Warren repeats she's 'not running for president'

[Beacool]

(CNN) – Days before the release of her new book, Sen. Elizabeth Warren reiterated that she's not angling for a White House bid.

"I'm not running for president," the Massachusetts Democrat said in an interview that aired Sunday on CBS's "Sunday Morning."

Pressed again, she stood firm: "I'm not running for president. You can ask it lots of different ways."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/20/warren-repeats-shes-not-running-for-president/

[hrmjustin]

1. I believe her.

[Beacool]

12. I believe her too.

She seems to me to be a straight shooter who doesn't play coy. She may simply not be interested in the presidency. Not every politician aspires to be president.

[Scuba]

2. I believe her too. I don't think she'll start running for another 18 months or so.

[bunnies]

28. I like the way you think.

[Aerows]

147. Me too.

[Jackpine Radical]

29. I'll rule that out when she adds

"If drafted, I will not run and if elected, I will not serve."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Run, Bernie, run.

[onehandle]

5. He'd have to join a party first. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. No, he doesn't.

[onehandle]

10. Specifically, he'd have to join the Democratic Party to fit within DU's TOS for promotion. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Maybe he will. Maybe he won't. But, people will support and vote for him either way.

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. No he won't if he were going to change affiliation he would have done it by now...

He does have a constituency that DID elect him to the office he holds under the party affiliation that is not Democrat. He should just toss them under the bus to appease DU'ers?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. Or, should we toss a good candidate under the bus because he's not a Democrat?

[VanillaRhapsody]

69. We don't toss him....DU can never promote him unless he is a Democrat....per the

he won't be tossed because he is only hitching a ride on the Democratic bus. If he decides to run for President though.....he will have to disembark...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

76. So? If Hillary changes her affiliation to Independent, will supporting her be naughty?

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. hahahahahahaahahqahahahahahah

ahahahahahahaha

Wow quite the vivid imagination there....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

86. And, your answer is?

Do you favor Hillary because of what she purports to believe in or is it just because of the brand?

[VanillaRhapsody]

88. That's theoretical....no response required...

and QUITE hilarious....thank you!

(in case you have never noticed....I have said many times....I will vote for whomever wins the Primary....I am a Democrat).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

89. So is Hillary's candidacy...theoretical.

Hell, everything in the future is theoretical.

[VanillaRhapsody]

90. Hillary Clinton running as an Independent is beyond theoretical....that delusional!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

93. Probably. I'm just trying to figure out if you will vote for a brand no matter what?

Bernie Sanders was described by Beacool as "a good man with good ideas" but not a Democrat. So, if he is indeed "a good man with good ideas" why is he not supportable? I'm assuming Hillary may be "a good woman with good ideas" to you and you support her and her ideas. Or, are you voting for her because of the brand despite her ideas?

[VanillaRhapsody]

97. I vote for whomever wins the Primary....simple as THAT.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

99. Thank you.

You have confirmed my "hypothetical".

[VanillaRhapsody]

102. My party affiliation is not hypothetical...its a fact.

I am not on Democratic Underground to discourage others from voting for Democrats....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

107. So is mine. I'm a Democrat.

And, have been since 1965. I generally support, and vote for, Democratic candidates but I still reserve the right to cast my vote as I see fit. I feel no compulsion to vote for Democrats simply because the slap a (D) behind their names.

[Adrahil]

150. That's fine, but afaik

This forum specifically advocates the election of Democrats.

[Hippo_Tron]

119. Just a thought, DU's TOS for promotion were inspired by Ralph Nader...

Who insists that there's no difference between the two parties, and most likely wound up doing so as his voters would've disproportionately gone to Gore flipping either New Hampshire, Florida, or possibly both.

Bernie Sanders has caucused with the Democratic Party in congress for two decades, has substantial ties to both the state and national Democratic Parties, has provided crucial votes on Democratic legislation that he personally thinks isn't far enough to the left, and has proven himself time and again to be a team player.

Even if he's not formally a Democrat, I'd argue that his Democratic credentials are impeccable.

[Beacool]

13. Tierra, Bernie is not electable in this country.

He's a Socialist in his 70s. He is a good man with good ideas, but the US will not vote for an elderly Socialist for president. It's just not going to happen.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Because he's a good man and a socialist are compelling reasons to vote for him.

"Not as bad" is not a compelling reason to me.

[Beacool]

22. You may feel that way, but the majority of people would not in a general election.

[G_j]

24. no, that is how people come to believe the "undetectable" meme

when people such as yourself keep saying it.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. Ah, the folks who claim they know the future, same folks who said 2008 was going to be Hillary v

Rudy, with Hillary guaranteed the win. Hillary will not win a primary in this Party. She sure won't win Oregon anymore than she did last time. Sliming other potential candidates will not persuade anyone to vote for her. Among other things, I'm sick of the politicians who voted for Iraq War but could not quite manage to support marriage equality until it was uber safe to do so. Cowards who often slandered my community need to just go home. She is the past.

[Beacool]

57. No one is sliming anyone.

At least not until you posted your comment.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

67. Let me ask you something, Beacool... What if Hillary decides she would rather be home with

her grandchild? What if she decides not to run for president?

That would mean that you are promoting (dare I say advocating?) the demise of the next most-likely Democratic candidate, Elizabeth Warren.

Who else, if not Warren? Who else could defeat a confederate challenger?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. Or, if Hillary were to change her registration to Independent and run on the same platform?

And, be in lead in the polls. Would voting for her, or supporting her, be allowed? Would it make one a "disloyal" Democrat?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

77. Considering her record, if she moved to Independent, I would consider that a move to the right

and could not support her.

I will support the Democratic nominee, whoever that ends up being.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

83. Would you consider that being loyal to a brand rather than principles?

And, what if Hillary stood by what she says she believes in today? Would you not stand by her then? Even though the "nominee" had principles you disagree with?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

85. I would consider such a move "stupid". nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

87. Do you consider her voting for the Iraq Way "stupid"?

Or, was it merely an example of political expediency?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

91. That she was gullible enough (or possessed an agenda) is precisely why I'm not

chomping at the bit for her to be the nominee. Actually, there are other reasons, but the vote for the invasion of Iraq is probably the major one. If she is the nominee, however, I will support her.

And, as a matter of diclaimer, I have been a Hillary fan since about 1978 or so when she was the First Lady of Arkansas. I have campaigned with her and supped with her and the future president, for whom I've voted 3 times. I knew her before most anyone (except fellow former and current Arkansans here) here on DU did. Still, I prefer to see Warren get the nomination (if she does run) - and I've only known of her since the Charlie Rose interview about a decade or so ago, and never met her in person.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

94. Well, let's just say I'm chomping at the bit even less than you are.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

98. Who will you support if she is not the nominee? EDITED:

LOL, that was not the question I meant to ask. But feel free to answer it...

What I wanted to ask is will you support her if she is the nominee?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

103. That would depend on the nominee.

I've been a Democrat since 1965 and I usually vote for the Democrats on the ballot. But, I owe no allegiance to the party and believe my vote belongs to me rather than the party. I will take a number of things into account when I vote. In Hillary's case the IWR vote and history of being centrist will loom large. I vote for and against principles and policies. "Not as bad" carries little weight on some issues and policies.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

105. Well, we agree on Hillary for the same reasons. Until there's a viable alternative, the Democratic

Party gets my vote. And I will support Hillary (as I have done for most of the last 30 years) if she does indeed become our nominee.

[Beacool]

114. The comment was in reference to Bernie Sanders, not Warren.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. Oh, well.

[VanillaRhapsody]

34. Not a "Democratic Underground".

as such he is NOT promotable per the DU TOS.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. Oh, well.

[VanillaRhapsody]

68. Indeed...

Oh WELL!

[ChisolmTrailDem]

73. Perhaps advocating third-party candidates should be alerted? What do you think? nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

75. I don't know....I rarely to never alert myself.....

but you are welcome to do so....

[ChisolmTrailDem]

79. You "rarely to never" alert... Good for you!

[VanillaRhapsody]

82. Alerting wasn't my idea now was it?

but somebody thought of it now didn't they?

Now back to listening to Randi Rhodes...

[winter is coming]

115. It's not election season. Chill. n/t

[ChisolmTrailDem]

124. DU TOS doesn't specify that it's in effect only during election season. nt

[winter is coming]

126. Well, if you'd like to alert on someone for discussing the possible candidacy of someone

who caucuses with Democrats and has already said he won't be a spoiler candidate in 2016, go ahead and alert. And don't forget to include in large capital letters, "I'm afraid the candidate I want hasn't got a chance if Bernie runs", because that's the message you're really sending.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

130. I have no reason for such a stupid alert. Also, nowhere did I say that it would be me alerting, only

that advocating for a third-party candidate is against the DU TOS.

[winter is coming]

131. You were just wondering out loud. Riiiiiight. n/t

[ChisolmTrailDem]

132. Riiiiiight. As a matter of fact, I was. Now what? Also, I find

Last edited Mon Apr 21, 2014, 10:25 PM - Edit history (1)

it highly suspicious when people try to get us to back a "candidate" that is not a Democrat.

[Adrahil]

151. That's lovely, and pretty much irrelevant.

Bernie cannot win.

[marmar]

19. D'accord. I'm tired of being force-fed pre-ordained centrists.

[onehandle]

4. Direct. Again. Anyone who thinks she's lying is kidding themselves. nt

[Beacool]

14. I think so too.

If we have a Democratic president in 2017 and Warren is willing to leave the Senate, I think that she would be a great Fed Chairman or Treasury Secretary.

[jwirr]

6. This wonderful woman will do what the great man who once held this seat did - hold the position

where they can influence government the most. And that is what I want her to do.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. Of course Ted primaried a sitting Democratic President as well.

He did not simply hold that position, he refused to run when asked then 4 years later elbowed our Party out of power when he decided that he wanted to run and run right now.

[Jackpine Radical]

32. If Nader gave us Bush, then Teddy gave us Reagan.

[VanillaRhapsody]

35. He was a DEMOCRAT primarying a Democrat....much different.

[MADem]

110. He was a raging coked-up alcoholic with a cheating problem and a marriage on the rocks when he did

that...and he'd have been the first person to admit that was a shitty, lousy, party-dividing and divisive idea when he sobered up. Here's where he put the final nail in that ill-conceived campaign:

He never fell in love with Jimmy Carter, but that was a separate issue. At the time Ted ran for the Presidency, he was a "hot mess." And he was pretty much a hot mess until Vicki got a hold of him and straightened him out, which was a blessing for the Commonwealth, because she gave him many more years of important service to the Bay State and the nation.

[Laelth]

8. Bummer. k&r for Elizabeth Warren. n/t

-Laelth

[Beacool]

16. Don't be, she will continue to be a positive influence for years to come.

[Laelth]

46. You're being very kind, and I appreciate it.

But if Elizabeth Warren doesn't run for President in 2016, she will never hold that office. She'll be 68 in 2016. I think she'd make an excellent President. Cabinet appointments matter a great deal. Just check out FDR's cabinet, for example.



-Laelth

[Beacool]

56. I think that both Elizabeth and Hillary are good women.

I just prefer Hillary for president, but that does not mean that I don't like and respect Liz Warren. The country would be in good hands with either one of them at the helm.

[Trajan]

9. I would prefer that she did ...

Pretty simple ...

[BeyondGeography]

11. Keep playing offense from the Senate instead of becoming a professional fundraiser

and nonstop MSM punching bag.

I believe her, too.

[Lucinda]

15. Yep.

She is passionate and tenacious and we need that in the Senate more than ever...

[Beacool]

17. I think that Ted Kennedy did quite well in the seat she now holds.

Or if she chooses a different arena, she could run the Fed or be a Treasury Secretary.

[Hippo_Tron]

138. She's already a professional fundraiser, one of the best in the Democratic Party

Which is one of the reasons I doubt she's ruled out running, even though I think it's unlikely she will.

[BeyondGeography]

145. Yeah, well, ok...I left out, "full-time"

Because it's just about all she'd be doing if she went up against the Clintons. There's plenty of anti-Hillary money to be had, just not as much as in 2008.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

21. As of right this moment she's not running. Her "definitive" statement does not say

"I am not and will not be running for president."

President Obama said several time that he would not be running for president. Until he said he was.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/March-2006/2008-/
"U.S. senator Barack Obama insists he won’t seek higher office in 2008. But that has hardly squelched the buzz among Democratic faithful that he would be perfect atop the party ticket. As the race for the presidency heats up, our reporter parses the possibilities, including the one in which Obama makes history sooner than anyone—even he—expects."

http://www.wistv.com/story/4900863/barack-obama-jokes-conan-obrien-could-be-his-presidential-running-mate
&quot Chicago-AP) May 13, 2006 - How does Obama-O'Brien '08 sound? Illinois Senator Barack Obama has repeatedly said he has no plans to run for president in two years."

It is not uncommon for potential candidates to strategically say they are not running. Also, party popular demand has swayed these decisions before.

I will believe once and for all that EW is not really running until the middle of next year. It's still 2 1/2 years until the 2016 presidentail election - still too early to announce an official candidacy.

[Beacool]

23. She's not Obama.

Obama was into the fast track of American politics from the get go. The Senate bored him. I don't get that from Warren. I think that she means what she says.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. But she's a politician and as the other poster said they all say 'I won't' until they say 'I am'.

I want you to know that I am not eating lunch. It is still in the oven. Will I eat lunch later? I'm not a prophet, all I can tell you is that I am not now eating lunch.

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. She has also put her support behind Hillary Clinton....but I am sure you are going to dismiss

that as well.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

41. Of course she has. Because she has not yet decided to run herself. I, for one, intend

to help her make that decision to run.

In the meantime, should she not run, she is indicating who she supports in her stead.

[VanillaRhapsody]

74. No because the Women of the Senate have all signed a Letter encouraging Hillary to run.

She is saying she is NOT.....you are just choosing to dismiss her words to that effect. This is what tells me that even if she were to become President.....if she doesn't have a Democratic Congress at her back....you are going to be one of the first who will have "Elizabeth Warren Buyers Remorse" just like you did this time....

[ChisolmTrailDem]

81. Oh, you are so wrong. I don't dismiss her words at all. Indeed, I take them quite literally. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

84. Whatevs....

[TheKentuckian]

146. Don't care, the future of the country and the world is the discussion how to make that future viable

broadly which isn't about clearing the way for Madame Inevitable or not pressuring folks that aren't interested.

I have no personal fixation on Warren, I don't vibe her as particularly liberal (I see her as pre 1980 model middle of the road, which is probably why she was a Republican, she likely holds the same values and has been left behind as a relic from a different age of politics) and am freshly dubious of the "clean slate" candidates. Don't like the universe of unknown positions and worldviews, her economics are comparatively excellent but I find it shocking that ANYBODY minus the most Chamber of Commerce loving motherfuckers of all space and time making making the Ferengi look like a race of Mother Theresa's would call anything she has championed radical in any way. That is astounding to me she is about transparency and consumer awareness and at the most EXTREME is a ref on the field.

A generation ago this was all common sense, basic stuff that even most Republicans could not only get behind but would describe in terms like obvious and necessary, otherwise all you have is an extraction scheme operating under the blessing of the law.

Okay, so all the Republicans turned into Birchers...GRANTED...but why the hell have basic rules of the road, clearly posted, and maybe enforced become kRaZy among seemingly a lot Democrats. I'm sorry but if this isn't basic shit in "the big tent" then we have lost our way. The politicians are one thing but acting in concert we can fix that but when the grassroots are that poisoned the plant is likely to die no matter how many clap with all their hearts, Tink is going to kick the bucket.

Why? Because you can't fix stupid is why. These fundamental consumer protections are for US to keep us from being prey for the vultures.

I tell you what, I can't say that I've once EVAH seen or heard any actual objections articulated to these policies sooo beyond the pale leftist. Just a lot of "too liberal", "the majority of Americans will never accept...", and other senseless blather but no real argument on the merits.

If this stuff is "too far" then fuck this circus tent. You cannot possibly have anything like common cause if that is the case or if there are some arguments FINE but enough of the bullshit and get on with the substance, if there is no substance then the poo poo crowd can only be salting our ground.

Warren is just shorthand for a basic American set of common sense values, she is the stalking horse for the ideas she'll be pushed until she gets in or doesn't and someone else picks up the standard but I think it has to be accepted that demand has to be clear to get what is desired in a market dominated by a big name brand.

So, it doesn't matter what Warren's intentions are or if she supports Hillary or anybody else. Doesn't matter what she says or even ultimately what she does because the actual person is not mission critical but rather the ideas and policies that need to be implemented.

Show the market and it will be filled.

[LanternWaste]

111. The prophets engage in Biblical literalism as they parse her meaning for anything other than the obv

"I'm not a prophet, all I can tell you is that I am not now eating lunch..."

The prophets engage in Biblical literalism as they parse her meaning for anything other than the obvious intent.

[Dawgs]

47. You're right. See my post #45. She very clearly left out "IN 2016" in her response.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

52. You would think that DUers would understand that. Which begs a question...

Why don't they?

[Dawgs]

55. Exactly. No doubt there are a few Hillary supporters that don't want to believe it. n/t

[ChisolmTrailDem]

60. The fact is, she is not running for president. She is currently BEING U.S. Senator from MA. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

26. Too late for me to join this party?

[Beacool]

43. Hi, Cali.

Come on in, there's still plenty of snacks and drinks.

[dionysus]

80. and something for you...

[Beacool]

117. A lamb bankie!!!!

Quite appropriate for the season.

Thank you, my friend. You are far too kind.

[dionysus]

148. anything for you, Bea.

[Beacool]

152. Ahhhhhh, so sweet.

[karadax]

30. I'll believe her "no" after we know Hillary's intentions.

If Hillary decides to continue to hang it up and enjoy the private life you can bet the whispers of run run run will be too much for Sen. Warren to resist.

She will put her hat in for the nomination if HRC says no. Exposure is good.

[VanillaRhapsody]

37. Hillary is going to run.....you might as well get used to that idea....

[closeupready]

38. Neither is Hillary. Until she is.

[Beacool]

44. No, Hillary has been saying of late that she's thinking about it.

She won't announce any decision until after the midterms. Both she and Bill have been publicly saying that people should concentrate on the midterms and not on 2016.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

71. You are stating Hillary's strategy while essentially denying that Warren has one of her own. As

far as Hillary saying she's thinking about it, that's simply the stage she is at. She's currently a civilian and has time to do her thing and think about it. Meanwhile, Warren has a job to do and is doing it.

[Beacool]

118. Warren's strategy seems to be in people's imagination.

The woman keeps repeating ad nauseam that she has zero interest in running for president and her supporters choose to ignore what she says.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

121. Your entire post is wrong. So I wont bother to continue this circular debate with you.

All I can say is...

[Beacool]

123. OK, time will tell............

[ChisolmTrailDem]

125. She will be in the debates. Bookmark it! And...

if she is not, I will eat a plate of strawberries slathered in whipped cream.

[Beacool]

153. Oh, that sounds like such a sacrifice.

[Rowdyboy]

39. One of her main appeals is that she means what she says...She says she's not running

and I believe her. I actually would like to see a contested primary to toughen the eventual nominee and Warren would be a great candidate for that purpose. But she says she isn't running and she doesn't bullshit.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

42. She isn't running. At this moment, she is not running. nt

[Nye Bevan]

40. If Hillary loses, Warren will be the clear 2020 frontrunner.

With this in mind, campaigning for Hillary will certainly feel weird for her.

[Beacool]

48. Why would it be weird?

They seem to get along just fine. BTW, in 2020 she would be 71 years old. Would she feel like campaigning for a first term at that age?

[Dawgs]

45. She IS running for President

And, how she answered that question on "Sunday Morning" is what convinced me.

She was asked, 'Are you running for President IN 2016?'

EW said, "I'm not running for President"

Asked again, 'So you're not running IN 2016?'

EW, said again, "I'm not running for president. You can ask it lots of different ways."

Now, you probably think I'm being naive, but I've been following politics too long to notice when a politician is being a politician. There's a reason she didn't respond with 'I'm not running for President in 2016'. She knows that it could come back to bite her when she really does run.

Saw her say it when they played it and her body language only helped to confirm it.

[Cali_Democrat]

49. LOL!!

[Dawgs]

53. Did you watch her on "Sunday Morning" or are you getting nervous?

Because it was very clear if you actually watched the segment.

[brooklynite]

59. The question is: HOW confident are you that she'll run?

Because the more confident you are, the less you'll be inclined to make the effort to find an alternative to Warren (who's acceptably progressive) that you can convince to run. So, come 2015, if Hillary announces and Warren doesn't, what will you do?

[Dawgs]

61. If Warren doesn't run I'll support Bernie, who will be running.

I don't know what I'll do if Hillary wins the nom.

[Hippo_Tron]

136. Out of curiosity, would you consider Brian Schweitzer?

I'm generally a fan of the guy, but like most politicians I think there's a reasonable chance that he's all talk.

[Dawgs]

156. Seems like a good guy, but not what we need right now. n/t

[Beacool]

50. Seriously?

Well, only time will tell.

[Dawgs]

58. Agree. I might be wrong.

And I'm very serious. Like I said, I've seen politicians answer questions like this one many times over the years. And just about every time they do the opposite thing.

Maybe it's a little bit of wishful thinking, but the fact that she cut off her statement by not including 'in 2016' seemed pretty calculating.

[Hippo_Tron]

129. I think more realistically she hasn't ruled it out, I don't think she's decided she's running

When you have the kind of following that Elizabeth Warren does that could translate into a strong candidacy, you would be foolish to rule out running at this stage in the game. Is it likely she will actually run? Eh, I'd say the odds aren't super high. But I think the folks saying she's 100% decided against it are delusional. Nobody gets that close to the White House and doesn't at least take a look at it.

[IronGate]

51. That's a shame.

This is a politician who's not afraid to take on the Banksters and Wall Street criminals.

Maybe later down the road. Keeping fingers crossed.

[joshcryer]

54. Of course not, she would not go back on her pledge.

[DonCoquixote]

65. I believe this as much

as i believed Hillary when she said she would not run in 2008.

2016 is a long, long way off, and a lot can change, especially if the powers that be see that many Democrats, even those that hate the GOP, will not be able to hold down their nose and vote for someone who has worked to eradicate the left, and who has in some ways, been as successful as the GOP.

I will be able to choke down the bitter pill if she survives the 2016 primary, but you and I know that many will not, and stay home.

[Douglas Carpenter]

66. I believe her which is why we need to find another progressive to run a viable campaign in 2016

or once again we will have only neoliberalism with no alternative voice challenging its assumptions and once again ONLY Wall Street will be represented in the national political discourse of 2016

[ChisolmTrailDem]

104. There you go, posing a problem, laying it right out there yourself, without so much as a

suggestion from - yourself.

The main reason you never hear politicians declaring something to be a problem is because they never have a solution that makes all parties happy - and donating and voting.

[joshcryer]

149. The time for this was a year ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=317676

As it stands now we're waiting for her to basically announce (around 6 months from now).

[Douglas Carpenter]

154. I don't know whether or not it is possible to defeat Wall Street power and its candidates even

domestically within the Democratic Party. But, I am absolutely confident that it is possible to mount a credible campaign that wins enough primaries and focuses enough the debate on the real issues of the economy that we can alter in the long the political paradigm in the national political discussion. That would be a huge leap forward. If that was the only thing a progressive primary campaign accomplished - that would be a lot and it would be something we have not seen in more than 40 years.

[joshcryer]

155. The problem will be ability to raise funding.

Clinton will be able to pull $2 billion (which is what is necessary to win the candidacy post-Citizens United and post-Oligarchy United). No other candidate will be able to do that.

If we had a candidate fighting for the past 6 months in the Democratic Party I think that equation could've changed, but instead, we've sat on our asses not pushing for such a candidate.

[Douglas Carpenter]

157. I Agree that the biggest problem for the authentically progressive is to raise enough funds to be

competitive. But if I take this in the context of how the socialist and communist parties of Europe were able during the 20th Century to compete competitively with an even far great obstacle in spending advantage and far more advertly repressive political opposition - I have to conclude that it is possible and that it can be done.

[Aerows]

70. She sure as hell should

The woman has more courage than everyone in DC. I wish she would. And that Hillary would shut up about "I think I might run".

I'll take a reluctant leader over a grandiose one any day.

[NCTraveler]

92. Would love the chance to have her in our primary.

It would be extremely good for our party. With the names currently out there Warren would get my vote in the primary. If she doesn't run, Hillary will greatly benefit from her support.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

95. Bookmark this: Warren will be in the debates. nt

[NCTraveler]

100. I hope so. Love EW. nt.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

101. Can you imagine the debates with her in the mix? Not only would the other candidates have to

up their games to compete with her, they might also be forced to actually debate some uncomfortable truths.

I can't wait to see it!

[NCTraveler]

106. I think it is EW who will have to up her game, and she will do so successfully.

EW is very bright and will have to be coached for a while in order to get her to where she can thrive in the primary debate format. It is a nightmare fighting for the attention of the citizens, who often have the attention span of a gnat, and having 2 minutes at a time to do so. I could listen to her speak on fiscal matters for hours, she will not get that opportunity in debates. With her intelligence, knowledge, and the backing she will receive, I have no doubt that she will excel.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

109. Fair points. She will excel, indeed, at whatever she does. nt

[Initech]

96. I'd personally much rather see her as Fed chair.

Can you imagine the smackdown that would be laid on the bankers and corporate criminals if she were put in that position?

[MADem]

108. I think she's running for FED CHAIR.

Maybe by way of Treasury Secretary.

And if we can keep our team in the White House, she'll probably get to it, eventually.

[Beacool]

120. Same as I have been saying.

She would be terrific in either job.

[Hippo_Tron]

134. I think running for Senate killed any chance of her as Fed Chair

Fed Chairs aren't politicians. Some of them have partisan leanings and have served as economic advisers to Presidents, but they aren't directly involved in electoral politics.

If she wanted to be Fed Chair, she would've kept her job in the Obama Administration. She could still be Treasury Secretary, but IMO staying in the administration would've likely been a more direct route to that job under a future Democratic administration.

I also think it's unlikely she's running for President, but I suspect she's considering it. Nobody gets that close to the White House and doesn't at least consider it.

[MADem]

143. Fed Chairs--up until recently--haven't been women, either.

Nothing wrong with a paradigm shift. How well have we done with "captains of industry" and policy wonks in the job? EW is a politician who is also a policy wonk--she will know how to navigate shark infested waters.

On issues of economic equity, the nation is sliding--glacially, but sliding--leftward. The whole "people should be able to afford to buy a home, people should be able to support a family on minimum wage, people shouldn't get ripped off by big banks and their usurious fees and out-of-reach checking accounts" type themes are starting to really resonate with people. It's not a fist-shaking, tear down the system POV, it's more of a "Sunnuvabeach, where's the frigging FAIRNESS?" type attitude.

Obama wasn't going to nominate Warren for anything--not that he doesn't appreciate her; he knew he couldn't get her through the vetting process, or if he did, he'd have to expend WAY too much political capital, and he had ACA and other issues coming at him.

Hillary Clinton might have better luck pushing her through, depending on how the next two election cycles go. Once she does a little time at TREASURY, she'd be a cinch for Fed Chair.

I don't think she'll run for President. She did sign that letter that some folks here at DU like to mock, and I think she is a woman of her word.

[awoke_in_2003]

112. There is a lot of delusion in this thread...

As your OP points out, she said she not going to run, no matter how many here are parsing what she said. I will probably now be labeled a Hillbot- of course, you know how far from the truth that is.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

122. She did not say she was "not going to run", only that she is "not running"...

[DCBob]

113. Translation.. get over it and focus on things that are a real and present danger...

like the 2014 elections.

[winter is coming]

116. Because the best way to get people's minds off 2016 is to talk about it.

[treestar]

127. She only says that because she is really running

[SidDithers]

128. But people have "Warren 2016" sig lines...

Sid

[ChisolmTrailDem]

133. What about it?

[Logical]

139. We can switch them to "Stop Hillary" at some point. nt

[arcane1]

137. I don't know who that is, but I seriously doubt it.

She never struck me as someone interested in being president. Sometimes it's the simple answer that turns out to be correct

[arcane1]

141. It's not as though she suddenly changed her mind.

She's been consistent on that topic since day one. No conspiracies required.

[lonestarnot]

144. Well how bout SCOTUS, RBG's spot?

[Romulox]

158. Still not voting for Hillary. Sorry. nt

[Beacool]

159. I'll vote for the Democratic nominee.

I'm hoping that it will be Hillary. If it's not, so be it.

[Skidmore]

160. At this point, who heads the ticket in 2016 is irrelevant

because, if we don't save the majority in the Senate and lose seats in the House, this will be another rhetorical exercise in futility like so many others.

[William769]

161. If thats what she wants then so be it.

She is a smart lady and she knows whats best for her.

I wish her the best in whatever path she chooses.

[Zorra]

162. So tragic. Hopefully Bernie will run. nt