tblue. n/t

-Laelth

[Erose999]

86. Even Kucinich isn't Kucinich. He works for Faux Noise now.

[Sheri]

227. really? but i always liked him.

this is sad if it's true.

[merrily]

234. None of those three will be running.

I am not sure Warren will be running either.

I'd vote for Warren over Hillary, though.

[Laelth]

245. So would I.

If you would like to encourage her to run, contact information can be found here. Write to her or call her. You can make a difference!

You can add a Warren 2016 banner to your DU sig. line here.

You can join the Elizabeth Warren Group here.

-Laelth

[Marrah_G]

100. No thanks, tired of centrists

I don't see Hillary taking on the corporations which are the root of everything wrong in this country.

[Laelth]

156. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[Sheri]

169. we can't afford another 3rd way democrat. nt

[daleanime]

4. Big time K&R.....

It's time to roll up the sleeves and get to work. On '14, '16, and beyond.

[Laelth]

159. Thanks for the k&r. n/t

-Laelth

[cali]

5. great, well reasoned OP

k&r

[Laelth]

24. Thank you, cali.

Your kind words mean a lot to me.

Cheers!

-Laelth

[JustAnotherGen]

6. Spotless record yes

Last edited Tue Nov 12, 2013, 02:32 PM - Edit history (1)

But I think her being a Republican at one time is in the back of people's minds.<--- It doesn't matter to me but I've seen that expressed as an 'issue' by a few DU'ers. They also tend to be Boomers and older who have been staunch Democratic party members and leftists all of their lives - and well . . . I understand them on this (though I'm Gen X). My mom is their peer and she has held Clinton being for Goldwater back in the 1960's against her ever since she hit the national stage. We have to respect those who have always respected and held liberal and progressive values - and they have a 'right' to have trepidation with her on that.

And remember - Obama was considered one of the MOST liberal Senators in 2007. It was actually used to attack him - And now he is a centrist. Regardless of how liberal someone is - they eventually have to compromise and work/play well with others.

Me - I do not care at ALL who the Candidate is because mark my words -

1. I'm not giving to any national Party fund raising avenues (they didn't help Buono here in NJ so fuck em - I'll give directly to candidates ONLY never the "Party" again).

and

2. I'm voting for the Democratic Candidate.

If it's Clinton and Schumer - I'm voting for them. If its Warren and Sanders - I'm voting for them. If it's Biden and Sherrod Brown (Looooooooooooove him!) I'm voting for them.

This entire site has a better chance of meeting god sometime in the next two minutes from me hitting the 'post my reply button' - than it does me sitting home and not casting a D vote on election day 2016. regardless of who is elected in primary/caucus season.


So I'll leave the arguments to you guys - I observed in 2004 the 'primary season' at DU and was posting in 2008 and of course we had none in 2012. But in 2004 and 2008 - I learned to zip my lip, sit back, then get active and out there working for the candidate when all is said and done.

[Laelth]

158. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Hillary, of course, was a Republican in her youth, but I agree that this may be an issue for Elizabeth Warren.

I, too, will be voting for the "D" in the general. I would like to not have to hold my nose, however.



-Laelth

[merrily]

226. Being a conservative Goldwater Republican in your youth, maybe because your parents

raised you Republican, is one thing. But being a Republican until age 46 is different.

Also, Hillary did not flip from Goldwaterite to liberal, even though she became a Democrat in the one of the most liberal periods for the Democratic Party. I am not sure Warren is liberal.

[Laelth]

228. Interesting. Thanks. n/t

-Laelth

[merrily]

230. After posting, I saw another thread saying she wants the filibuster rule changed.

That made a big difference.

If she succeeds with it, I'm hers for life.

[Laelth]

231. Looks like she made her switch in 1995.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/24/elizabeth-warren-i-created-occupy-wall-street.html

18 years as a Democrat is OK with me.

-Laelth

[merrily]

232. I'm more impressed with her challenge on Senate rules.

Hillary's been a Democrat for a lot longer than 18 years. So has Baucus.

[Laelth]

233. You make a good point.

The length of time one has been a Democrat, ultimately, means very little.

Warren came from the lower-middle class, however, where Hillary did not. That might have some bearing on Warren's populism. I agree with you that Warren's desire to eliminate the filibuster bodes well.

-Laelth

[99Forever]

7. Agree 1000%.

I will NOT hold my nose and vote for the less crappy of two crappy choices, ever again.

[Laelth]

171. Cool.

Get your Elizabeth Warren 2016 banner for your sig. line here.



-Laelth

[99Forever]

203. Thanks.

I like it.

[Laelth]

204. Looks good on you! n/t

-Laelth

[Laelth]

205. Oh, and if you haven't done so already ...

... you may want to join the Elizabeth Warren Group here.



-Laelth

[n2doc]

8. 2014 2014 2014 2014

Eyes on the next election. Can we really afford another 4 years of a do nothing, malevolent congress?

[zipplewrath]

10. You did read it right?

They may a fairly good case that anyone who wants a more liberal president than HRC is going to have to start now. They can't wait until after the 2014 elections, especially if any "drafting" is involved.

[n2doc]

15. Warren has said she is not interested

Perhaps you might spend time trying to get someone who is interested to run.

People spent lots of time trying to get Paul Krugman to express interest in chairing the fed, or being Obama's chief financial advisor, etc. etc. Didn't work. He didn't want to do it.

If you want to keep encouraging Warren to run, fine, great. But you should have a fallback plan if she really means no.

[zipplewrath]

18. Well, now you're changing a bit.

Previously, you were chanting 2014. Now you're claiming she has no interest.

Again, you read the OP right? That issue was addressed. And, in fact, was one of the reasons that there is even less time to wait until after 2014. Money will have to be raised and an organization established well prior to 2014 to provide her with the context to agree to run. And I suspect it will have to be MORE than was done to convince Obama.

[n2doc]

20. Look, whatever

Enjoy your tilt at windmills.You can have all the reasons you want, laid out perfectly. Call up Sen. Warren and tell her, because she is the only one that matters.

[zipplewrath]

63. That's kinda what the OP is suggesting

Really, the whole point of the OP was to establish why people should be doing exactly that, calling up Warren (in a variety of different meanings of "call up&quot . Much like the current president, a case has to be made to candidates and that can't be done in the fall of 2014, it has to be done now.

[Laelth]

217. Thanks for this series of posts.

I really appreciate it.



-Laelth

[rhett o rick]

195. I am curious why you are offering advice here. It's apparent that you dont share our

concern with getting a progressive to run against Ms. Clinton. So why are you so concerned that "we" not waste our time? Do you have a viable alternative recommendation?

I would think you would recognize that Sen Warren cant show interest until she is ready to run.

And I would hope you would recognize that efforts to convince Sen Warren to run does in no way preclude our efforts to find alternatives.

[rhett o rick]

142. That's a popular battle cry but what does it really mean?

In my district the challengers havent register and the incumbent hasnt started his campaign. Posting about the 2016 race isnt in anyway impacting my local races.

I think the Ms. Clinton supporters want the left to wait until she has a few years head start before looking for a progressive challenger.

[Sheri]

170. i think you're right. they want to silence the left.

[Laelth]

201. Not sure what's going on.

That said, what you suspect would not come as any shock to me if it were true.



-Laelth

[Sheri]

224. if and when you figure it out, let me know.

makes no sense to me.

[Sheri]

11. good points.

senator warren would be my first choice, but i will vote for the democrat no matter what.

[Laelth]

174. Me too.

But that's why it's so important to convince Elizabeth Warren to run now. Personally, I'd rather not be holding my nose when I vote in 2016.

Thanks for the response.



-Laelth

[Sheri]

199. i'm sick of holding my nose.

another 3rd-way democrat will not do.

[Laelth]

244. I certainly understand how you feel about that. n/t

-Laelth

[Renew Deal]

12. Warren is our best chance at getting Christie in the White House

Elizabeth Warren has almost no elected experience. Even Bush Jr had more experience than her. She would lose a general election so bad that we would be embarrassed. Warren needs time to grow as an elected official.

The only candidate that has it (almost) all is Hillary. She has experience both elected and as the most senior foreign policy official. She has star power, a national profile, and the ability to raise money. She has the liberal positions that many DUers seek. And Hillary has paid her dues. She's ready to go. Warren isn't even in the top 5 most presidential candidates we have (Clinton, Biden, Cuomo, Schweitzer, Mark Warner).

Warren is likely going to skip out on 2016, but if she runs, I hope her supporters don't get too discouraged when she loses. It's not necessarily going to be a rejection of her politics. She's just not ready

[G_j]

17. cause we all know a RW bully of the male gender

who stands for the 1%, is preferable to a true progressive female candidate who stands up for the 99%..,

[Renew Deal]

29. He was in NJ

And we have a much better voter advantage there than nationally

[bvar22]

140. HIllary stands for the 99%?

She claims she does, but reveals exactly WHO she stands for in the following video.

[G_j]

145. I was talking about Elizabeth Warren

certainly not Clinton.

[Laelth]

243. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[Laelth]

22. I fundamentally disagree.

The right wing and the corporate media are going to push the meme that whomever we nominate is the most liberal so-and-so since Lenin. That's unavoidable, and if they're going to paint our candidate in that way, we might as well run a real liberal.

Warren does need some foreign policy experience, but W had none when he was (s)elected. Didn't seem to matter in 2000. I don't think it matters now. Bill Clinton had no foreign policy experience when he ran in 1992. Didn't matter. I see this as a non-issue.

Pure demographics say that whomever we nominate will win. As I have argued elsewhere, our chances are better in this political environment when we run Caucasian women.

I see no reason to withhold support from Elizabeth Warren. If you want to see a liberal elected President in 2016, she's the best chance we have.

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

-Laelth

[Scuba]

41. Pathetic attempt to intimidate Warren supporters.

And as for fiscal policy, what differentiates Christie from Hillary?

[Renew Deal]

52. It's no attempt to intimidate

It's a different point of view.

A lot

[HappyMe]

43. Oh please.

Get out of the way of the Clinton Machine! Booga booga!!11

[Kahuna]

44. Bingo!

[hfojvt]

53. "Clinton has the liberal positions that many DUers seek"

Well she DID have many supporters here in 2008 for some reason. But for many DUers, she simply does NOT have "the liberal positions that we seek."

Which is why we were adamantly opposed to her in 2008 and why we will be adamantly opposed to her in 2016.

[NuclearDem]

85. What liberal positions are those?

Because from where I stand, she's a wholehearted supporter of the biggest corporate coup d'état since Citizens United.

Having some liberal positions on social issues is meaningless as long as she's granting the 1% the right to trash those liberal positions at home and abroad.

[Laelth]

185. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[Erose999]

89. Our most recent president was a one term senator too.

[Renew Deal]

94. And 7 years in the State Senate

[Erose999]

96. Yes, but I'm just saying, one term in the Senate is now considered an appropriate spring board. Hell

Paulbot, Jr. is a one term senator as well and he's being trotted around by the GOP as presidential material. As is Carnival Cruz and Marco Polio.

[Dollface]

110. I love Elizabeth Warren but I have to agree with Renew Deal. It's too soon for her to run.

Also, don't underestimate the power of a strong Senator. She has important work to do in her specialty area - the banksters and new regulations. She has the knowlege to wipe the floor with them. She would be a strong Senate ally to HRC and the Dems and Harry Reid won't last forever.

Feingold-Sanders 2016!

[Laelth]

120. I love having her as a strong Senator.

That is immensely valuable, I agree.

But I return to my original question. If not Warren, then whom?

Feingold, whom you seem to endorse, is a man. Scheiber argues that there's a growing consensus in the Democratic Party that we need to nominate a woman in 2016. Do you agree?



-Laelth

[hobbit709]

13. Don't know who but when is AFTER Nov. 2014.

[zipplewrath]

19. You read the OP right?

It clearly laid out why that's not really an option for anyone that actually wants her (or someone like her) to run.

[jeff47]

32. You read the reply right?

'cause he clearly laid out that he disagrees with your opinion that we have to leap ahead to 2016.

[zipplewrath]

56. Yes

He did so without addressing any of the points made by the OP.

[jeff47]

58. That would be because those points rely on something he disagrees with.

Take away the "we must start now" that underlies all those points, and there really isn't much of a reason to discuss them.

[zipplewrath]

61. What they ignored

Well the point being is that they ignored all the erason for "we must start now" and merely said it was too early to start now without explaining why those reasons weren't valid. The OP had already addressed the argument about "wait until after 2014" and all the poster did was to restate that argument and ignore the counter argument.

[jeff47]

66. What they ignored was the single sentence where you declared "we must start now"

without really providing any argument as to why. You assert "the machinery needs time to grow" as the reason, without explaining how working on 2014 can't create that machinery.

For example, my opinion is the greatest weapon we can create for a liberal candidate in 2016 is a Democratic win in 2014. A Republican win in 2014 would overwhelm any "groundwork" or "growing machinery", because Clinton and her supporters will shout "Centrist country! Look at 2014!".

So we need to work on that 2014 victory now, and then leverage the 2014 "machinery" for a liberal candidate in 2016. There's no reason to believe that the "machinery" must be rebuilt every election. The Republicans don't do that, why should we?

[zipplewrath]

71. Actually we're close together

Although I suspect you don't agree, is would be smart for Warren supporters to fund 2014 efforts through Warren and her organizations, there by both raising support for her among the democratic party candidates, AND developing the organization that can become her campaign in 2016. All the while demostrating that progressive candidates can win, thereby indicating that she, not Hillary is the better choice.

We do need to work on 2014, but on a PROGRESSIVE 2014, not a DLC 2014.

[Laelth]

219. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[bluedeathray]

14. Dear Senator Warren,

Dear Senator Warren. Being totally unfamiliar with your personal life, and the complexity of your duties as an excellent Senator, it probably isn't reasonable for me to make this request of you. But I feel that, in my children's best interests, I must. The American people have precious little advocacy in Washington these days. The Plutocracy that injects so much money into politics these days, and through some lobbying efforts even drafts legislation, is taking our country down a dead end path. We are going further into debt, further into a poison environment, and further away from broad use of renewable energy sources. These courses can only have one conclusion. It puts more wealth into fewer hands, and permits people with sociopathic tendencies to set the agenda for our future. Please, for our children's future's sake, seriously consider running for the office of President of the United States. As a veteran, a parent, and a citizen who realizes the sacrifices made in the past for our great nation, I'm asking you this. I can promise you a ground swell of support such as has never been seen in America. I know this because of 2 things about Americans. When we finally get pushed over the line, we fight. We fight hard and fight to win. And we also have high ideals, which under a unifying leader, can be realized in terms of restoring our nation's greatness. We should be showing the rest of the world the true path to human greatness. Not succumbing to greed and short sighted advertising. I know this is just one letter. I promise I speak for millions. Please consider it. Best regards. Your faithful friend and philosophical comrade, XXXXX XXXXXXX

[Laelth]

157. Beautifully said. n/t

-Laelth

[Scuba]

16. Excellent, well reasoned post. It's time to start the 'draft Elizabeth' movement now.

She may not be as liberal on all the social issues as Hillary, but she is very progressive on the financial issues, where Hillary is a tool of Wall Street.

I'm really tired of getting tossed a few meager advances on social issues while getting totally screwed on fiscal ones.

[Laelth]

37. I've argued for a long time that it's the economic issues that matter.

On most of the great social issues of the day, the left has already won, as I argued here.

I am not worried about what a Warren administration might do in regards to the social issues of our time. We live in a nation in which income disparity is at levels we have not seen since the 1920s. We need economic justice, and I believe that a President Warren would pursue that objective as doggedly and as tirelessly as she does with everything else she pursues.

This is what I like about her:

she is relentlessly, perhaps ruthlessly, maybe even a bit messianically, focused on advancing her policy agenda. Everything else is merely instrumental.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare

That's the kind of person I'd like to have as my President.

-Laelth

[daleanime]

64. Hell yes.....

+1,000,000

[winter is coming]

105. The economic issues are vitally important. Whoever can credibly run on a "the game is rigged"

platform will be a target of Wall Street and a magnet for ordinary voters.

[Laelth]

116. I agree. n/t

-Laelth

[meegbear]

21. I want her to stay as my Senator ...

I'm greedy like that (and if she was your senator, you'd be that way too.)

[Laelth]

23. I don't blame the rude one for that--not one bit.

But, just so we're clear, your being so selfish ... is rude!



-Laelth

[ancianita]

25. "Warren needs time to grow as an elected official." I'm with Renewed Deal.

The best reason to let her do her current job first. She's too new. Start the conversations and the PAC, etc., etc., but let's not let the media take over our party's official narrative about 2016. Let's make sure the party isn't creating some internal "theater" for the Republicans to latch onto and create their own negative narrative from. Okay?

[HappyMe]

46. Oh come on.

The republicans can and will latch on to any tiny thing and make it into a drama.

More and more this shushing sounds like fear from the Clintonians. Fear of losing again.

[ancianita]

90. I'm not afraid of our losing. I can't stand the media hype of some divide within this party, is all.

My preferred scenario is for Sanders and Warren to be her primary opponents, with Hillary choosing Sanders as her running mate, and Warren building broader national reputation for the next presidential campaign cycle.

[HappyMe]

92. It's not media hype.

There IS a divide. You see it every day here.

I want Clinton challenged in a primary. Plenty here have a stfu and get behind Hillary attitude. I'm sorry, but that shit doesn't fly with me. Clinton hasn't even announced anything or said anything about a platform. If she can't be bothered with that, I see no reason why I should care. Just because her name is Clinton and she's a woman doesn't guarantee her my vote.

She will never pick Sanders as her running mate.

[ancianita]

93. I think she's letting all the Republican opponents and the GOP policy come out through them.

Of course, they've got nothing, but we don't need them to use our party's or Hillary's policy stances to run some "opposition defiance disorder"-style campaign, either.

The media hype I speak of is the Republican MSM's use of the 'debate points' made by her primary opponents to run their bullshit negative ad campaign. I hate to have her primary opponents provide any brain power help to the biggest idiot party of the century.

Why doesn't someone just come right out and ask her why she's not sending messages to her party that she'll run? Perhaps her giving space for this president to have governance time and airtime is her consideration. Perhaps she wants to see how the House races play out. Perhaps she and the party know the optimum timing of such announcements and campaign commitments. I don't see anyone considering those reasons, but I think there's more going on behind the scenes for 2016 than anyone here sees or is willing to reveal, if they know. I sure don't.

[HappyMe]

99. Nobody from the GOP or the Dems

has announced anything.

Yeah, I would imagine her policy would come out via the GOP.

Political campaigns are rough, if she can't handle criticism or any negative stuff then maybe she shouldn't run.

I'm waiting for the primary. So far, her supporters (stfu and get in line) lost her my vote.

[ancianita]

101. Understand. HRC handles bullshit. Doesn't mean she should. Now, try to think about the delay --

which is not how I'd characterize this period in time -- from hers or the party's perspective. What have they got to gain that they won't gain through the 2014 House races? Do you know something that the rest of the restless here don't? I myself am in no hurry for her to commit. Furthermore, a good presidential lineup exists with or without her. I'm cool either way. I'll vote for any nominee cuz the bench is better and deeper than that of the moneybag GOP.

You sound kind of bitter that we're in wait and see mode.

[HappyMe]

107. I'm not bitter about anything.

There also remains the possibility that she won't run.

My objection to the whole scenario is this 'inevitable' crap, the bellowing of the obvious fanbois to shut up and vote for her. I would be disgusted if there was no primary. If we all don't get a say in who our candidate is ... well, I don't know. I'm just not good with the pat on the head, vote for this one, it's for the best, there's a good girl.

[ancianita]

111. Don't worry. We'll get a good primary; better than the GOP idiots deserve, as they slobber over

the 'debate points' they'll borrow to go negative with. In the meantime, the DU be restless and want to focus their energy, but the party is right to let campaigning go until the House races warm up -- NEXT YEAR.

I'm not doing these speculation threads anymore. They're just energy black holes.

[moonbeam23]

27. Alan Grayson is who

2016 is when...This country is starved for leadership like his....he can't be blackmailed or bribed...he and his family could be threatened, but that is the case with 100% of the poplulation...

[Peregrine Took]

113. +++++ 1,000,000,000 n/t

He will be the Howard Dean of 2016 (without the, you know.....)

[Laelth]

115. Yes, but Alan Grayson, whom I admire greatly, is a man.

Two questions:

First, Noam Scheiber, in his New Republic essay, says consensus in the Democratic Party is that we must run a female candidate. Do you agree? Frankly, I have no clue, but I am interested to hear what party insiders (and others) have to say about this.

Second, do you think Grayson can win? Furthermore, do you think he has a better chance than Elizabeth Warren? Warren is better at fundraising. She's also got the ability to peel off white, suburban women from their Republican-voting husbands and families. Could Grayson do this?



-Laelth

[lunasun]

28. She's liberal, she's brilliant, she's articulate

is that what plays in the USA these days ??

Let's see what 2014 shows about our nation and who they are voting for because many people will vote, not just informed liberals .

Concerned about more local teabaggers getting in around here on local/ state levels and what the US house will look like 2015

[Laelth]

42. What Shcheiber's essay shows is that the Democratic Party has moved to the left.

He makes no claims about what plays in the U.S. these days, though the income disparity we see now (as bad as it was in the 1920s) is creating conditions that demand a liberal response. That said, I do think we're starting to see the pendulum swing back to the left, but, when we're talking about Democratic Party politics, there's little doubt that the party has become more liberal in recent years:

the party has changed far more over the last few years than is widely understood. Chris Murphy, the Connecticut senator, estimates that not too long ago, congressional Democrats were split roughly evenly between Wall Street supporters and Wall Street skeptics. Today, he puts the skeptics’ strength at more like two-thirds. Warren told me she attributes this to the disillusionment surrounding Dodd-Frank, which ushered in a range of new regulations but left the details to regulators, who promptly caved.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare

If this is so, and if the R's are going to paint us as Marxists no matter whom we nominate, then why not Elizabeth Warren.



-Laelth

[nolabear]

30. First Hillary, then Warren. I think that's the best chance we have.

I think Warren's marvelous. I love her stance, her dynamic character, her intelligence. But as a woman and in these wildly divided, deeply insecure times times I don't think enough of the country will accept a very liberal Democrat woman. Hillary is more inside, more of a player, and while it's not enough to make the left happy, the mainstream will be comfortable enough with that to elect her. And she'll pave the way for Warren, and a continued movement of a reluctant country that needs to see that the Democratic agenda is good for them and that the corporate patriarchy is doing them harm, not keeping them safe.

I'm hoping for both, in a row.

[Laelth]

149. Assuming Hillary gets two terms, Warren would be 75 during her first campaign.

I'm wondering if she can wait that long.



-Laelth

[nolabear]

160. Really? I had no idea she was that old!

Too bad.

[Laelth]

161. Yep. She's only two years younger than Hillary.

Now is her time, if ever.



-Laelth

[EC]

31. Maybe it's just me, but

I think she could do a lot more for us in the Senate CREATING laws rather than just signing them as President. I'd really hate to lose her in the Senate and running her now is a tremendous waste of her talents and what she could achieve for our country and us. Please think about this. I really think being President would be wasting her abilities.

[Dollface]

112. +1

[Laelth]

198. I hear you on that.

I'll leave it to her to decide where she thinks her talents can best be utilized. That said, with the right encouragement, she might be convinced that the best way for her to achieve her goals would be by running for President. That's what some of us are hoping, in any event.

Cheers!

-Laelth

[Plucketeer]

33. My E-mail to Senator Warren....

Senator Warren,

The wife and I are unabashed supporters of your service to our nation. We're SO lucky to have someone such as yourself to be a true voice of reason in DC. We've supported you since you first started talking on the peoples behalf, and have been jubilant as you've given yourself to our service. In our 60s, we're aware of how quickly time truly passes. One needs to "make hay while the sun shines" as they say - so it's time to think ahead. Time to think about having you ascend to the White House in 2016.
Sure, it LOOKS as tho Dame Hillary is the anointed one. But it's already clear where Ms. Clinton would steer us, and the LAST thing this country needs is MORE debilitating "unfair trade" agreements. And for sure - we don't need the "First Gentleman" as chief adviser in the West Wing!
What we need is a clear-speaking, un-bought woman president who knows what this national family needs to be it's best. What we NEED is for YOU to be that president. Consequently, we and many others are gonna work tirelessly to see that that's what comes to pass - President Warren in 2016.

Warren/Grayson OR Warren/Sanders - either one has a classy ring to it, eh?

[Laelth]

183. Well said, and thank you!

btw, you can pick up a Warren 2016 banner for your sig. line, if you're interested, here.



-Laelth

[jeff47]

34. Yay! Let's repeat 2010's mistakes again!!

I completely disagree with your premise that we have to focus on 2016 now. We are the rank-and-file that can make 2014 a success, and then make 2016 a success.

There are candidates laying groundwork and exploratory committees for 2016. Any any candidate who is vaguely interested is laying that groundwork whether or not you hear about it.

They don't need our help yet. 2014 candidates need our help now.

[zipplewrath]

45. I would agree but...

I would tend to agree somewhat with you except for one thing. Apparently the Clinton crowds feels there is a great need to start "working the crowd" to ensure that no one else pops up to challenge her. So apparently there is work amongst the masses that needs to be done this far out.

[jeff47]

50. They're working on another inevitability campaign, just like 2008

How'd it work out back then?

The biggest ammo Clinton and other centrists will have is a Republican win in 2014. They'll use that to declare anyone vaguely liberal as too far to the left to win the Presidency.

The counter argument also works. The biggest ammo you can give liberal candidates is a large Democratic win in 2014.

[zipplewrath]

54. Came darn close

It only failed because people got started early working on the concept of an Obama campaign, even before he agreed. (Actually, there were several efforts, his was just the successful one).

[jeff47]

59. And you create that "concept" by winning in 2014. (nt)

[zipplewrath]

62. By then, all that helps is Hillary

If one waits until then to start to work, all that they accomplish is to set up the 2016 election for HRC. Contenders will have to get started before that. WELL before that.

[jeff47]

67. 2014 will have a much larger effect

Any benefit you gain by starting now would be massively overwhelmed by Clinton's supporters saying "Look at the Republican victory in 2014! Centrist Country!".

If you want a liberal to win in 2016, we need a Democratic win in 2014.

[zipplewrath]

70. Interesting point

Hillary needs everyone to ignore Warren and 2014.

Warren needs everyone to pay attention to both herself AND 2014.

Sounds like Warren better go out and raise funds for 2014 candidates and GOTV efforts. (I think actually she already is).

Maybe we should all fund 2014 efforts THROUGH Warrens various organizations and efforts.

[Laelth]

76. Excellent and intriguing suggestion. n/t

-Laelth

[Laelth]

247. Interesting historical note (six months later).

Senator Warren is still doing exactly what you suggested she should do. Nifty.



-Laelth

[zipplewrath]

248. And so am I

I make donations to various campaigns and organizations in essence "through" her. She'll send out a fund raising letter so I'll tend to make a donation associated with that mailing.

[libdem4life]

35. ...then Whom"?

"Warren has always said she had no interest in holding her tongue and blending into the senatorial wallpaper."

“Tell me a little bit about the last few times you’ve taken the biggest financial institutions on Wall Street all the way to a trial,” she asked a table full of bank regulators." all of whom she effectively silenced. Who is going to do this?

It would be a Great Win for those financiers being investigated currently, and shivering at her successes and position on the Banking Committee. No President can do this. A President Warren could not do this.

She is the first one who has had what it takes to help us right our ship of finance. The Presidency would be a nice item on her CV, but what she's now doing would surely go down the tubes.

Now back to the discussion of the corporate influence in today's political parties. The Democrats are trying to recruit a driver-candidate, draft a horse to hitch up to one of the two high performance vehicles for the billion dollar race, recruit some of the faithful to push it along while refusing "corporate gasoline", tying to beat the fully gassed up Republican racing machine. Wishing and Hoping just doesn't make it so.

The real story here is about the lack of a Progressive candidate NOW to begin the organization and fund raising. And none are foolish enough to risk it all without the evil "corporate donations".

Elevating Warren to Sainthood isn't enough.

[KoKo]

173. I have to agree with you. The real story is that our Dem Party has

neither mentored nor encouraged a strong "back bench" who could be strong Presidential Candidates. Our Third Way has done nothing but focus on the Clintons and that Hillary would be the heir to Bill and now Obama.

We need Elizabeth Warren's strong voice in the Senate. She would be no more able to Change Washington as President than President Obama who is now in his Second Term.
President's obviously can do little as they are beholden to the large Wall Street, Military Industry and Corporations.

Warren would be a huge loss in the Senate. The Senate is where she can push back against the Rabid TeaParty and Wall Street Interests.

[libdem4life]

190. Couldn't have said it better. The "back bench" thought is right on, especially the Progressive one.

When I looked up the Progressive Caucus, I was stunned to see that the ONLY Senator was Bernie Sanders, an Independent. Also was glad to see our much respected fellow DU member, Alan Grayson.

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/caucus-members/

I looked up the "Hell, no" or "Suicide Caucus", otherwise known as the Tea Party Caucus.

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

It would be wonderful for Ms. Warren to sign on to the Progressive Caucus and for us to begin to encourage our elected or soon-to-be elected Senators (and more House members) to join. That would not inherently mean much, but would create an identity, maybe even mentoring and a backing to help build the national Progressive base that we need.

Actually, that is something we can do now when communicating with our Congressional Representatives about a particular vote...ask them if they would consider joining the Progressive Caucus, and if not, why not?

On Edit: I think there were 5 or 6 of the Tea Party Senators on the list.

[KoKo]

191. +1! Recommend

[zeemike]

36. Thanks for the links

And I am going to write to her and give my best to encourage her to run...we need real change and she is the only one I know of that has a chance of doing it.

[Laelth]

39. My pleasure.

-Laelth

[Demo_Chris]

40. The "It has to be a woman" mantra is code for "It has to be Hillary"...

I will vote and work for any liberal. I will not work for another compassionate conservative or lesser evil candidate.

[Laelth]

150. You may be right about the code.

If so, that's too bad.



-Laelth

[Dopers_Greed]

47. Warren would be a dream choice for president

But there's no way the corptocracy would allow it.

[Laelth]

188. Even our corporate overlords can be reasonable from time to time.

Either way, it can't hurt to have Elizabeth Warren running for President. She will keep the discussion focused on economic justice for all of us.

btw, you can pick up a Warren 2016 banner for your sig. line, if you're interested, here.



-Laelth

[ashling]

49. I can appreciate your fervor, but

as Anita Dunn said in your excerpt,

“Instead, she ends up as a senior senator from Massachusetts on the banking committee, blocking Larry at the Fed

It seems to me that she is extremely valuable where she is.

[zipplewrath]

55. That does occur to me

I'm not as excited as others about her presidential candidacy, even though I was an early supporter of her senatorial campaign. It occurs to me she may be vastly more effective and useful where she is. The other possibility is that she may also be more useful in a Democratic White House as the Sec. Treasury.

[Laelth]

88. Undoubtedly, Senator Warren is very valuable where she is.

If so, is it not logical to conclude that she'd be even more valuable as President? It's not like Massachusetts is likely to send a right-winger to Congress to replace her. In my mind, if she's great as a Senator, she'll be even better as a President.

Am I missing something?



-Laelth

[Wait Wut]

51. You lost me right here:

"We need to nominate a woman."

As a woman, I think that's a crap statement. We need to nominate a human being. I don't give a damn if it's a female, male, black, white, purple or has green hair. If that person is qualified and is willing to do the work that is necessary, I'll support them. If that person ends up being Warren, fine, but I haven't seen any interest from her.

We aren't 'running out of time', either.

[BodieTown]

57. Ditto

That statement was offensive to me, in a march-lockstep-with-me-or-else kinda way.

[Laelth]

72. Please see response #68, below. n/t

-Laelth

[Laelth]

68. I certainly understand what you're saying.

But, just so we're clear, I was invoking Scheiber.

In addition to being strongly identified with the party’s populist wing, any candidate who challenged Clinton would need several key assets. The candidate would almost certainly have to be a woman, given Democrats’ desire to make history again. She would have to amass huge piles of money with relatively little effort. Above all, she would have to awaken in Democratic voters an almost evangelical passion. As it happens, there is precisely such a person. Her name is Elizabeth Warren.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare

I don't set party policy, but I do want to win, and I think we have a better chance of winning if we nominate a woman, as I argued here.



Speaking for myself, I want to see a liberal elected, and I think Elizabeth Warren is the liberal most likely to win in 2016.

-Laelth

[Wait Wut]

73. Understood, but...

...this is irritating:

"...given Democrats’ desire to make history again."

Don't get me wrong. I love it when Democrats make history...accidentally. When the right person 'just happens' to be a woman, Hispanic, black, or missing a couple of legs...that's when we truly make history. When we intentionally seek out history, we end up looking like petty fools on a PC mission. I don't want the world to be PC. I want it to be a natural way of life. When we stop going out of our way to elect based on gender, race, religion, etc. we win. A person's character is not formed between their legs, it's nurtured from heart and mind.

Support those that you believe in and be blind to their physical characteristics and/or 'limitations'.

And, let's be careful with what we wish for. They're going to go out of their way to find a RWNJ to run against whomever we choose and there's a powerful reason for them to choose a woman or someone unwhite. They think they can play the game, but can't read the rule book. It's not just because a person is a woman (Palin???) or black (West???). Even more of a concern will be the 'uprising' of the RW Moderate. They're smarter than their teaper cousins and will find a moderate Republican to run and if that moderate is a woman or minority, we could have a serious battle.

My goal is to keep the White House and Senate and reclaim the House. There's way too much riding on the upcoming elections. We have a fragile new health care law, Citizens United, the Supreme Court, etc. I'm frankly a little terrified of losing any elections from '14-'16. It could take us back 10 years.

[Laelth]

75. I hear you. I just wanted to make a couple of things clear.

First, Scheiber may be right. There may be a growing consensus in the Democratic Party that our candidate in 2016 needs to be a woman. Personally, I could care less. I want a liberal elected. If it's a woman, great, but, again, Scheiber may be right on this. Honestly, I do not know. I will say again, however, that I think we have a better chance of getting women elected in this political environment.

Second, I'll say again that 2014 matters (as we all know it does), but that any campaign for the 2016 Presidential race must get cranked-up very soon. Time is running out.

If not Elizabeth Warren, then whom?



-Laelth

[JimDandy]

60. Kick for my pick. n/t

[Laelth]

220. Thanks for the kick.

You can pick up a Warren 2016 banner for your sig. line, if you're interested, here.



-Laelth

[lobodons]

65. Dems need to take a lesson from the Tea Party

Nominate the best qualified candidate to WIN the election!! (Lesson learned from McDonnell the non witch, Angle, Akin et. al.)

First priority should be to get the SCOTUS to 6-3 leaning Progressive!! This next election could be the turning point that gets the SCOTUS to 6-3 either side. (Scalia, Kennedy and Ginsburg are no spring chickens.) 2016 and 2020 will be pivotal elections for SCOTUS!!

[Laelth]

138. All of us want to win.

My question stands:

If not Warren, then whom?



-Laelth

[TheKentuckian]

69. I support drafting Sherrod Brown, if not him then Russ Feingold both over Warren

due to established track records across a broader spectrum of policy.

[Laelth]

78. Do you not think that we have a better chance at electoral success ...

... if our nominee is a woman?



I am quite fond of both Brown and Feingold. Both are solid liberals, but I don't think that either of them could beat Hillary in a primary. Besides which, a woman at the top of the ticket has the best chance of peeling away white, suburban women from their Republican-voting husbands and families. Don't you think?



-Laelth

[winter is coming]

103. Not really. I'm evaluating candidates on their positions, not their gender.

I'd be happy to vote for a solid liberal, irrespective of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. and we shouldn't get wrapped around the axle over appealing to Republican voters. First, let's try to appeal to Democratic ones.

[Laelth]

123. I agree with you in many ways.

Consider this argument from 2010: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/41

I think we win when we energize the base. I won't argue with you on that, but it appears that Warren is the best candidate we have in that regard:

On one side is a majority of Democratic voters, who are angrier, more disaffected, and altogether more populist than they’ve been in years. They are more attuned to income inequality than before the Obama presidency and more supportive of Social Security and Medicare.1 They’ve grown fonder of regulation and more skeptical of big business.2 A recent Pew poll showed that voters under 30—who skew overwhelmingly Democratic—view socialism more favorably than capitalism. Above all, Democrats are increasingly hostile to Wall Street and believe the government should rein it in.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare

And then there's this:

Judging from recent events, the populists are likely to win.

<snip>

she is relentlessly, perhaps ruthlessly, maybe even a bit messianically, focused on advancing her policy agenda. Everything else is merely instrumental.

<snip>

An opponent who doesn’t heed political incentives is like a militant who doesn’t fear death. “Yeah, Hillary is running. And she’ll probably win,” says the former aide. “But Elizabeth doesn’t care about winning. She doesn’t care whose turn it is.”

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare

She's a liberal, she is focused on the economic issues that matter to most of us, and she doesn't care whose turn it is. What's not to like?



-Laelth

[winter is coming]

125. I'd happily vote for Warren, any day. Same goes for any genuine populist.

A corporatist in populist clothing? Pass.

[Laelth]

128. No argument here.

Cheers!

-Laelth

[TheKentuckian]

144. I don't concern myself with any of that anymore, Laelth.

My focus is on getting the right people and policies in place nor do I care much about chasing TeaPubliKlans, mostly because I no longer believe they can be peeled and if they do come they just join the other rightist types in dragging the party and the entire political spectrum to the right.

[Laelth]

197. Fair enough.

Thanks for the response.



-Laelth

[treestar]

74. We've got about 2 years to figure this one out nt

[Laelth]

239. I'm not so sure about that.

If Elizabeth Warren can be recruited, efforts to do so need to begin now, don't you think?



Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[treestar]

240. Trying to remember late 2006

Maybe, but it sucks that it starts so early. This whole nation is obsessed with the Presidency and lets the other offices just go to whoever has the moxie to go out and get them.

[Laelth]

241. Look, I hear you.

I seriously want the gavel back in Nancy Pelosi's hand. 2014 matters a great deal, but I feel the need to think long term as well.



-Laelth

[OregonBlue]

77. I want a Clinton/Warren ticket. I love Warren but believe Clinton is more electable. I'd also love

to see Warren as VP and have her run for president following Hillary.

[Laelth]

79. Just curious.

Why do you feel that Clinton is more electable?



-Laelth

[OregonBlue]

121. Because I think she has total name recognition and she has the Obama machine behind her.

[Laelth]

124. Interesting and important. Thanks for the response.

To whom the Obama machine goes is the big question.

Noam Scheiber makes it clear in his recent essay that there are two big, Democratic fundraising machines at work these days. One is loyal to the Clintons, and the other was shut out by the Clintons, formed around the candidacy of John Kerry, and was then inherited by Barack Obama. This second fundraising machine is now stronger than the Clinton machine. If Warren could win the backing of this machine, she would be unstoppable, though it's clear she's an excellent fundraiser in her own right.

If you have any evidence that the Obama machine has already decided to back Clinton, I'd like to hear it. That would be news, indeed.



-Laelth

[mitchtv]

80. I like Kristen Gillebrand,Howard Dean &

Bernie Sanders

[JustAnotherGen]

83. I like Howard Dean

For the lead Candidate. And he has Executive experience.

[Iggo]

81. It's not her turn! You shut up!

[Laelth]

84. LOL. Quite.

That is the message that some people want to convey.



-Laelth

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. We need to nominate a liberal/progressive. Warren is a good choice as a liberal.

And, there are other liberal women and men who would be acceptable.

And, there are a whole slew of non-liberal, 3rd Way, women and men who are not acceptable.

[Laelth]

202. Agreed. We can't afford another 3rd-way President.

I'll vote for the "D" no matter what, but I'd rather not hold my nose this time.

Thanks for the response.



-Laelth

[BumRushDaShow]

87. Kamala Harris. nt

[ancianita]

91. Kamala Harris is an underrated possibility. I like her. Primarying Hillary might be the national

exposure she needs. Then, with Sanders as Hillary's VP, I'd like her considered for the Supreme Court under Hillary.

[Laelth]

114. That's an interesting possibility.

I have to thank you for at least responding to my central question, if not Warren, then whom?

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

She looks good to me, but I think Warren beats her in fundraising and name recognition.



-Laelth

[BumRushDaShow]

222. There's a 15-year age difference between Warren and Harris

so with time, who knows? If Harris considered running for governor of CA after Jerry was done or perhaps replace Feinstein for Senate (by hook or crook - Feinstein just turned 80 this year and just got re-elected), she could get on the national stage and go from there. Feinstein has got to go IMHO.

[Laelth]

223. I'd love to see Harris replace Feinstein.

Harris looks quite impressive to me.

-Laelth

[ieoeja]

95. Bill Richardson-Howard Dean-Amy Klobuchar-Joe Biden-Barbara Mikulski-Patty Murray-Maria Cantwell

[Laelth]

119. Cool. At least you gave me some names.

That said, some of those peeps are not women. Most of the women I like, but none have the name recognition nor the fundraising ability of Elizabeth Warren.

Which of those is your favorite, and why?

And, do you agree with Scheiber that there's a growing consensus in the Democratic Party that we should nominate a woman?



-Laelth

[ieoeja]

177. Howard Dean because he messages well.

And, no, I do not agree that there's a growing consensus that we should nominate a woman.

I'm not familiar with Scheiber, but Rightists' favorite meme about Obama is that "they only voted for him because he is Black." Whether intended or not, Scheiber is laying the groundwork for, "they only voted for her because she is a woman," as an anti-whomever meme.

Frankly, I find it rather insulting that someone thinks we should vote that way. Yes, I was thrilled to see our first Black President elected. And I will be thrilled to see our first Female President elected. But I would never vote for someone just for that reason.

[Laelth]

179. Ultimately, I agree with you.

I want a liberal, and I could care less about that person's plumbing.

That said, I have also argued that we have a better chance of winning in certain red areas when we run Caucasian women. That argument is here.

As for Howard Dean, he would definitely have my support if he ran again (presuming Warren did not run), but I still think our chances of an electoral landslide are better with a woman at the top of the ticket.



-Laelth

[Laelth]

97. My own letter to Senator Warren.

Feel free to copy/cut/steal or otherwise use this letter, in part or in full, for the purpose of convincing Elizabeth Warren to run.

Dear Senator Warren:

This letter is a plea from a liberal who has watched our nation decline for more than forty years under the influence of flawed and failed economic policy. My message to you is simple. We the People of the United States of America need you to run for the office of President.

As you are well aware, income and wealth inequality in the United States have now reached levels we have not seen since the 1920s. Nearly half of all Americans are on the brink of financial ruin, and many of us have lost all hope for a secure and economically-sound future. We need a real liberal at the helm of the Democratic Party, and you represent the very best of what the Democratic Party has to offer at this moment in time.

I am convinced that you can win, and I am further convinced that the people of the United States need you now. Another 3rd-way corporatist will not do. The people are ready for real change, and, from what I can tell, you represent the best chance liberals have of effecting that deeply-needed change. I strongly encourage you to run for the office of President of the United States.

If I may be of service to you now, or in the future, I hope you will not hesitate to call upon me.

Very truly yours,

One does what one can. I will sleep well tonight.



-Laelth

[ancianita]

98. You've got your answer from Moulitsas himself.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/12/1255077/-Sigh-No-Elizabeth-Warren-ain-t-running-for-president?detail=facebook#

[Laelth]

104. Hmm ...

I read the Kos piece, but I didn't see an answer to my question.

If not Elizabeth Warren, then whom?

From what I can tell, he didn't answer that one, and I am not swayed by Senator Warren's current declaration that she is not running. Barack Obama was saying exactly the same thing three years out from his successful candidacy in 2008.



-Laelth

[ancianita]

106. Nope, he didn't. But many here did. Of course she won't say right now. It's not the time for it.

So, why should Warren commit right now, either? Why should we insist on having this discussion? Because we're restless and trying to plan long term, is my guess.

[Laelth]

108. I don't need her to declare right now.

I do need her to get her campaign structure and strategy worked out, however, and I would like for her to be thinking about this very seriously. Thus my post, and thus my letter, post #97, above.

Thanks for the response.



-Laelth

[Deep13]

102. Someone not from MA. nt

[Laelth]

109. What's wrong with MA?

Dukakis had no chance. Reagan's shadow was too long. Personally, I think Warren can win. Do you disagree?



-Laelth

[Deep13]

143. Dukakis, Kerry, Romney.

MA politicians have an advantage in the NH primary, but then they blow it.

[Laelth]

148. I agree that it's important to win.

But, if not Warren, then whom?



-Laelth

[Deep13]

206. How many rock stars does the Democratic Party have?

[cascadiance]

215. Oh, I guess that JFK was just a myth and never served as president then?

He was a senator from Massachusetts and therefore had NO CHANCE to win and should never have run for president then huh?

[Deep13]

221. 1. pre-Civil Rights and "Southern Push," 2. <1/2 vote per precinct.

Last edited Fri Nov 15, 2013, 04:42 AM - Edit history (1)

The whole national dynamic changed with civil rights. JFK lost OH, CA, and northern New England. He won in the deep South. That is not going to happen in '16. Second, the fact that JFK won by epidermis of the skin of his teeth rather makes him the exception that proves the rule.

Look at the Presidents since then:

Johnson-D-TX
Nixon-R-CA
Ford-R-?
Carter-D-GA
Reagan-R-CA
Bush Sr.-R-"TX," but really ME
Clinton-D-Arkansas
(Gore-D-TN)
Bush Jr.-R-TX
Obama-D-IL

Except for Obama, all the Ds have been from the South. I included True President Gore, since he was the 1st D candidate to win a popular majority since 1976.

[immoderate]

117. I'm on board. I see Warren as the best candidate.

And I am not in favor of another DLC candidate.

--imm

[Laelth]

167. Sweet!

You can pick up a Warren 2016 banner for your sig. line, if you're interested, here.



-Laelth

[immoderate]

178. Thanks!

Uh huh!

--imm

[Laelth]

180. Rock!

Be sure to join the Elizabeth Warren Group, if you haven't done so already, here.



-Laelth

[pa28]

118. Her country needs her.

I believe she can be drafted and I also believe she can win.

[Laelth]

184. Hear, hear!

btw, you can pick up a Warren 2016 banner for your sig. line, if you're interested, here.



-Laelth

[bullwinkle428]

122. Charlie Pierce has made me re-think my all-out support for a Pres. run for her -

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-2016-111113

[Laelth]

127. Pierce lost me in his first sentence.

He called Scheiber's piece "nonsense." Noam Scheiber is the Senior Editor of The New Republic. He is not an idiot. Anyone who suggests he's an idiot is immediately suspect.

I found Scheiber's essay to be highly informative and very well-written. Pierce gripes that it's too long. Poor baby! I am sorry that Pierce's attention span is short, but that says more about Pierce than it does about Scheiber's enlightening essay.

btw, if you have not read it, I'd highly recommend it, here:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare

I haven't finished Pierce's essay yet, but, if I find anything of value, I'll get back to you.

-Laelth

[Beacool]

166. Sorry, but Scheiber's piece was more about his anti-Clinton sentiments

than anything else. Pierce is right, where is there any polling that shows that the Democratic party as a whole (not just the Left) want Warren to run for president?

"With the Clintons' penchant for melodrama and their checkered cast of hangers-on-one shudders to consider the embarrassments that will attend the Terry McAuliffe administration in Virginia-Clinton-era nostalgia is always a news cycle away from curdling into Clinton fatigue. Sometimes, all it takes is a single issue and a fresh face to bring the bad memories flooding back."

I agree with Pierce, what Scheiber wrote is mostly nonsense. I'll expand it to add that some of it is divisive B.S.

[Laelth]

137. OK, now I have read the piece in its entirety.

Here's my assessment: Pierce's piece is short and stupid. It should be ignored.

-Laelth

[bullwinkle428]

162. On further review, I have to conclude that CP needs to be taken with

a grain of salt on this one. Being such a hardcore Bostonian/Massachusets guy, there has to be a certain level of possessiveness he's feeling in wanting to keep EW right where she is, with the ability to work for her state at a level that she couldn't possibly continue as President.

But ultimately, it really comes down to how much she wants it. If she's happy to stay a Senator, I'll continue to do everything I can to support her in that role, but if she DOES choose to look even higher, she's got my guaranteed 110% support and backing.

[Laelth]

164. Thanks for the response.

What's neat about Scheiber's essay is his biographical analysis of Senator Warren. I can't blame you for wanting to keep her as your Senator, nor do I blame CP for that, but what Scheiber shows is that, for Elizabeth Warren, politics is but a means to an end. She just wants to advance her policy agenda.

The proper interpretation of Warren’s prodigious p.r. efforts, then, isn’t that she’s especially taken with the idea of media stardom. It’s that she is relentlessly, perhaps ruthlessly, maybe even a bit messianically, focused on advancing her policy agenda. Everything else is merely instrumental.

This is what the banking industry and its Republican allies (as well as internal opponents like Geithner) didn’t fully appreciate when they effectively killed Warren’s hopes of permanently heading the consumer agency in 2011. Anyone who knows Warren will tell you she had no particular ambition to be a senator.

That's what I love about her, and that's what I'd like to see in our next President. That's why I am encouraging her to run.

Either way, I appreciate your engaging me in this discussion.



-Laelth

[bullwinkle428]

186. Oh, you're totally welcome! I'm on board with CP probably 99% of the time,

so I kind of had to sit back and think about where exactly he was coming from in making this particular point. Unfortunately, I can't claim EW as a Senator of mine as I'm not a resident of MA, but I can at least claim Tom Harkin, which is way better than many DUers have it.

The biographical portion is pretty fascinating, and it really makes it rather tough to predict how all of this will play out over the next 3 years. She certainly has to be recognizing that she's striking a chord that rings so genuinely with so many Americans, so I know she's going to continuing following the path that best advances that policy agenda.

[Laelth]

187. I just found myself agreeing with CP 100% on another issue.

Here, if you're interested: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4026720

Strange times we live in, no?



And I do envy you given that you have Tom Harkin as a Senator. I have two pustules: Chambliss and Isakson.

-Laelth

[Beacool]

165. That IS the point, she doesn't want it.

Why would a former professor and economist who never ran for office until last year think that she would be ready to be president in another year or so? The campaign will start after the midterms. I give Warren credit for realizing that the Senate is a far better niche for her.

[Beacool]

163. Thanks, a voice of reason.

Point The Second: The piece makes a very compelling case for Senator Professor Warren's staying right where she is. She plainly is developing a powerful sphere of influence among her colleagues without harshing too many delicate mellows there. If she can be a power in the Senate, then she should stay in the Senate, where she can do the most good on the issues she most cares about.

Point The Last: The piece is almost completely about pitting one celebrity female politician against another. It is about dueling personae. Allegedly, it is supposed to be about a rising populist feeling within the Democratic party that might imperil Hillary Clinton's campaign. However, there's very little evidence in the polling to support that proposition, and the fact that Scheiber decides to personify the whole movement in Elizabeth Warren rather gives the game away. (Really, if Warren doesn't run, and I hope she doesn't, then who does this rising power in the Democratic party get behind? Take your time. I'll wait. Tick tock.) All the piece really proves is that the elite press is dying to have another Clinton to chew on. Everybody, including the two women in question and surely the country, deserves better than that.

[pnwmom]

126. How about someone with fire in his or her belly -- who wants to run.

They have to want to.

[Laelth]

129. I would love to see that fire.

Here's what I like about Elizabeth Warren:

she is relentlessly, perhaps ruthlessly, maybe even a bit messianically, focused on advancing her policy agenda. Everything else is merely instrumental.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare

You are, of course, aware that Barack Obama was declaring he would not run three years before his successful 2008 campaign. If Elizabeth Warren decides that she can best obtain her policy goals as President, she just might run. Why not encourage her?



And, I return to my original question:

If not Warren, then whom?

-Laelth

[pnwmom]

132. But I read that she's already endorsed Hillary. n/t

[Laelth]

134. I saw that Warren said she supports Hillary running, if she decides to do so.

From what I could tell, Senator Warren stopped far short of a complete endorsement, and she did not rule out running against Secretary Clinton, even if the Secretary decided to run.

If you know more about this subject, I'd love to hear it. I may have missed something.



-Laelth

[pnwmom]

135. This is what I was referring to. Had you heard about it?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/10/in-secret-letter-senate-democratic-women-rally-behind-hillary-clinton/

All of the female Democratic senators signed a secret letter to Hillary Rodham Clinton early this year encouraging her to run for president in 2016 – a letter that includes the signature of Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other senators who are mentioned as potential candidates, two high-ranking Democratic Senate aides told ABC News.

The letter, organized at the urging of Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., was meant to be a private show of support from a group of 16 high-profile former colleagues and fans who are now senators, urging Clinton to do what much of the Democratic Party assumes she will, the aides said.

The existence of the letter was not revealed publicly until this week, when Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., mentioned it at an event in New York City on Monday. That was an apparent slip-up that prompted a round of apologetic e-mails from her Senate office to other offices on Capitol Hill, according to the aides.

“All of the Senate Democratic women have written her a letter encouraging her to run,” Hagan told a gathering organized by EMILY’s List, according to Capital New York. The event was part of the group’s “Madam President” series, which is organizing events around the country to promote interest in a female Democratic presidential candidate.

[Laelth]

136. Yep. I saw that.

In my mind "encouraging her to run" is not the same as "I promise I will not run against you."

As such, I am encouraging Senator Warren to run.

If not Warren, then whom?



-Laelth

[Warren DeMontague]

130. That's what I keep saying.

[Laelth]

181. Cool. Thanks for the response.

btw, you can pick up a Warren 2016 banner for your sig. line, if you're interested, here.



-Laelth

[brooklynite]

131. I can respect this OP....

....because it recognizes the need to do actual work to convince Elizabeth Warren to run, rather than just sit back and wish for a happy outcome.

That said, the fact that Warren has been clear that she doesn't want to run AND that the person she'd likely run against is the person she encouraged to run in the first place tells me the advocates of this position are really grasping at straws. Personally, I think you'd better off going with O'Malley, or at least working to encourage someone who hasn't already said "no".

[Laelth]

133. Thanks for the response.

And thanks for the respect. That's enough for me.



Of course, three years before his successful 2008 campaign, Barack Obama had also declared he was not running for President, so I take Elizabeth Warren's declarations with a grain of salt. I sent her a letter encouraging her to run. See post #97, above. I hope more DU denizens do the same.

Still, for those of us who would like to see a real liberal elected in 2016, my question stands.

If not Warren, then whom?



-Laelth

[PragmaticLiberal]

139. "If not Warren, then whom?"

Governor Martin O'Malley.

[MannyGoldstein]

141. Revolutions take time; the status quo can be had in an instant

That's why we need to start working at 2016 NOW.

Thank you Laelth!

[Laelth]

154. My pleasure, Manny.

Thanks for the k&r.



-Laelth

[quaker bill]

151. I like her alot

but she just isn't the candidate to break the gender barrier. If she gets the nom in 2016, she loses by 3 to 5%.

I like Hillary less, but if she runs and gets the nom, she wins by 2 to 3%.

Warren is a good choice for 2020, once the barrier is broken.

I am not speaking to preferences, I have just always been good a predicting these things.

Why settle? Because the republicans will run a true idiot.

[customerserviceguy]

152. Whoever the anti-Hillary might be

that person needs to get themselves on national TV at least one Sunday a month. I noticed Keith Ellison managed to put his face on "This Week" on ABC last week, that slot should be going to someone who could be nominated. If someone cannot manage to become known to the American public in 2014, it surely won't happen in 2015. Barack Obama managed to keep his name in the news often enough in the run-up to 2008. I don't see anyone besides Hillary doing that on our side.

Right now, Hillary benefits from divide-and-conquer, as long as there is no single alternative to her candidacy, she has the luxury of pretending she's not a candidate, while her looming presence keeps other potential nominees on the sidelines for another several years.

[Laelth]

153. Solid analysis. Thanks for the post. n/t

-Laelth

[LWolf]

155. I don't want to narrow the field at this point

to a gender or anything else other than what the person stands for on issues. I want a no-holds-barred left-of-center non-neoliberal.

That said, I'd love to elect a woman. Warren would be fine, should she choose to run, but she's not the only good possibility out there.

Donna Edwards. She's the first woman that comes to mind.

I like a couple from my state, not women: Merkley and DeFazio. I like Greyson. I love Sanders.

When? Talk broadly now. Narrow it after 2014, as we begin approaching the '16 primary season.

[Laelth]

218. I don't know a lot about Donna Edwards.

I need to look more closely at her. Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[La Lioness Priyanka]

168. Dec 2014. There are many qualified candidates, she is no more anointed than HRC is. nt

[Laelth]

172. Sure, but my question stands.

If not Warren, then whom?



-Laelth

[La Lioness Priyanka]

175. whomever actually declares their candidacy? I am not going to pretend that i know of every potential

candidate and their qualifications, neither should anyone else

Liz Warren is the only qualified one you may know of, but she is not the only one who is qualified. I am also reasonably sure she said she is not running for president.

[Laelth]

176. I am not trying to pick a fight.

But, my sense is that populist candidates need to be recruited. That's why I am encouraging liberals to contact Senator Warren and ask her to run.

My crystal ball is no better than yours. I have no clue who will be running as a Democrat for the Presidency in 2016, but, to the extent I can influence the available candidates, I'd like to see Elizabeth Warren run. If you agree, please write or e-mail her and tell her how you feel.

If you disagree and don't want to see Elizabeth Warren run for President, I'd like to know why you feel that way and whom you would propose as an alternative to those of us who would like to see a more liberal government in the United States.



-Laelth

[riqster]

182. She'd be an awesome President, and I think she will be.

But another question needs answered: who could (and would) fill her shoes when it comes to holding Wall Street and their alleged "regulators" to account?

We need that drive of hers to continue .

[Laelth]

193. I agree that Elizabeth Warren can win in 2016.

btw, you can pick up a Warren 2016 banner for your sig. line, if you're interested, here.



-Laelth

[riqster]

209. Thanks for the tip and the thread.

[Laelth]

210. My pleasure. n/t

-Laelth

[scheming daemons]

189. Who? Somebody who wants to run. When? after the 2014 midterms

Wishing she would run is not the same as having her run.

How many times does she have to say she isn't running before you will believe she isn't lying to you?


There will be a half dozen people who announce they are running starting next winter. At least one of them will be very liberal, at least one will be very moderate, and the rest will be in between.

Rally around the one that best supports your values.

[Laelth]

192. I hear you. Thanks for the kick.

btw, we're trying to recruit Elizabeth Warren. The recent Scheiber essay from The New Republic suggests she's recruitable if she feels that the Presidency would be a good way to achieve her policy goals.

You can't blame us for trying, can you?



-Laelth

[scheming daemons]

194. I don't think a Presidential candidate can be "recruited" or "drafted"

It is a job the person has to want.

[cascadiance]

214. Yes, but many won't run unless they feel wanted enough by being "drafted"... We've "drafted" before

... successfully or unsuccessfully, like Russ Feingold in 2008 who many of us wanted to draft to run then...



"Recruiting" or "drafting" aren't literal terms like the military draft, but euphamisms to indicate a public effort to encourage someone to run for office.

[Laelth]

242. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[Pretzel_Warrior]

196. And she'd capture the Native American vote

Amiright?!

[Courtesy Flush]

207. Almost every candidate says they're not running this early in the game.

The fact that she says this is of no consequence. She probably means it too, but in a couple years, she may feel that she must run.

[Laelth]

211. That is my hope.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[Octafish]

208. She stands up the Banksters.

Who else is standing up with her?

Count me, please. Thanks, Laelth!

[Laelth]

212. My pleasure.

fyi, you can pick up a Warren 2016 banner for your sig. line, if you're interested, here.



-Laelth

[SoCalDem]

213. 2015

[Laelth]

216. Thanks for the kick. n/t

-Laelth

[woo me with science]

225. +100000 I agree with you that she would be a formidable candidate.

I also agree that the push to draft her (and other potential candidates like her) needs to begin NOW and should be carried forward as vocally and publicly and persistently as possible.

The corporate keepers of the status quo are able to perpetuate their predation by keeping liberal solutions out of the national conversation, as though they didn't really exist as options. That's the *only* way they can maintain the fiction that liberal ideas are "fringe," untenable, and unelectable.

New ideas are considered serious and possible only when we start presenting them as serious and possible. Put Elizabeth Warren in front of the nation and let her talk, and she will blow Hillary Clinton or any other corporatist out of the water.

The country is hungry for actual representation, and it's time to make that option real.

[Laelth]

235. Agreed. Thanks for the response. n/t

-Laelth

[Armstead]

229. Would be great if she ran

at the very least she might force Hillary to the left more...And maybe she might win

[Laelth]

237. Agreed.

Please help us to encourage her to run. (links in the OP)

fyi, if you'd like to add a Warren 2016 banner to your DU sig. line, instructions can be found here.



-Laelth

[jpak]

236. Hillary 2016

or it will be Christie

yup

[Laelth]

238. I fundamentally disagree.

See post #22, above.

-Laelth

[Sheri]

246. christie? no way this nation is electing that guy.

maybe you see something i don't.