General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOMG Elizabeth Warren went there! Finally someone calls Hillary Clinton what she is
“I think Hillary Clinton is terrific,” Warren said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/21/elizabeth-warren-2016_n_5187672.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)"...likable enough?"
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)
maddiemom
(5,177 posts)
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)in the primaries and will campaign for whoever gets the nomination.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)If she's not going to go for President, I'd rather see her stay in the Senate.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)right....
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I'd rather she go straight from Senate to President. Being VP is no guarantee that you're going to be President or even Presidential candidate next. If Hillary runs, Biden is screwed. Being VP does nothing to further his career. And generally, once you leave the Senate to become VP, you don't even wind up back in the Senate again, do you?
Let's keep her where she can actually get something done, not shuffle her into some largely futile position merely to strengthen Hillary.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)of a chance of getting elected President than Vice President.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)know what she really stands for. She is truly a person of integrity. Ahem!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)understand?
Ahem...back at ya.
MoonchildCA
(1,349 posts)Older than even Reagan was in his second term.
I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but the chances are getting slimmer as time goes by.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
krawhitham
(5,070 posts)That is why it is NOW or NEVER for her as a presidential candidate
maddiemom
(5,177 posts)
WhiteTara
(31,254 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)late to BEGIN as president!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)So far Warren has been excellent on economic issues, bail outs etc. I like her. However if she ever joins the Third Way, I won't have any problem realizing she no longer represents the interests of the American people. What's so hard? I'm not married to, BFF with, or in any close on a personal level to ANY Politician so if they seem to represent Democratic Principles and oppose Bush policies, I will support them UNTIL THEY CHANGE. Simple.
You seem to be suggesting that people will blindly follow someone simply because, well because or something.
I support ISSUES, period. Don't know what anyone else does.
But if Warren runs on a ticket with Hillary I still won't be supporting Hillary. She voted for the Iraq War, that's enough to show incompetence at best, agreement with Bush's policies at worst. I don't support Bush policies period and if Warren becomes a supporter, it will be an easy matter to move forward from her too.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)no patterns are seen here AT ALL!
"Third Way" 
Beacool
(30,514 posts)I guess that you didn't vote for Kerry either. Obama you might have voted for since he wasn't even in the Senate in 2002.
maddiemom
(5,177 posts)
Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)nment after WWII had ties and history with the Nazis.
"Yup, they did and facilitated some pretty awefull stuff, but there isn't anyone else qualified to do the job" 
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)of victims, millions actually, um, YEAH, that is a MAJOR CRITERION for me. I thought I already said that.
Was that supposed to mean something or was it an intended insult? Because I consider it a complement when people recognize my position on War Crimes so thank you.
Slim pickens: =
1) Lied into War
2) Torture
3) Over one million dead
4) More than Six thousand US Troops dead
5) Untold numbers maimed, on both sides
6) US veterans committing suicide after returning from those 'slim pickens' at an alarming rate, 22 per day.
7) A country and its people destroyed, for oil.
Last but not least Billions of tax dollars wasted, huge deficit created, SS fund raided for all of this.
YOU call that 'slim pickens'. I call it CRIMINAL and I call anyone who supported it any way, 'complicit'.
I will remember that terminology for the past decade of bloodshed whenever it comes up again.
And no, I will not support Hillary or anyone who changes their currently correct position on that massive crime against humanity.
maddiemom
(5,177 posts)AGAINST the Iraq war. That would leave out all but a few possible candidates who were in Congress at the time, or are still alive.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)I thoroughly believe that any "democrat" that voted or ever supported that war should have their careers ended. They voted for the war resolution because they feared it would be political suicide to do otherwise. They were quick to discard their morals (if they had any) to rush us into a completely foreseeable disaster.
Yes, 12 years and some of us don't forget it. I realize I wasn't drafted and my stupid naive ass signed up for the Army, but I joined the Army in 1997 well before any of this was on the radar. By the time 2002 rolled around, I had 4 years left of my military commitment. I was 17 when I joined and I was completely gullible to believe this, but I thought that we learned our lessons from our previous military adventures. I saw the various US military involvements in the 90s as justified and as examples of us making the world a better place with our military might. I joined the Army to stop genocide and murder, not to spread it. Between Feb 2004 and March 2005 I served in Iraq as an Infantry Platoon Leader and I saw and inflicted first hand war on those people and their country. "Sorry" doesn't even begin to describe how I feel.
In the course of the year my platoon was responsible for killing 46 people and wounding the best part of 100 that I know of. My experiences were very typical among the other platoon leaders I served with at the time.
Through nightmares, intrusive thoughts, periods of multiple panic attacks a day, constant recollections and reminders of the war, and weekly appointments I have with the VA I find it very hard to forget the war and what our politicians inflicted both on our military and the people of Iraq.
Hillary Clinton and everyone who vote for and supported that war for one reason or another has just as much guilt and blood on her hands as bush. People like her are exactly what enabled bush to get away with the war on Iraq.
Beacool
(30,514 posts)I respect your opinion, unlike many armchair generals, you were there and walked the walk. I can't even imagine what you went through, and those who are still serving, are going through every day. I just refuse to paint a scarlet letter on Democrats who supported the then president. I lay the blame on the man in charge, as well as Cheney and Rumsfeld.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)war.
50 years from now the bodies of the victims will be still be unlawfully dead, the tortured will still remember and so will all Democrats who opposed and still do, Bush's War Crimes.
In fact, it will go DOWN IN HISTORY and thankfully I will be on the right side and will never, ever move over to the wrong side. Especially for only political purposes.
History sorts these things out. It already is as victims continue to seek justice and will not stop, there are simply too many of them.
70 years later and still harping on the Holocaust!! Wow, imagine remembering injustices and those who were complicit, who were responsible and most of all, the victims??
Yeah, I know, DO forget!! I remember and prefer 'Never forget! when it comes to massive crimes against humanity.
Unless of course you supported Bush/Cheney's massive crime, which Hillary did. If so that's not my problem.
If Warren joins those who supported Bush's War Crimes, she is free to do so, but she can expect to lose much of the support she has had since that support comes from people who do not 'move forward' from historical crimes against humanity. Those are the kind of people who don't put politics before all else.
Beacool
(30,514 posts)How many people have our drones killed? Presidents do what presidents have to do (I don't mean Bush).
No Democrat was urging Bush to start a war. They simply gave the president a tool to use as a measure of last resort. Of course we all know that he rushed into a senseless war.
I think that this endless flagellation of Democrats who were in office in 2002 is a fruitless enterprise.
These arguments end up nowhere. Come November 2016, if Hillary is the nominee, you are welcome to stay home and sit on your hands. What I don't want to hear a peep from is all of you who think that a fellow Democrat is the devil incarnate and would allow the Republicans to take over the White House rather than vote for her. There were some of us in 2008 who couldn't stand the sight of Obama, we still went out and voted because the alternative was far worse. That's life, we can't always get what we want.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I won't be 'staying home' I will be working to change CONGRESS to a Liberal/Progressive Democratically controlled branch of government.
Iow, that is the focus for many people now, CONGRESS, in 2014 and in 2016.
We've learned a lot about the mistakes we made. The people are not responsible for lies told to them, but they BECOME Responsible if they repeat the same mistakes again.
And of course many more people are now focusing on their own local politics cities, towns, and States.
We got the message loud and clear when we were told OVER AND OVER when we objected to policies from the president we elected 'HE CAN'T JUST REPRESENT YOU, HE'S THE PRESIDENT OF ALL THE PEOPLE.
Great, thanks seriously for that message. But who CAN support us are our local politicians because if they don't they will be thrown out of office, AND our State Reps to whom we will now be paying a whole lot more attention.
Times are changing rapidly, people are more awake now than ever and not so easily bamboozled by billion dollar national campaigns when their issues can only be addressed by those who CAN 'work for us'.
Number23
(24,544 posts)
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)I was going to leave a comment earlier but relented.
Then saw your post to him on the other thread.
And saw this.
Beacool
(30,514 posts)I'm a woman.
Beacool
(30,514 posts) Number23
(24,544 posts)Beacool
(30,514 posts) 
dionysus
(26,467 posts)
Beacool
(30,514 posts)I like!!!! It's sooo cute.
Thank you, sweets. You always manage to cheer me up when I feel all alone fighting the dragons.
mopinko
(73,662 posts)wonder why some people are here most days.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)The progressive left of the party was correct about just about everything when it came to that stupid war. In fact we have a history about being right about a lot of things from opposing cutting the estate tax to financial deregulation to pollution control.
The funny thing is despite being right most of the time about what actually happens there is an over represented part of the party that just happens to take the most bribes from bankers and insurance companies and war profiteers. The old DLC, the blue dogs, and now the Third Way represent that position and are wrong so often it is pitiful. Yet for the last couple of decades these corporate friendly democrats have wielded disproportionate power in office.
Even after the cycle of 2010 after they lost enormously by providing tons of filibuster cover for republicans they still held out. The numbers of blue dogs are lower than ever and the over all population is to the left of much of the democratic party on many of the issues and yet the party seems to constantly give into these corporate clowns.
I just do not understand how reasonable people can look to the most conservative democrat that ran in 2008 and say "yeah, that seems like a good idea.". I have yet to hear Hillary say anything to suggesting that she learned anything about economics or is willing to do more than minute hedging on economic issues.
Beacool
(30,514 posts)You mentioned 2010, I remember so many here hoping that the Blue Dogs that were up for reelection lost their seats. Many did, but the more important question is, who replaced them? By and large most of those seats went to Tea Party members and other Republicans. Going by the cheering on around here when they lost, you would have thought that liberal Democrats had won those seats. Instead, it ushered a Republican majority in the House. I think that it was utterly short sighted to wish that these moderates lose their seats. Why were these Dems Blue Dogs in the first place? Because they came from conservative districts, that's why. A liberal would have never won.
As for Hillary, around here she's treated as if she were an evil creature. She's far from that, I know the woman. She's super smart, hard working, deeply cares about people and has a terrific senses of humor. I disagree that she's the most conservative Democrat. If she does choose to run in 2016, she'll have to present a platform by which people can judge and decide her candidacy. Right now is too soon, she's still a private citizen.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I don't think I need to say much more than that. Blanche Lincoln was an insider corporate democrate that fought to destroy the public option and water down our healthcare legislation and voted with the powerful over the people at every turn and she somehow managed to eke out a victory in a primary where her more progressive opponent was polling much, much better in the election in Arkansas versus the tea partier that the republicans had put up to go after it.
She did it by getting every establishment democrat to stand up with her and speak out for her at every turn. And in the general election she lost. So the establishment FAILED to think strategically and failed to go more progressive and helped strut up someone that continually betrayed democratic values at every turn despite the fact that polls were screaming that there was no way she could possibly win.
But yeah, it is definitely the left that is cutting it's nose on this one.
Beacool
(30,514 posts)
Beacool
(30,514 posts)Who do you think that the party was supposed to endorse, her opponent? If Lincoln was not conservative enough for the electorate in AR, how in heck do you think that a liberal could have been elected in that state????
One has to deal with the reality on the ground, and the reality in AR, is that it's a very red state.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)She had a primary opponent that was polling far better and would probably have beaten the republican while being LESS conservative than Blanche. The national party establishment heaped onto her side when they should have let the people of Arkansas decide who they thought was most "electable."
The trouble for the corporate wing of the democratic party would have been two fold:
1) We neither need nor want them mucking about and suppressing progressive ideals
2) Democrats playing as conservatives is the only way to win in a red state.
Actually, by losing so disastrously she sort of already proved the second one. If you want democratic votes, then vote like a frigging democrat.
Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)in enabling it either when she was questioned on her vote during her 2008 presidential run. She flat out stated "I have nothing to be sorry for". To me, her vote for the war and her reluctance to apologize for the misery she enabled and was partly responsible for inflicting on millions of people flat our demonstrates that when push comes to shove she'll discard her ideals and morals (if she has any) to do what she deems best for her own political career.
I firmly believe she voted for the war resolution in 2002 because she thought it would have been political suicide not to and she refused to apologize for her vote in 2008 because she didn't want to be viewed as a flip-flopper.
Don't forget that she was also eager to get us involved in Syria and openly supported Obama on that. Fortunately she wasn't SOS at the time and she was on the sidelines. In light of this and the IWR vote, I don't at all trust her.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)for that vote claiming to have been 'misled'. Hillary made no excuses, confirming she fully supported Bush's war.
I am told here that the new phrase for that war and all the crimes, some still ongoing, the lack of accountability, is 'slim pickens'. Right here on a Dem forum, we are now supposed to support that war. Amazing proposition as if it were even possible.
Syria, yes, and Libya. No I won't forget. Don't worry, neither did millions in the 2008 election nor will they in the next one. She is stuck with her support for our Right Wing foreign policies and she will find that no, we have not 'moved forward' from it.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)Democrats as loony if they were against the war.
The DLC gave strong support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prior to the war, Will Marshall co-signed a letter to President Bush from the Project for the New American Century endorsing military action against Saddam Hussein. During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal because of Dean's anti-war stance. The DLC dismissed other critics of the Iraq invasion such as filmmaker Michael Moore as members of the "loony left".[14] Even as domestic support for the Iraq War plummeted in 2004 and 2005, Marshall called upon Democrats to balance their criticism of Bush's handling of the Iraq War with praise for the President's achievements and cautioned "Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe."[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)progressive Dems who opposed all these Bush policies. IF the Dem Party had not been hijacked by the DLC/Third Way all of whom supported Bush's illegal invasions, we could have stopped him. I will NEVER forget that.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)What is the benefit to the people of the United States for her to play economic beard for a Wall Street appointment?
Better she select Brashear or someone like that who might provide some ticket balance that isn't otherwise useful and vibrant.
My head won't be exploding anyway, Warren has a light track record and there are a lot of issues where I'm not sure where she really is but my instincts tell me that she is a pre - 1980's middle of the road person rather than all that liberal. I can't think of a thing she has pushed that didn't used to be plain old common sense that was widely agreed with all around the political spectrum in easy living memory.
We are talking a soul that may well have voted for Reagan twice here that was left behind first by the neoBirchers and now "mainstream" Democrats rather than any epiphany on the road to Damascus. She stayed the same and the political spectrum jumped her is all I see. Still, that said I think she is easily in the top 25% of the Senate and probably higher if you count Democratic Governors to get the picture of or national bench so she is to be strongly encouraged for saying and doing the right things.
And I am not a Hillary Fan in the least but that is exactly what's going to happen.
What else is Warren supposed to do w/o destroying herself? She's doing wonders where she's at and I do believe she's smart enough to figure that out, besides, she's still working for Obama.
-p
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)of the prospect of her candidacy
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Why are you afraid of her candidacy....are you "terrified" she will win? I think that would be TERRIFIC!
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)mouthbreathers can hate... you know, like our current President.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)with the ability to win.....hmmmm...interesting....
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Not sure I get "terrified," but the Inevitability Train does not delight me.
I wish this were the sort of country that would elect a real liberal. Or at least let me vote for one.
NYC Liberal
(20,453 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)I'm happy that he has pushed some big liberal to-do items, despite having surrounded himself with corporate drones and technocrats.
I will hope for better from Clinton, but I'm not optimistic.
NYC Liberal
(20,453 posts)That's not relative; that's a fact.
Throwing around the word "corporate" is just as lazy as the right-wingers throwing around the word "socialist" -- and just as meaningless.
Cha
(318,734 posts)steve2470
(37,481 posts)lumpy
(13,704 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)While I'm happy to see a president finally admit to the existence of the inequality problem, I'm sad to see him perpetuating it. The perennial refusal to investigate the big banksters, much less prosecute them, along with an agenda that gives only passing attention to reining in corporate power with legislation, means inequality grows. It's particularly frustrating when we see him pushing an Elizabeth Warren forward as he's propping up a Larry Summers.
Anyone who doesn't know what a corporatist is isn't paying attention.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Iraq War Supporter, ambivalent in torture, Corporate funded to the max, totally supportive of Third Way foreign policy which aside from the immorality of it all, is draining this country dry. Not to mention her support for Wall St etc etc.
And if Warren joins her, same goes for her. When you have basic principles, politicians have to represent those issues or don't expect support from voters whose positions are clear on the issue.
bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I thought it was something else...
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)they hate her 'cause she's a woman. But you knew this, right?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and that President Obama is too...and you base this judgement on only some not the bulk of what this President has accomplished. You are using only a myopic lens with which to view. When you look at the big picture....evidence says something very different.
But you knew that....
(if you are holding your breath for that "perfect president" ....you are going to become mighty blue indeed)
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)I just hope for one in a major party who tells the truth about where this country and planet are headed unless we act to dismantle transnational capitalism and its depredations.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I ask you....HOW does ONE candidate do all that? How does that "one candidate" that you are "looking for" get everyone else in govt to just follow a mission such as that? Be realistic instead of idealistic and you will be less disappointed all the time.
That is what I mean about expecting a hero.
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)I'm only asking a candidate to tell the truth: our politicians are funded by money that seeks to maintain a fatally flawed system, and only changing this fact will save us. It's a simple message.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)"Capitalism is a failure".....that's all you want?
That would be Bernie Sanders he says that all the time.....Funny....the walls of Capitalism haven't fallen away because he said it....
So you are still looking for magic!
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)I would certainly hope so. Would he continue to call out capitalism if he were? I'd hold my breath for that, too.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)saying it....believing it.....and being able to single handedly change it are wholly different aren't they?
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)from a major-party candidate. The message is out there: Noam Chomsky, Richard Wolff, Gar Alperovitz. It's just not being heard by THE PEOPLE. If a big candidate says it, the media can't hide it.
This is not rocket science. It's just political will.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)half the people reject it out of hand.....How do you overcome that?
See this country is not chock full of Hardcore Liberals like yourself.
Change is HARD! And Change is slow....the American People are not going to change just BECAUSE Bernie Sanders or anyone else says they should.
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)that the people have heard it. They have never heard it from ANY major party candidate, or from any of the corporate-controlled media. Although it's the most important message, it is completely marginalized among the PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY.
Who's really the idealist here?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You obviously do not know much about people on the Right....
No this is the realist here....Idealists are those that think....IF ONLY they would hear us....THEY would change....Trouble is....they have "selective hearing".
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)If Obama would say it, great. If Hillary Clinton would say it, I'd vote for her. It's simply not coming from a *major party* candidate, and it must, if we're to survive.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and staunch Democrats have heard it and ARE voting for the Democrats.....but you cannot win with JUST them....You have to also court the wishy washy middle...
Change is hard....Progress is slow and incremental.....that's what being a Realist knows....
lumpy
(13,704 posts)Ron Green
(9,870 posts)Another indicator would be one who has not publicly called out corporations for their malfeasance. And so on.
William769
(59,147 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)More in my post here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024856265
Also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024855905
Not including this information seems...disingenuous.
ablamj
(333 posts)That does not answer his question which was whether or not Hillary would make a good President. I think I'm terrific but I doubt I'd be a good President.
Sorry, just went to your link. Looks like we agree.
Beacool
(30,514 posts)Hillary and Liz Warren get along just fine. Hillary supporters also like Warren. It's the Warren supporters and other Leftists who are continuously trying to cause a rift between both sides of the Democratic party, by endlessly trashing Hillary.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)you are trashing Warren. And, if you are trashing Warren, you're trashing our next most-likely candidate. I've said to you repeatedly that if Hillary is the nominee, I will vote for her. That's hardly trashing her. And, never forget, she has already lost one election and voted for the IWR. She has reasons to lose again.
You aren't going to change my mind. I'm a Hillary disciple from a LOOOOOOOOOONNNNG, LONG! way back, before you even knew who she was I was campaigning and having dinners with her and Bill. She's NOT the candidate we need RIGHT NOW!
Beacool
(30,514 posts) MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)You don't need to know that information. Really.
LOL.
This is gonna be a hoot.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Clinton. She's done a lot of good over her life.
The question though is do we want another centrist pro-wall street politician as our parties standard bearer.
Bryant
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Could we possibly do better, even if all of DU agreed on whom to nominate instead?
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Goldman Sachs thinks she's so terrific that they pay her $200k per speech.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)No need to create new propaganda against her, there are decades of old stuff to drag up...and if the GOP were to run Jeb the country would have a choice between two dynasties to chose from....hardly something to inspire voters to come out and vote.
But the inevitability crowed will probably win, and we can say hi to the GOP in 17.
Beacool
(30,514 posts)What some of you here refuse to grasp is that Hillary does generate enthusiasm, maybe not in LW sites, but in the real world. Attend any of her events and you would see it for yourself.
She would be one of the most qualified candidates to run for president in many a year. Frankly, the moaning about it is beyond tiresome. When the primaries come, vote for anyone of your choosing. Who cares?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Attend any of his events and you will see it...because if you go to the events you are enthusiastic for them.
We will not win because some are enthusiastic for her...and she lost in the primaries to the least experienced one...Obama.
And there was a reason for that...because people are tired of the experienced ones and want new blood in the game.
And I expect that if the Dems don't offer it the GOP will.
Beacool
(30,514 posts)Think what you want. I'm tired of arguing with folks here. The reality on the ground is not so.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)The last thing this nation needs is a repeat of....... Well, I won't say it.
But we do not need more of the same. Or worse.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)two independent thoughts simultaneously?
Go figure.
Otelo
(62 posts)Because if she did, she wouldn't have said Hillary was terrific.
You could say that you disagree with Warren, but for some reason you don't like the sound of that.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, I don't care what it sounds like. And, I think that if Warren can overlook Hillary's complicity in the war, she's less principled than she makes herself out to be.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)issues. What makes YOU think that people who up to now have been happy with Warren, won't be capable of withdrawing that support if SHE changes? I have supported her because of where she has stood on important issues, of how she went after Wall St stooges publicly, including some appointed by this administration. But if she changes her position on policies even by supporting those who she has clearly disagreed with, no problem, she becomes part of the problem.
ablamj
(333 posts)And will back Warren no matter what like they do with Hillary (and Obama).
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)ablamj
(333 posts)She used to be a Republican, then she already has. But I'm more concerned with the here and now. I don't support anyone 100% and never will. I have a mind of my own.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)That's the question.
I voted for Obama because I had no better option in 2012. If I have no better option in 2016 I will vote for Hillary. I'm just hoping for a better option.
JI7
(93,546 posts)she is mostly being used to attack other democrats .
NYC Liberal
(20,453 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Very telling.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Will you remind me again why I am terrified of Warren? Your blanket statement is very telling.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)And just about every one is from a Hillary supporter.
I apologize if I inferred ALL.. should have said most.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Pretty much every Hillary supporter I know is a huge fan of Warren. Including right here on this board. You should change the word "most" to "very few".
"Maybe it's because I've seen more posts on how Warren is not running for prez than any other."
"And just about every one is from a Hillary supporter."
"Most" Hillary supporters on this board are starting threads about EW not running.
"Most" of the threads started about EW not running are started by Hillary supporters.
One of those I see as somewhat accurate without doing any data collection. That would be the second one. In no way can you back up the assumption you made using the reason you gave. It is simply not possible. You made a statistical claim without being able to back it up. Therefore there is clearly another reason you made the claim and you don't feel comfortable posting it in this forum.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Being a fan and not wanting her to screw up Hillary's chances are two different things.
And I don't need to back it up. I'm going by the experience I've gotten from following politics my whole life and being on DU since before the 2004 election.
I made a "statistical claim" the same way you did ("pretty much every Hillary supporter is a huge fan of Warren" . It's called having an opinion. And, my opinion is that most Hillary fans are concerned that Warren will run. No need to back it up with a study or stats.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Not something I was expecting. Rush has spent years building up CDS and ODS.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Neither of us provided any proof, yet I'm the one that's like Rush. Brilliant.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I was using your method of logical thinking in order to come up with backing for something I already believe to be real. See how it works. Not too cool is it.
"Neither of us provided any proof"
The difference is that I am based in reality and fully understand my comment was crap. You, not so much. Yet we used the same reasoning to come to our conclusions. Stick with your method no matter how long you come up with opinions not based in reality.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)but like what I've read so far) I've noticed that most of the slop slinging around here seems to be AT Hillary by Warren supporters, not the other way around.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)My philosophy is, the more the merrier. Sanders, Warren, Kucinich, bring 'em all on. I trust the primary voters to choose the best candidate.
OTOH, I have seen a lot of "pretty please Hillary don't run!" threads started by Warren supporters. Almost as if they are afraid, or something.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)And you even have a high post count.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...that fails to address fundamental and fatal weaknesses in the system.
And yet I am not one of those who would tell Clinton not to run. The ability to defeat Republicans is also an important consideration.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)corporate influence and capture of our government rolls on assertively, the security state is way overgrown and out of hand, and we are in a state of never ending war against a tactic for starters and Secretary Clinton in a generation as a major player has dangerously failed to illustrate that she would push in a different direction.
I'm afraid our party is terminal as a real vehicle for the advancement of the needs and interests of regular people.
Fear is nature's alarm bell. To be contented with the track we are on is to be delusional. We should not have wasted these last years trying to play partners with entropy and chasing phantoms, it has not served us well and price upon price will be paid for it.
More of the same should be scary to anyone because it has to be obvious that we are not going to get to escape velocity from problems of the scope we have now and any smidgen of a move to more corporate friendly and enabling, more itchy for war (forget the Iraq vote for a moment...she was just talking about "obliterating" Iran in 2008) or even an iota less concerned about the environment is not something to be gambled with to me.
I think too many folks have lost their minds, there is no way to look at conditions and project trends and pretend that all is well or that we are even presenting solutions to work toward.
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)catch on like wildfire and serve to bring down the Corporatist New Dem's house of cards. Their portrayal of America as a center-right nation has been more or less exposed as a sham, fabricated to facilitate moving the Democratic Party to the right. Decades of lies and manipulation spent to create two parties both serving the moneyed interests is not something that they will give up easy...it will take a movement, and a movement needs a leader with a vision. From my perspective, Warrens "vision" seems like something that translates well to the average worker on the street, struggling to feed a family. Warren has a connection to the average citizen that Hillary, with her corporatist ties, could never compete with. I don't know if she will run, but I would venture to say that if she does run, Hillary is toast.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Most redditors are younger people from different backgrounds. They are generally more progressive (not necessarily Democrats) and they love Warren.
Her message regarding student loan debt will certainly get them to the polls.
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/
albino65
(484 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)they are both politicians and from the same party, this is hardly earth shaking Hilary would say the same of Elizabeth if asked
DCBob
(24,689 posts) 
Gman
(24,780 posts)Sure will eliminate a lot of issues here on DU. I'm glad we can now all agree on a candidate.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)
noooooooo kidding!
-p
Beacool
(30,514 posts)Some people will be disappointed.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)the coming BOG Fight will be entertaining enough.
Beacool
(30,514 posts)If I want to read non-stop anti-Hillary crap, I might as well hang around the Freepers, Newsmax or any other RW site. The venom is about the same and just as ridiculous and insane.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Although some might say so for other reasons than yours.
Beacool
(30,514 posts)Never had and won't start now, particularly for anonymous people on the internet.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts) Beacool
(30,514 posts)Thought not..........
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)
GoneOffShore
(18,018 posts)Personally, for me, she's still running way too far to the right on lots of issues.
And I'll have a lot of difficulty if she runs. Yes, I'd vote for her, and no, I wouldn't be happy.
alarimer
(17,146 posts)Hilary is neither good nor bad, but the last thing we need as President is another Clinton.
Expect more NAFTA, more welfare "reform", more Republican policies disguised as Democratic ones.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts);-O
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Can't wait to read it.
Gothmog
(179,226 posts)If the Democrats win or keep Texas close, the GOP can not get to 270 electoral votes. There is good polling that shows that Hillary Clinton could win Texas http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/01/clinton-could-win-texas.html I would love to see Texas in play or see the GOP worry about Texas.
Wendy Davis is making inroads in Texas and is appealing to the same groups who could help Clinton in Texas. There are rumors that Clinton may be the speaker at the Texas Democratic State Convention at the end of June
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)her politics, as the leader of the only sane major party in the US - not so much.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I like Hillary too.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)She won't run for President, and she's selling out the progressive base by supporting Clinton. Better get to work finding a "real" progressive, and convincing him/her to run, right?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)can we get a smilie for that?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... I guess there is at least one thing I don't agree with Warren about.
I'll just have to "hold my nose" and support her anyway.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Beacool
(30,514 posts)They would love for her to call out Hillary, but she won't, and it's driving them batty.