Is Elizabeth Warren a progressive?

[BelgianMadCow]

Given my sigline, I would hope so. But what my sigline really means is a NO to Hillary inevitability, and ever since I made it I've been wondering about Warren's positions.

I'm one of those people who think there can be no justice without economic justice. A populistic economic democrat, if you will. Or worse. That's why I had little doubt thinking of Warren as a sea-change from the Wall Street appeasing done by, say Obama or Hillary.

So she is right on the most important issue of our times. I think it is because it's the banks' power which buys corporate influence over the political process and the media - so Big Money is to be considered our King, or very close. By extension, she is picking the "other" side in what I consider a war between the 99,99 % and the corporatocracy.

But the system we have now is so lopsided, so corrupt, so far away from a "free" market, that criticism of it merely makes one SANE, not (yet) a hero. Of course, to stand 'see vid below) with the basic message of the demonized Occupy movement does take courage.

So the question I have now of DUers (and yes I'll do some research of my own) in the know is, do you think Warren is a true progressive, and what do you base your opinion on? I've seen it posted on DU that she is not a member of the Progressive Caucus. Weird, only one Senate member, Bernie Sanders. I'm especially curious about her voting record.

PS: I dared posting about Warren even knowing the risk of losing sight of 2014 2014 2014 because her appeal is in the news and on top of GD anyway. Working to elect 99%ers in 2014 would be foremost in my mind if I were an American. Well, that or staging opposition to the NSA and TPP

[djean111]

1. No matter what the "degree of true progressive" Warren is, the important thing to me is that

people like her are not as corporate as Hillary and Obama.
For me, the idea of a Warren type of candidate gives me hope. A lot of time will be spent on negative Warren stuff, but I think of the so-called "Warren Wing" of the Democratic party as more of a philosophy and a hope than as a group dedicated to just one politician.

[BelgianMadCow]

3. I very much like the Warren Wing concept.

for exactly your reasons, I think. It doesn't matter whose name the wing has, as long as it's a wing to push to the left. There's a lot of room there.

[Whisp]

40. Warren will have the same difficulty changing things as Obama has.

But I will back her up however I can, if she wins the Prezzy.

I know there are vast differences between what one hopes to change and what can be changed. Obama tries his best and is still working at it, but he gets put into the 'same as Hillary' pidgeonhole when he is far far closer to Warren than to Clinton, any Clinton.

[Egalitarian Thug]

2. She seems to be. I'm sure I will disagree with some of her positions, statements, and actions,

but I do believe that her motivation comes from a place of progress for the most people and that your contribution to society should be in proportion to the benefit you receive from it, to the greatest extent possible.

[BelgianMadCow]

6. Saw a lengthy talk of her about the collapse of the middle class

which supported your view of "that her motivation comes from a place of progress for the most people". Of course, that's only true if for Warren "middle class" isn't code for the upper 20% minus the 1 %. Let's see if I can find that vid.

[Egalitarian Thug]

21. Indeed. The perception that if you aren't on the streets you are comfortably

middle-class is a big problem with politicians. They have no absolutely no clue what it's like to be working and scraping by on a median household income, let alone what it means to be working poor.

[BelgianMadCow]

27. Indeed. Belgium is the number one country in using taxes to make society more equal (+that vid LINK

We have very very little people "on the streets", except in Brussels.

And yet, whenever I ask, almost all people that aren't in private industry management jobs make between 1500 and 2000 euros per month (net). We do have an excellent healthcare system, so there is that, but with an ever -increasing number of single parent families, it's now being reported that as much as 20 % of kids go to school with empty lunchboxes. 20 % !

There is much, much hidden poverty, also among "middle class" families. It suffices that I start talking about my problems and suddenly you get an avalanche of people chiming in.

Here's that vid of EW on the collapse of the middle class:

[Curmudgeoness]

41. I have watched that video a number of times,

and it is well worth the hour it takes to watch it (if you jump to minute 5, you can save that much time that is just an intro). I learned so much with each viewing, and it has given me a lot of points to debate the wingnuts.

I don't know if she is a "true progressive", whatever that means, but I do believe that she gets it. She sees the problems we face and I believe that she knows the answers.

[Egalitarian Thug]

46. Thank you for this, I'll be watching it tonight. I am fairly shocked to learn

about the situation you describe in Belgium. It's not like I really know anything at all about it beyond being able to point to it on a map, but that certainly doesn't fit the picture of your country that was in my head. Next you'll be telling me that you are not all good looking and sit around all night drinking coffee and eating chocolate while discussing weighty issues...

[BelgianMadCow]

48. It is shocking. Especially thinking what has to happen before a parent does that.

It's just plain I just kickstarted a food bank for my town. And I do have to admit that I know several people that had to choose between food or heating in the past (ever-enduring) winter and could get there real soon myself. And that is with an totally average income and admittedly a bad smoking habit. I'm sure I could kick that before I have to pack empty lunchboxes, though.

That being said, let me inject some reality in your view of belgians:
For starters, it's not weird you hadn't heard of it. Belgians have been ruled like forever by other countries, and we have a tendency to bow our heads and work hard in silence when faced with adversity. But Woe be upon you when we DO raise our head. Bravest of the Gauls, Caesar called us.

We are never out of beer. Chocolate, perhaps. Eating in general is a favourite pastime, we're called living in a "Burgundy" fashion and we still do. So pretty as we obviously ALL are, there's quite a bit of rounding at the corners And thanks for pointing out I should either a) get more coffee (which we consider a Basic Human Right, indeed or b) go to bed as it's past 1 AM.
We're a rather simple people, used to minding our own business, but warm once you get to know us. Carnival is big, as are fancy fairs. We're like hobbits, deep down. I consider it my Task to bring out our Inner Hobbit.

Enjoy the vid!

[Laelth]

4. She's progressive enough for me.

Her voting record can be found here: http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm

-Laelth

[BelgianMadCow]

11. Great info Laelth. However, unless I'm reading that site wrong, what we have is

a collection of quotes and of responses to questions. Not a voting record I think? Playing advocate of the devil, but Obama sounded MIGHTY fine in 2008 as well on taking on Wall Street in favor of Main Street.

That being said, her answers to tax policy, from your link:

Balanced approach to deficit reduction: Favors topic 11
Stop protecting loopholes for millionaires: Strongly Favors topic 11
End tax breaks to the already-rich and already-powerful: Strongly Favors topic 11
Rebuild the middle class instead of CEO tax breaks: Strongly Favors topic 11
Supports increasing tax rates: Strongly Favors topic 11

[Laelth]

13. You're right.

Some votes are recorded there, but it's not a complete record. I misspoke. Public statements are included, as you rightly note.



-Laelth

[mother earth]

5. I don't know if she describes herself or claims the label of progressive, but I sure the hell

call myself that. Every time she opens her mouth or fights an issue, she fights and speaks for we the people. That's
a progressive in my mind, representation and commitment even when it's difficult, even when she is a lone voice. (Whether against the banksters, wall st, for minimum wage hike, EVERY time she kicks butt.)

I would say that about Sanders too, and Grayson. You know when you hear a progressive...we know the issues, we know those issues are crucial...and as of yet, the last to be tried...the left is a fight for we the people. There's no more room for centrism, we either get someone who can lead the battle or we are done.

No, no more Clintons, no more Bushes, no, no, no. I'm in for Warren, or I'm in for Sanders.

[BelgianMadCow]

14. did a search on "Elizabeth Warren calls herself a progressive"

hit this Vogue article. Hey, it's a source. Sometimes the truth is in Cigar Afficionado.

“I think it’s about having a moral compass,” she concludes. “I get how deeply wrong so much of what has happened is. I don’t do library research; I talk to families who have worked hard and just slammed into a wall. Sometimes it’s from bad decisions, but sometimes it’s from medical problems, job losses, death. Bankruptcy is about trying to scramble your way back. Maybe you won’t ride so high in the water, but you can stop those 25 calls from collection agencies every night.”

As she speaks, her eyes suddenly tear up—a reminder that her own childhood, in a small Oklahoma town where her father worked as a janitor and nobody in her immediate family graduated from college, was fraught with financial hardship. A bright student who excelled in debate, Warren was thirteen when her father had a heart attack that drastically altered the family’s financial stability. When he recovered, his new job paid half of what he once earned. The family kept their house but lost the car, and life became a juggling act. In order to pay application fees to college, Warren used baby-sitting earnings. Years later, tragedy would strike again when her older brother’s wife died of breast cancer shortly after he lost his business and their home. “She didn’t smoke; she wasn’t overweight. You know what her biggest risk factor was?” Warren asks, her voice thick with emotion. “She didn’t have health insurance. She didn’t have regular screenings, and she didn’t go to a doctor early. And I know how many times my brother has wondered whether his business failing was part of that, and I know that story repeats all over America today with its own variations.”

Hmm. Her saying "I don't do library research, I talk to people" is more fodder for a future post of mine, "the revolution is feminine".
Sometimes it seems we have forgotten to SPEAK and LISTEN to one another. We focus on numbers, preferably silly stuff like "GDP growth" and forget the terrible injustice, poverty and misery that lie behind them.

Article has this bit too:

Last fall, I accompanied Warren to a party given in her honor by Americans for Financial Reform, an umbrella group of progressive organizations that worked to pass the Dodd-Frank bill.

[mother earth]

17. TY, BMC, I knew it in my heart, now confirmed.

[Laelth]

33. Good catch. Thanks for posting.

I had not read that essay.



-Laelth

[Enthusiast]

59. I share your sentiments.

And what passes for centrism isn't really centrism. It is a ruse, a manufactured falsehood.

If a majority of the American people were in favor of being cheated by the fraudsters, actual centrism would agree with official establishment media centrism. But the American people aren't in favor of being ripped off. Elizabeth Warren, Grayson and Sanders are closer to the true center than any of the other voices out there. They are not radical in the least.

Most of us want single payer. Most of us want to cut the military. Most of us want to increase taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Most of us want to preserve social security and medicare. Most of us want to rein in NSA surveillance. Most of us want to pull back from foreign entanglements. There is your real center.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Well...

Elizabeth Warren Opposes Obama's Nominee for Trade Representative

On Wednesday evening, the Senate approved Michael Froman as US Trade Representative by a vote of 93 to 4. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) voted against him, as did Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) voted present.

[mother earth]

18. TY, Manny, very telling...I'm off to listen in. nt

[BelgianMadCow]

30. That's a very hard vote on an issue that should concern us all

and does, at least on DU. Thanks for the pointer, a pretty awesome speech backed up with a minority vote.

"If people knew what's going on, they would stop it"

[brooklynite]

8. Elizabeth Warren supports Hillary Clinton...Hillary Clinton isn't a progressive...

...(according to folks here). Therefore.....

[rhett o rick]

9. First of all I believe that the facts of life are that when a president gets to the WH

they are greeted with "here's reality". When the president first sits down with the heads of the intelligence agencies I can imagine that they learn that these agencies have very smooth running organizations and any major shakeup may be disastrous for the nation and the career of the president. The same for the economic agencies. "If you dare put a progressive in charge, all hell will break loose. The banksters will make you regret it."

Second, we have no choice at least at this time. We must go with Sen Warren and keep our fingers crossed or 8 more years of the destruction of the middle class.

Support progressive organizations like PCCC.

[BelgianMadCow]

19. You have to wonder then, if the "facts" have the power to render a US president kinda powerless

whether it's still a democracy, or whether the security apparatus and Big Money simply own the joint.

So you think there aren't any likely or good potential candidates besides Warren? I thought the responses to Laelth's thread (If not EW, who?) were a bit disheartenig. You'd want more democrats with national appeal able to be articulated, or with more support, on DU.

I agree that the best thing is to build a progressive movement, a power base so to speak. I'm not in favor of "celebrity" politics, because it plays into the "looking for a leader"-game which absolves us from our personal responsability.

[Egalitarian Thug]

25. This wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Enjoy...

[rhett o rick]

29. I believe it's close to that but it's probably not necessary to go that far.

But I can see someone talking to him saying the NSA (for example) might not function well with anyone but Gen Clapper at the helm.

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. She's important because of what she represents

Her passion is exactly in the bullseye of what is wrong with this society. To the extent that I might be a one-issue voter, this is it.

[JoePhilly]

12. I don't think its productive to have purity or litmus tests.

But that doesn't answer your question. So ...

I get the sense that Warren passes most of the litmus tests that DU currently has available. I say that even though I don't think she's had to make many tough votes yet. Congress is such a mess that for most Democrats, knowing how to vote is pretty straight forward right now.

But lacking anything else, yea, I'd conclude she's a progressive. So far, I like the things she's saying.

But like I said, litmus tests aren't all that productive.

It won't bother me too much if she takes campaign money from special interests, or if at some point she waffles or even votes against something I'm for. I'm going to be watching the bigger picture with Warren.

On the issues, I'm not a one issue voter, not even close. And so I generally don't pick candidates on one issue. I tend to compare candidates on a wide array of dimensions derived first from their policy positions, their character, whether I think they have the personal strength to actually do the job, and whether or not I think they can move the broad array of issues forward. If you look at that list, Carter was strong on the first two, weaker on the other two. And sadly, that probably cost him in both accomplishments, and a second term.

Here on DU, attacking Hillary is now common place, and I commend you on not selecting that path. I think that some on DU think that trashing Hillary is a good way to help Warren ... its not. The best way to help Warren, is to help make sure that people who would support Hillary, start to consider Warren. Among other things, Hillary is strong on those last two elements. She's proved she could do the job. And for many Democrats, that's important. Hillary's positions on the issues were very close to those of Obama, and outside DU, Democrats are not abandoning Obama. Hillary can say there is so much more to do, and because she's a known quantity, its easy for her to tweak her positions going forward.

Side not on Hillary. Many women in business have proved that they could do the job, only to be passed over for some one else, usually a man. And most woman know other women to which this has happened. I've had plenty of women tell me "Hillary is NOT going to be passed over THIS time." Would those woman be ok swapping Warren for Clinton? I'm not sure. But I don't think this is an insignificant question.

Warren has a taller hill to climb. She has to prove herself on the issues and on the "CIC" aspect. Sure, some on DU will scream that she has nothing to prove to them, but they are the choir. Most of America can't name their own Senators. Name recognition isn't just name recognition, its an awareness of who you are. Hillary is known. And people generally think that Hillary has what it takes to be President ... they might not WANT her to be President, but no one will be arguing that Hillary lacks the experience, or the ability to do the job. Warren will have to prove that she also "has what it takes". And then, that she deserves it more than Hillary.

Finally, I think we can walk (2014) and chew gum (2016) at the same time. The folks who have been complaining about Obama for the last 5 years should have started to think about 2016 long before now. So it is good to see them begin to move in a direction that actually has a positive impact. Endless gripping doesn't help.

Finding "better" candidates and promoting them in a positive way, helping them become known quantities, that helps. And its never too early to do that.

[BelgianMadCow]

16. Thanks for the thoughful response. I didn't aim for any purity test, just pointing out my lack

of knowledge whilst being enthusiastic.

That being said, I'm of the variety that thinks the system is the problem. So I am wondering to what degree she would challenge the system, but not in a litmus test way. Just to have no illusions, if you will. Suffice to say I had some and they were and are pretty badly shattered.

I agree on walking and chewing gum. And I agree even more that people wanting to affect change should find a positive cause they can throw their weight behind. If we counter bad things with negativity, we maintain the system (albeit not the one I had in mind above).

And once again, thanks for your measured reply.

[JoePhilly]

20. Np ... I liked your OP

I'm not a big fan of Dems starting fights with Dems. And I like thoughtful spirited debate. My friends in real life know that I will argue an opposing position from one I hold just for the debate.

I also like your view of the system. It is a mess. But, we can't pretend it doesn't exist either. So we have to both play the game, and change it.

[BelgianMadCow]

24. "So we have to both play the game, and change it."

That's very interesting. Recently I read a book which argued that if you want to affect change, you can't stand IN the system, because you can't change it from within. Neither can you stand outside of it, because the system will bring its full weight to bear on you, and you will be marginalised.

We have to stand with one foot inside and one outside. I find that an interesting proposition. You have to be at the boundary, pushing. I think that's where all the movements of the past that affected change were, but I'm not so sure "protest" type movements still have potential in the traditional form. The indignados in Spain, precursors to OWS, have over 70% of popular support. There are frequent massive demonstrations. The government isn't budging and has just signed a law that fines protesters near congress or politicians home huge sums. Greece has been on fire at times, but the band marches on. OWS blossomed, and was struck down. I think the change needs to be very deep for it to stand a chance, as in for example collective change in our "consumer" behaviour (see: Barillia). Also, like Thom Hartmann says, Democracy is a verb. Go out there and get active, in whatever way suits you.

The author is a leftwing political philosopher. And at one point, rather then describing one of the utopias I have in my head (you may have gathered I'm idealistic), he argued AGAINST any and all forms of utopia, because people end up repressiving others to carry out that vision. Instead, he argued that the desired end state is one of perpetual war of ideas, carried forward in a socratic debate. Which you and I are both fans of, then. I love the devil's advocate, and all the people on DU that dare go against the mainstream, whatever it is. That being said, I DO believe we collectively and urgently need to start imagining what a better future could look like. At this point, and through that book (and re-reading Brave New World), I'm past having an a-priori idea of what the end goal is. But we do have to DREAM.

[Enthusiast]

60. Litmus tests are absolutely necessary if we are to restore the American middle class.

Those of us desperately clinging to a vanishing middle class see this as a crisis.

No one thinks that trashing Hillary is a good way to help Warren. How insulting.

Hillary is criticized because of her corporatist positions on trade and her position on not raising the cap on FICA contributions. She has a record. That record illustrates that she is not working on behalf of the American middle class or maybe she just doesn't recognize what the middle class American is.

[JoePhilly]

61. If no one thinks trashing Hillary is a good way to help Warren ...

explain how Hillary now gets trashed on DU on a regular basis, by folks claiming to be Warren supporters.

Here ... a thread from yesterday ... started by one of DU's top Warren supporters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4081084

What's the goal of this OP if not to trash Hillary?

[Enthusiast]

62. Questioning Hillary's honesty does not constitute trashing.

Either we can trust her with our future, and the future of the nation, or not. Many of us say not. You wish to characterize it as trashing. But the middle class cannot survive another mistake. Anyone that has the slightest whiff of Third Way is disqualified.

[JoePhilly]

63. Its trashing, pure and simple.

And by doing it, what the purity folks on the left will do, is harden the support for Hillary, not weaken it.

So go ahead and trash her, even if you want to claim that is not what you are doing.

Its not an effective political strategy. But I've already said that up above.

[ananda]

15. I like to think of her as a liberal!

I really like Senator Warren, and I also like former Secretary of
State Clinton but not as much.

[Blue_In_AK]

22. I think on economic issues, she is definitely progressive,

but I honestly don't know her positions on foreign policy or military affairs, etc.

[BelgianMadCow]

44. Yes, that's exactly my kind of problem. As a largely unwilling recipient of US foreign policy

in the form of massive unwarranted spying and NATO warmongering (and of course, my own government carries blame there as well), you ask a good question.

I ixquicked "Elizabeth Warren on NSA spying" and, via "boldprogressives.org" got this Guardian link to a letter she co-signed.

Bipartisan group of 26 US senators complain that the Obama administration is relying on a 'body of secret law' to collect massive amounts of data on US citizens

[zentrum]

23. Relative to how the center has been

....moved to the right in D.C. and the MSM, (moved rightward by Bill Clinton for one), she is a progressive.

[wyldwolf]

26. she TALKS a good game

[BelgianMadCow]

35. Did you mean to imply she doesn't or won't walk that talk

with your emphasis? Just asking, and if you do, why?

[wyldwolf]

37. She hasn't faced the political reality of governing

THAT has a habit of making politicians compromise their principles.

[ElboRuum]

28. What is a "true progressive"?

Is there an itemized list of things? Do you feel qualified to enumerate it?

[BelgianMadCow]

34. Good question. I could have asked a more general question, and had "liberal" in there at one point

I don't "feel qualified" to enumerate the items on the True Progressive Wish List, no. That sounds like a litmus test, and as I posted upthread, that wasn't my goal.

But what I mean with "progressive", is someone that's in favour of a more equal society, in which the benefits are fairly shared, and in which the policies favour the large majority of people, especially including the poor (we have a word, "kansarm"- poor in chances). At this point in time, it for me also means someone who either renounces the current shape of capitalism or is in favour of strong regulatory and other pushback on corporate power. I guess Bernie Sanders would be an example of the former, and I'm hoping Warren or another candidate that steps up from among the Dems can be an example of the latter.

It's always a bit dangerous for me to use terms like "liberal" and "progressive" because terms here in Europe are used differently. Here I would ask "Is EW a socialist or a social democrat".

So, do you feel qualified to share your opinion on EW's stances?

[ElboRuum]

39. Yes, I do feel qualified.

However, I have noted that the words "true progressive" are bandied about, to and fro, with increasing regularity around here. While I accept the idea that you did not have a litmus test in mind, I feel that "progressive", as understood by some on DU, is much like a narrowing corridor we can't travel down far enough.

I am qualified, but uninterested, in sharing my opinion regarding my assessment of anyone else's progressivism in the current DU climate.

[BelgianMadCow]

43. Well, I'm not much interested in an A vs B debate myself

for several reasons, and am rather happy the thread hasn't devolved into the ugly versions of that. I do consider debate about potential candidates and their qualities a normal feature of DU at this point in time.

But I can also respect what I read as your position of neutrality.

[JDPriestly]

31. Elizabeth Warren belongs to the Common Sense Party.

Also known as the Middle Class Party.

I support Elizabeth Warren because she is not about identifying with this or that clique but rather about solving problems.

I think she could be quite progressive or liberal on some issues and very conservative on others. She is from Oklahoma after all. That's almost like being from Kansas or Iowa. People live close to the land. The crops come in. Everybody eats. The crops fail. You hope you have enough cabbage and apples to last the winter.

That's where Elizabeth Warren is from. I think she will trust Americans to understand that we need to have a strong defense but that she will also balance the need for a strong defense with the need for strong families and good education. After all, what good is a strong defense if families are suffering and we are not preparing future generations to defend themselves?

I think she stands for fairness, and that is why I support her. I think she will listen to all sides when considering an issue.

Why do I prefer Elizabeth Warren to Hillary?

Hillary is a politician of the past. She was part of both the Clinton and Obama administrations. Prepared to govern? She is prepared to govern in the past. She has too many friends whose times have gone, too many ideas that have been spent already, too many enemies and too many grudges. It isn't that she is prone to grudges or anger. It's just that she has too much history, especially too much history in the Beltway on in New York society.

We need someone who knows how Washington, D.C. works but is not captured by it. That is Elizabeth Warren. She will bring a fresh, open viewpoint to the White House. I strongly support her.

[citizenbfk]

32. SHE BETTER THAN MOST, 4SURE.

No? -- Few people even talk finance, must less have proposals to make it more fair.

[Voice for Peace]

36. I believe she'll be urging all of us to focus on 2014

and she, along with a few special others,
are starting a brave new trend. I am thrilled.

[emsimon33]

38. You got a great discussion going

I think that the very fact that, as a brand new senator, Elizabeth Warren has taken up the fight for those being crushed by the 1% and corporate greed makes her a new breed of politician. She is not combatant but let's the facts speak for themselves.

That she has lived the life that too many Americans (and too few people in political life today) live (or have lived), gives her insight and empathy that is lacking in most political calculations.

[BelgianMadCow]

50. You win the thread for singling out empathy

which is something that resonates deeply with me as well. Lack of empathy is so much of what is wrong with the world right now.

And yes, someone with a working class background makes a big difference in millionaire politics.

[zeemike]

42. Well I want to believe...and I do.

But I also know we have been fooled before, or that once in the White House things change for them, and suddenly they forget all about the talk and don't walk the walk.

That being said I will support her and or Bernie Sanders completely, because at least they seem to be honest...and are saying the right things.
And I hope we don't have to say
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[dreamnightwind]

45. OP poses an excellent question

I support her based on what I've seen, which is mostly issues regarding economic justice.

However, I would like to see more discussion of how she thinks on other progressive issues. Better now than later.

Here's the elephant in the room. I don't like the Daily Beast, so take it for what it's worth, but it touches on something we should take a close look at, her Republican past.

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

For all those quaking on the right at the sight of an ascendant Warren, rest easy. Warren’s no lefty. In fact, Warren was a registered Republican into her 40s. When it comes to ideology, Warren makes for a rotten heir to Kennedy.

“I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets. I think that is not true anymore,” Warren says. “I was a Republican at a time when I felt like there was a problem that the markets were under a lot more strain. It worried me whether or not the government played too activist a role.”

I actually trust her on the issue of government playing an active role in regulating markets, so that is no red flag to me.

I'd like to know more about her positions on other things. Federal marijuana policy, for one. Yes, I think that's an important issue, the current laws ruin countless lives and careers. and needlessly place a large segment of the population on the wrong side of the law. More broadly, reducing incarceration, this has become incarceration nation rather than the land of the free. Civil rights, her position on single-payer healthcare, global trade agreements, foreign policy (is she interested in defunding the military to spend the money here at home?), surveillance, drones, and perhaps most importantly, climate change. How does she stack up on these issues?

For the record, neither Obama nor Hillary stacks up well on most of those issues, and that is being kind about it. Warren's willingness and ability to take on powerful economic interests in defense of the powerless puts her far ahead of those politicians in my mind, that's an extremely important area that effects everyone. It isn't the whole story, though, and we should take a close look at the rest of the story.

The recent trend for our party is social liberalism with neo-liberal (market-based) economic policies. That clearly doesn't cut it, the liberal social policies are the bone the powerful are willing to toss us without conceding any of their vast hold on wealth and power. Warren may be the inverse of this, I honestly don't know.

[BelgianMadCow]

49. "I'd like to know more about her positions on other things. Federal marijuana policy, for one."

First Ixquick result:

Elizabeth Warren is a liberal crusader on just about every issue. She excoriates Wall Street bankers and impotent federal regulators; she demands a tripling of the minimum wage; and she toes the party line on everything from gay marriage to reproductive rights to… marijuana legalization?

Not exactly.

Somehow, the standard bearer of modern progressivism is on the record opposing “outright” legalization. And though this issue hasn’t gathered a consensus in either party, it is gaining momentum even among conservatives.

Warren’s stance came back into public consciousness last week when she made a joke at a St. Patrick’s Day breakfast about a pro-legalization Republican who is also anti-gun control, saying he wanted the state “armed and stoned.”

But opponents pounced on the lighthearted remark, pointing out that Candidate Warren gave a one-word answer (“no”) about marijuana legalization in an interview before the election, not even suggesting that it might be regulated.

Liberal media sources focus instead on Warren’s support of medical marijuana legislation, like the ballot initiative her state passed last fall. Warren cites her father’s battle with cancer influencing that opinion.

I totally agree with you that the criminalization of MJ possession and the incarceration for drugs use is a big shame. Clearly for profit, and totally hypocrytical whilst nor reigning in Big Pharma and their legal drugs.

[dreamnightwind]

51. Thanks for that info

Not what I would like, but probably about the same as Hillary's position (I don't know, just presuming). Biden is historically on the wrong side of this issue, too, not that I think he'll be a factor in the 2016 race.

[WowSeriously]

47. Center-left, but not Progressive.

She's already bought the "we can't let Iran have nuclear anything" hook, line, and sinker.

But I would certainly prefer her over Hillary.

[BelgianMadCow]

53. "She's already bought the "we can't let Iran have nuclear anything" hook, line, and sinker."

You touch on a point we haven't explored yet, foreign policy. Not disputing your statement about her position on Iran, but happen to have a link handy?

As someone else posted upthread, left of the current US center is still definite right in my and most Europeans' book. How you get from a certain position on Iran to progressive or not is not so clear. I mean, she can for example be against Iran going for nuclear arms, but in favour of negotiating that with the int'l community. What would you call a progressive stance on Iran?

[WowSeriously]

54. Here is a link to her positions during her Senate run:

http://m.elizabethwarren.com/issues/foreign-policy

The two items that stand out are the unconditional support of Israel and her approval of the most severe sanctions to date against Iran.

Israel is not our child, support must be earned, repeatedly, not be unconditional, like a child.

Iran is, and always has been, in full compliance of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Yet they are demonized, based on no evidence, for allegedly pursuing nuclear weapons. Pakistan, on the other hand, is an "ally" with nuclear weapons, a non-signatory to the NNPT, an has multiple times been on the verge of nuclear exchange with India, another nuclear state ally and non-signatory.

I think it wise to remember which nation, and which religion, stands alone in the use of nuclear weapons.

I think a progressive would unconditionally lift the sanctions on Iran and restore full diplomatic an economic relations. They would do likewise with Cuba. And a progressive would revisit our friendship with Saudi Arabia, the draconian state that remains the source of human supply and religious indoctrination against "the infidel".

It is time to move on.

[BelgianMadCow]

55. Very good points.

You get no argument from me. Throw in Fukushima and any sane person would abolish nuclear alltogether, imho, except maybe some small scale experiments.

[WowSeriously]

56. Thanks. Sometimes I come off as nutty.

I am really worried at Fukushima as well. It seems like there must be some nuclear use that doesn't have dire consequences.

[lumpy]

57. I know very little about Warren's background and political stances, and am trying to find more

about her. It would be nice to get some input about those very things from some of the Warren supporters, especially those who show such ill will against Clinton.

[Scuba]

58. I don't know all of Elizabeth's positions, but I do know ....

... that every time she speaks, her words are a closer representation of my positions than any other politician I can name.