If people want to root for Warren as president, more power to them. Why does this seem to make some

[quinnox]

duers see red? >

It doesn't matter if she says nice things about Hillary. No, and it doesn't matter if she denies she will run for president. Anyone knows the standard answer by politicians to the question, "Are you going to run for president?" is always, "Who me? No, of course not!" And yet, they often seem to jump in when the presidential race starts, funny how that works.

What I find strange is it seems this support of Warren (and to a lesser degree, Sanders) apparently causes all kinds of consternation and dismay for some, to the point that they have to try and discourage it and just seem plain mad about it. Folks, let people support whomever they want for president, even if it's not your favorite candidate.

[Capt. Obvious]

1. Doesn't matter who runs

When Joe Biden jumps in he'll clear the field.

[Lex]

2. LOL.

God bless Joe.

[roguevalley]

164. someone asked warren about clinton and she was polite. now everyone is losing it. i am tired of

Biden and Clinton

New people now

[Lex]

165. okey dokey

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. You are on the front lines of party control

Conservadems have it right now and Warren is a direct challenge to it. It's actually pretty elementary.

[VanillaRhapsody]

32. "Conservadems"....there is your problem right there....

calling other liberals "Conservative" is WHY this happens.....

[Scootaloo]

65. Except they're not liberals, which is why they get called conservatives

Derp da hurp.

[VanillaRhapsody]

66. Who?

I have never heard someone call themselves "Conservadem" have you?

[Capt. Obvious]

71. Here's one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=106003

[VanillaRhapsody]

72. Sort of....I guess......

Not that prolific though....not exactly a trend....and I dare say...MOST who have had that epithet lobbed at them are NOT!

[rhett o rick]

73. It doesnt matter what they call themselves it's what principles they

promote. Those that disparage the "extreme left" are not liberals. Those that disparage whistle-blowers and OWS, are not liberals. Quite a few republicans switched parties and now call themselves Democrats. That doesnt make them any thing other than a conservative Democrat.

[VanillaRhapsody]

74. You don't think there ARE extreme Liberals on DU?

but Conservadems exist.....

As I have said before....if there is no one further to the Left than you are......here's your card...

[rhett o rick]

81. You dont think there ARE conservatives in DU?

I would say that Sen Sanders is liberal. I would say that those among us that dont agree with Sen Sanders on fracking, the XL Pipeling, the TPP, indefinite detention, the Patriot Act, the treatment of Snowden and Greenwald, etc. ARE CONSERVATIVES. Now Democrats dont like to be called conservative, but it they walk, talk, and spout conservative principles, then they are conservatives.

[Marr]

83. No kidding.

I can't even imagine the thinking here. They see "extreme liberals" running rampant over the site and never find themselves on the left hand side of any argument here... but insist they aren't the conservative wing. Huh?

[VanillaRhapsody]

116. "Conservative Wing" you are degrading are the real ones out there on the front lines

actually GOING door to door canvassing FOR you......

[Marr]

126. Why do conservative Dems always claim that no one else volunteers?

I see this accusation constantly from the right edge of the party. Which is odd, since it was the self-described "moderates" who failed to even show up and vote last time, not the liberals.

Not that it's any of your business, but I've been volunteering since my college days, more than 15 years ago.

[VanillaRhapsody]

168. thats you....you do not a trend make...

I know I knocked on doors....and by the way...I AM a Liberal. Not that its any of YOUR business...I am also a realist...

[Marr]

170. You don't make a trend, either-- and I have to say in all my years of volunteering, I haven't

seen many people who openly described themselves as "moderates" among the ranks of volunteers. They're always the first to blame liberals for not working hard enough, though-- strange how that works.

[VanillaRhapsody]

171. who openly describes themselves as "moderates"?

[Marr]

172. Seriously? /nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

174. Serious.....

[rhett o rick]

143. Wrong. I've been on the front lines for many years and it's the lefties that are out there.

Otherwise known as the crazy-assed left. Half the time the conservatives dont know which way they are leaning. It's been easy for them for the last couple of elections because they had a moderate Democrat running against a crazy Clown. But if Jeb runs or Christie, see the conservative Dems waver. THey are the ones that are ok with the status-quo and may not even bother to vote.

In my county we have a progressive caucus that does all the footwork for the local party. There aint no Conserva-Dems caucus.

The conservative wing or Lieberman Wing are willing to go another eight years with the status quo.

[VanillaRhapsody]

95. I think there are REAL Republicans pretending to be Democrats on here yes.....

but who YOU call that.....votes Democrat.

[rhett o rick]

148. It's not enough to just vote for Democrats. Many Republicans call themselves Democrats.

Vote for progressive Democrats and not Conservative Democrats. Arlen Specter changed his party affiliation but not his ideology. Joe Liarman and Zell Miller called themselves Democrats.

The lower classes can not survive another 8 years of the Wall Street dominated status quo. Do not vote for Goldman-Sachs for president in 2016.

[sabrina 1]

167. Anyone who tries to defend putting SS 'on the table' is not a Liberal. Anyone who opposes that is

is simply a Liberal, NOT an 'extreme Liberal and anyone who uses talking points like 'purist' for people who oppose such policies as 'putting SS on the table' are Conservadems.

Anyone who tries to excuse support for the TPP is a conservaden, see the linked to poster above, the member of the 'reality based community'. A phrase developed as an attack on Liberals. Anyone who ever supported anything that poster has to say about issues, about DUers who ARE liberals, IS a Conservadem.

No one should be ashamed of what they are. There is no LAW against being a Conservadem, but when Conservadems pretend to be Liberals, they are not fooling anyone.

And last but not least Liberals do not march in lockstep with ANYONE. They are focused on issues and even when someone they voted for, even like, does not support those issues, Liberals, unlike Right Wingers, will speak up about it.

Anyone who attacks Whistle Blowers and Journalists for exposing FACTS are not Liberals, they are conservadems.

Liberals do not change their positions on issues just because someone they voted for has changed theirs.

[Progressive dog]

122. Elizabeth Warren switched from Republican,

apparently she has no principles.

[rhett o rick]

145. Your logic needs a lot of work. What her principles are have nothing to do with which party

she used to be. I was a Republican once. Do your principles match up with Sen Warren's? Or Joe Lieberman?

[Progressive dog]

175. But if she can change principles,

why can't Hillary? Your logic doesn't exist.

[Scootaloo]

75. Nope, but I've seen plenty of right-wing democrats in my time

Including quite a number of anti-left and otherwise right-light posters on DU.

[VanillaRhapsody]

77. Please point some out.....I keep hearing about them....

but haven't seen this glut of them SOME claim there are...

I HAVE seen alot of "The High Priests" of Liberaldom calling other Democrats that....

[Scootaloo]

86. I don't think it's a glut, at least on DU

A double handful of posters, perhaps, whose volume outweighs their actual presence.

Have you noticed that you have a LOT of posts in this thread, talking about how Liberals' heads are going to "explode," bitching about people who hope Warren runs, attacking other DU'ers in general, and here clutching your pearls about the notion that people say there are conservatives on DU?

[VanillaRhapsody]

117. Have you noticed that I don't care what you think about how often I post.....

don't you have anything better to do than to count them?

Oh and by the way....I don't own any pearls to clutch.

Or are my posts interrupting your daily Democrat Punching match?

[dionysus]

195. having been on DU for 10 years, the people you speak of, come and go. they get TS'd, but more take

their place. It's always been that way here.

when DU had moderators instead of juries, it was way different.

[VanillaRhapsody]

115. She is NOT a challenge to it....she IS IT

and IT is not Conservadem......

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Just another round of primary wars starting early...

I don't fully understand the emotion, but I do realize that there are some infiltrators stirring things up, some people invested in a particular candidate, and some people are just disturbed and want to argue about anything. Whatever it is, past primary wars have been nasty ad there's no reason to think this one will be any better.

But, since it seems to be only a few who stir it up, I suspect most people think the way I do-- I just want a good candidate who can win and do the job.

[cyberswede]

15. The upcoming primary season is going to be a fucking nightmare.

Yes, past primary wars were awful, and I have doubts the jury system will make any difference at all.

[MineralMan]

106. Do you mean the 2014 primary season?

That one's coming up fast, now.

[cyberswede]

127. I was referring to the 2016 presidential primary season...

but I don't count anything out when it comes to DU.

I'm seeing some signs around here for various republican primary candidates (to challenge our incumbent D representative).

Senator Harkin is retiring, but I don't think Bruce Braley has any primary challengers for that contest.

[MineralMan]

130. Ah. I see. Well, that season won't be coming up until after

the 2014 election in November. No serious candidate for President will announce before then. In fact, they're all refusing to announce, as they should. They understand that it is not yet time for that. There will be announcements after the election, though, and then the primary campaign season for 2016 will begin. Right now, there are no candidates. So, for now:

GOTV 2014!

That's my suggestion.

[cyberswede]

142. Ok. And the upcoming presidential primary season is going to be a fucking nightmare. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

184. Swerved right around that pedantry. +1.

[cyberswede]

185. .

[Autumn]

5. It;s just like running into a bull pen

The angst is so palatable. YOU WILL DO AS I SAY!!!!!!! It's rather funny.

[quinnox]

7. Well put. And it seems to come from the same crowd

who have that same kind of authoritarian mindset, when it comes to other things like drones and spying - "If Obama does it, its as good as gold! How DARE you question it!"

[Autumn]

10. You got that right. And of course there is the GOTV 2014 crowd.

We can't talk about it now, it will cost us 2014, concentrate on that. Because no one can think of more than one thing at a time ya know

[quinnox]

14. For sure! It is ridiculous.

"STOP TALKING ABOUT 2016, DAMN IT!" "YOU WILL TALK ABOUT 2014, LIKE I WANT YOU TO! "

[Autumn]

21. And the ones who take posters to task for

posting about stuff.... the nerve of those people posting on a message board. We have elections coming up..... and you are screwing them up!

I'm not sure how it works but I would think Skinner would lose money if people don't post on DU.

[quinnox]

22. lol, you got it. I guess the whole election will be blown if duers don't spend every waking moment

concentrating and posting about 2014!

[winter is coming]

17. ... and completely ignoring that the "game is rigged" message is important this year, too. n/t

[Autumn]

23. We don't have much more time. We have to un rig that game, while we can.

And we need someone to do it.

[MineralMan]

112. I suggest electing a Congress with a Democratic majority in 2014, then.

And state legislatures, too. Un-rigging that game is going to require legislation. Who's going to pass that legislation? Republicans? I don't think so.

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

[Autumn]

134. And guess what? We can fucking do both.

2014 and 2016. That's the Beyond! part.

[MineralMan]

137. Apparently you have been failing to notice the Beyond bit.

I'll be "fucking" focusing on that, but after the 2014 election is over. I'll be "fucking" sure to post about that in due course. Right now, I'm "fucking" saying:

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

And I'll keep "fucking" saying it, too...with your permission, of course. Election activism is the most important activism, IMO.

[MineralMan]

111. You mean election activists who believe the 2014 election is important?

Those people? How rude of them, eh?

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

[Skidmore]

118. Thank you.

The 2014 election is crucial. 2016 will be inconsequential if 2014 is lost to the teabaggers.

[VanillaRhapsody]

121. Exactly.....but punching Hillary MUST be tolerated.

its the only exercise they get apparently.

[Skidmore]

128. I won't commit to Hilllary this far out.

Did not caucus for her in 2008. I 'd like to see who else decides to run. I think it is crucial that we get a Congress seated and send these radicals packing. I interpret any mockery of the concern over the next election to be intentional divisiveness.

[VanillaRhapsody]

129. I haven't "committed" to Hillary Clinton either....she hasn't put her hat in.....

she is still "thinking about it"

I ONLY commit to voting Democrat......

[Skidmore]

131. You and I are in the same place.

[Autumn]

133. Of course it's important. If you don't want to talk about 2016 then don't.

People want to talk about 2016 that's their choice and they are free to do so.

[MineralMan]

135. Of course they are free to do that.

When did I say they were not? How silly.

My posts are about the 2014 election. That does not mean I won't be equally active in the 2016 election, once this year's election is done.

If I encourage people to focus on the election that is happening this year, why would someone object to that? Please explain, if you can. Do you have a problem with GOTV efforts for the 2014 election?

[Autumn]

138. You focus on what you will. I have no problem with GOTV 2014 or discussing 2016

and you certainly do not need my permission. I did notice the Beyond! , that's why it was in my post.

[MineralMan]

139. Again, thanks so much for the permission.

I'll continue to make suggestions to that effect, rather than giving orders.

[Autumn]

140. Suggestions are more effective. I imagine if Skinner objects to us talking about 2016

and decides it is distracting from 2014 he will give orders to halt it.

[merrily]

176. The "Beyond" came after posts about being able to focus on more than one thing at a time.

It was not in the initial exchanges.


As for whether the intent was to suggest that posters not post about 2016 until after this election, judge for yourself. (I am starting with Reply 15, but, in context, it was clear that Reply 15 was referring to 2016 primaries.)

cyberswede (15,767 posts)
15. The upcoming primary season is going to be a fucking nightmare.

Yes, past primary wars were awful, and I have doubts the jury system will make any difference at all.




Response to cyberswede (Reply #15)

Wed Apr 23, 2014, 03:46 PM

Star Member MineralMan (63,346 posts)
106. Do you mean the 2014 primary season?

That one's coming up fast, now.



Response to MineralMan (Reply #106)

Wed Apr 23, 2014, 04:32 PM

Star Member cyberswede (15,767 posts)
127. I was referring to the 2016 presidential primary season...

but I don't count anything out when it comes to DU.

I'm seeing some signs around here for various republican primary candidates (to challenge our incumbent D representative).

Senator Harkin is retiring, but I don't think Bruce Braley has any primary challengers for that contest.





Response to cyberswede (Reply #127)

Wed Apr 23, 2014, 04:35 PM

Star Member MineralMan (63,346 posts)
130. Ah. I see. Well, that season won't be coming up until after

the 2014 election in November. No serious candidate for President will announce before then. In fact, they're all refusing to announce, as they should. They understand that it is not yet time for that. There will be announcements after the election, though, and then the primary campaign season for 2016 will begin. Right now, there are no candidates. So, for now:

GOTV 2014!

That's my suggestion.

[VanillaRhapsody]

34. And then there is this epithet..."Authoritarian"

You guys ALL think you are SOOOOO innocent.

[MineralMan]

113. Indeed. Stop posting about 2014 election activism, dammit!

Stop right now! Respect my authoriteh!

Oh, wait...

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

[VanillaRhapsody]

114. I know right?

Who cares about such things as Midterms?

[MineralMan]

124. Authoritarians, I guess.

Who knew? I find the idea of calling people authoritarians who are encouraging a focus on the mid-term elections to be specious, at best. It's always a surprise to me to see that on DU, which is all about election activism in the first place.

We have an election this year that will determine the makeup of Congress and state legislatures throughout the country. What could be more important than that. A presidential election almost three years from now with no declared candidates? I don't think so.

[VanillaRhapsody]

125. Me either....totally agree!

but those Midterms are soooo boring....you have to actually do some studying! Not as easy as just punching ALL Democrats that are not Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. That's how you GOTV I guess in some people's mind I guess....

Little do they know that Elizabeth Warren or (FDR himself) can't do jackshit without a Democratic Congress to support them.

[BainsBane]

6. Perhaps because she isn't running?

I for one have little patience for any of the fantasy presidential leagues. We've got a crucial midterm election coming up.

[quinnox]

8. Well, then just ignore or trash the threads that speculate about it.

DU is open for all free speculation surrounding the 2016 presidential race, it is part of the fun here!

[BainsBane]

12. That is precisely what I do

You are the one with an OP complaining about them.

[VanillaRhapsody]

35. +++1000

[Scuba]

91. Yet here you are, posting in this thread.

[blue14u]

110. ^^^THIS ++10000000^^^

Warren for President of the United States 2016

#VOTEBLUE2014

[VanillaRhapsody]

119. Warren ain't running....or do you support a liar?

[blue14u]

158. I support Warren

Until anyone or everyone announces. I saw the bullying in other posts.

I am not intimidated by this. No, I don't support lier's, so that would be my

reason not to support Hillary. You?



#VOTEBLUE2014

[VanillaRhapsody]

159. bullying....hahahahaha....

wow just wow....


and I support whoever my fellow Democrats choose in the primaries.....How about you?

[blue14u]

162. Wow just wow...U are certainly welcome to

play follow the leader like sheep to a troth full of kool-aid with ur fellow Democrats. bahhhahahahahahahaah

I think for my self and VOTE for the BEST democrat.. That would be one not connected to Wall Street, Bankers,

third way, centrist corporate stooges..

I prefer to look into who I am VOTING for and decide for myself.

We all do it differently..

Good luck with that though. You may want to start doing your own homework in the future..

You might find, ur democratic friends may be leading u to the wrong troth..

Elizabeth Warren POTUS 2016!!!!!



#VOTEBLUE2014
.

[VanillaRhapsody]

180. I have said all along....I vote for the Democrat that wins the Primary....

Now who's playing "follow the leader"?

[Art_from_Ark]

178. No one's running right now

Warren can run if she wants to. And I hope she does.

[MADem]

85. More to the point, her protestations haven't been squirrelly either--they've been flat-out, HELL NO,

I ain't running.

It's as if she's regarded as a commodity, and not a human being. It doesn't matter what SHE wants--the fantasy team cheerleaders want her to rise up like a General against the "banksters" and fight the good fight, with veins popping outta her neck and finger pointing, run for President, win handily (never mind that she had to gut it out and claw her way to victory in MA--that was no easy race).

Then, when they learn she's a strong supporter of the military, or that she doesn't support weed legalization, they'll fall out of love with her, get angry and petulant, and spend the next eight years whining about how she has "disappointed" them and how she "lied" to them.

In actual fact, they never knew her frigging stances on ANY issues, save Wall Street, ever...and they never bothered to learn them. She's not the All Things Liberal individual they think she is. She's right on liberal point when it comes to economic equity, but she's rather traditional when it comes to other issues.

[BainsBane]

92. So true

Especially this part

Then, when they learn she's a strong supporter of the military, or that she doesn't support weed legalization, they'll fall out of love with her, get angry and petulant, and spend the next eight years whining about how she has "disappointed" them and how she "lied" to them.

[VanillaRhapsody]

123. and when she doesn't perform that magic.....

they will start telling us how much of a Conservadem she is....

[Hippo_Tron]

181. Economic equality is the one area we've made virtually zero progress on under Obama...

We've talked about her prospects of running on the other thread, so we don't need to re-hash that. But what I will say is that people wouldn't be talking about her if she didn't have a message that they wanted to hear. Personally, I'm not looking for a fire-breathing lefty that thinks everything about the Democratic Party is awful. I think we do make real progress on real issues when Democrats are in power. But I also think that in the Clinton/Obama era of the past 20 years, the Democratic Party has seriously left a lot to be desired when it comes to some issues particularly income inequality. And Elizabeth Warren is one of the few high profile figures who shares that sentiment.

I don't know who I'll vote for in 2016 and I don't know who's running. But here's what I do know. Hillary Clinton (if she is running) might consider why people are speculating about/promoting an Elizabeth Warren run and consider adjusting her message accordingly. Yes the country could do a lot worse than Bill Clinton 2.0. But there's a lot of people who think we could do much better.

[MADem]

182. I think Hillary Clinton, POTUS, would nominate Elizabeth Warren, Senator, as her Treasury Secretary.

I don't think Jeb Bush would, though.

And I wouldn't say we've made "zero progress" under Obama. There's economic value in the ACA, and it's OBAMA who has brought the minimum wage issue back to the fore.

[Hippo_Tron]

186. Look, I'd vote for Hillary Clinton in a general election no question

But I'd be more enthusiastic about voting for her if she'd take a look at Elizabeth Warren's message and consider why it's resonating with people.

And while the ACA is a nice accomplishment, economic equality is still such a big problem in this country that it barely scratches the surface. Obama entered office with the opportunity to enact sweeping reforms. He decided, instead, to play it safe and enact reasonable but not at all sweeping reforms.

[MADem]

188. I think she'll take a look at a lot more than EW's message.

It wouldn't surprise me if EW didn't contribute to her campaign in both the policy and fundraising/management areas.

Obama didn't have as much "opportunity" as people think he did. He's been fighting the whole "birther" and "he skipped the line" and "outsider" memes, to say nothing of a very angry and bitter GOP who think that the "White" House name has something to do with skin color. It's been a hard slog for him every inch of the way.

Had he gone all "sweeping" on people, he would have gotten enough pushback to push him from the Presidency. President "Chickenhawk" Romney would be addressing the nation on how the three front Syria-Iran-Afghanistan War was going, and he'd be announcing the date for the drawing of the first draft lottery since the Vietnam era as we made plans to do battle with Russia. VP Ryan would be going around to Rotary Clubs explaining to all and sundry why it was necessary to chop the social security benefit in half to fund the war machine.

[joshcryer]

190. Krugman for Fed.

[joshcryer]

191. "It's as if she's regarded as a commodity"

That's exactly how I felt about the CFPB nomination withdrawal. It turns out, in her book, she flat out says she didn't want the job and that Obama pushed her into it! Talk about treating Warren as some kind of object.

"Obama kicked her out of the CFPB! She has no agency! Obama is controlling her!"

No, Warren had her own political ambitions. Forming and rearranging the US's regulatory structure was one way to prove her leadership. Obama pushed her to do it so that she'd have that federal level experience.

[MADem]

193. That kind of argument (Mean Old POTUS, poor bullied EW) advances a narrative,

albeit it a fictional one!

That whole CFPB thing was helpful in one regard--it put her name and face front-and-center. It increased her visibility especially in the Bay State, it gave her entree into the Senate race, and it gave the "donating set" someone to toss money at, so it wasn't a waste...!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

88. So no Hillary posts either?

Here's the list of actually announced candidates to date for Pres 2016, per wikipedia.

Democratic Party

Jeff Boss, conspiracy theorist and perennial candidate from New Jersey[1]
Robby Wells, former Savannah State University head football coach, from North Carolina[2][3]

Republican Party

Jack Fellure, retired engineer from West Virginia, 2012 Prohibition Party presidential nominee[4]
Josue Larose, political organizer from Florida[5]

Independent

Terry Jones, pastor for Dove World Outreach Center, from Florida[3]

So by your rules, people pumping Hillary are just as 'fantasy league' as those pumping Elizabeth at this point.

[tkmorris]

93. That's different

[VanillaRhapsody]

120. Most of the Hillary Posts....are detractors my friend.....

most are of the "I hate Hillary" meme...

[sufrommich]

9. And support for Hillary Clinton gets the same rsults.

What is the difference?

[bornskeptic]

101. The difference is hat Clinton gets bashed.

Warren almost never gets bashed, but people point out that she's declared that she's not running, unlike Clinton.

[VanillaRhapsody]

160. Exactly....the only people repeatedly posting ABOUT Hillary.....are those

posting about how much they HATE HATE HATE her....

[MADem]

192. You've stated the essential truth, here.

Then, those who defend her are subsequently accused of "touting" her and building her up, when all they are doing is pushing back against craptastic repetitive bashing that is often sexist and ageist (even as some of them apparently don't quite realize that fresh faced EW--who is also touted despite her repeated denials that she's seeking the WH-- is the same gender AND vintage as HRC, only with less experience).

[hedgehog]

11. I enjoy fact based discussion of candidates and issues -

I learn a lot and have had my opinion changed more than once. What I hate are discussions of DUers! Those threads break down to this:

OP: Statement of victory over certain other DUers'

Response 1: You're stupid

Response to Response 1: You're stupider

and downhill from there.

Even worse are the threads that go like this:

OP osting about an actual fact or event

Response 1: Look, the OP is posting again!

Response 2: The OP is stupid!

Response3: I think the OP is really stupid!

Response 4: I know who the OP is in real life!

and downhill from there!

(I don't know how the Smiley got in there and can't take it out. )

[NCTraveler]

13. So this flamebait is from a Hillary supporter?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024858706

Long line of others similar to this one out there. But ARGGGGGGGG.... It's the Hillary supporters!!!!!!!!!

[quinnox]

16. Believe it or not, I can support Hillary and not care if others want to support other candidates

I know, I know, I may be the only one. But oh well, I'm special that way.

[NCTraveler]

18. Apparently you aren't able to. That is obvious.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024860824

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. Exactly....they do go on and on while speaking out of both sides of the mouth don't they?

[Autumn]

25. Some of us are screwed because we support them both.

Two very fine, intelligent, compassionate women. We are lucky to have them. I have no problem with supporters of either woman and I have no problems with people not wanting one or the other. They have that right to support whom they chose.

[NCTraveler]

29. Agree with every word you typed. nt.

[Autumn]

37. And if Bernie jumps in the race I will be a very happy person.

[Capt. Obvious]

46. If Bernie jumps in

that will make some heads here explode.

[NCTraveler]

47. Right now most of my excitement revolves around Warren.

Won't have a great effect on me if she doesn't run, there will be others I can get excited about. Sanders would be great. The verbiage the two of them use when discussing finance and social security are greatly needed in our debates and at the head of the party.

[Autumn]

53. So true and you are so right. If the financial situation they have created is not changed,

we are toast.

[Autumn]

89. It's natural that our excitement would revolve around Warren, she in politics

and in a position to influence things that impact us. Hillary is not in politics at this time.

[Enthusiast]

98. Me too.

[dionysus]

196. +10000

[KittyWampus]

19. I haven't seen much of what you claim. But it fits your narrative.

[JoePhilly]

24. I think its projection ... DU has regular threads attacking Hillary ...

... those are fine. How she should not run. How some won't vote for her no matter what.

Those threads are perfectly fine.

Point out that Warren praised Hillary, or that she's been voting with Obama, or mention Warren has been saying she won't run ... you're a bad person.

[VanillaRhapsody]

38. Or mentioning that she signed a letter encouraging her to run....

gets you called "Conservadem" or "Authoritarian" but the "other guys" are the "Big Meanies" and "Doo Doo heads"

[JoePhilly]

51. During the recent Warren thread fun ...

... I saw a Warren supporter who was very upset (in their OP) that anyone would suggest that they agreed with some one 100% of the time, simply because they also "supported" that person.

I decided not to respond to it, but I almost died laughing.

After 5 years of being attacked for being an "Obama supporter" ... you know ... "DLCer", "Facist", "thinks we should cut Social Security" ... suddenly they catch on to the rather simple concept that you can support some one, and yet not agree with them 100%.

Hilarious.

[VanillaRhapsody]

54. Slow learners huh?

[Peacetrain]

55. +1000

Its always easier to sling mud from the sidelines, than it is to try and get in that mud and pull the tractor out.. (tractor in this case being the country)

[treestar]

146. +1

Absolutely!

[joshcryer]

187. Wait, we can have different opinions on different things?

Holy fucking shit!

[msanthrope]

52. I've noticed a certain fondness for "Orwellian" lately. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

56. Oh you are just a "poopyhead" for pointing THAT one out....

How dare you point out THEIR hypocrisy!!!!

[JoePhilly]

63. You Better Believe it ...

FYI ... when you used that same response the other day in another thread, it was alerted on. I was on the Jury.

The reasoning for the alert was basically what I will call ... The "transitive property of trolling".

In other words, if you respond to an OP using the name of a former DU troll, you have implicitly called the author of said OP, a DU troll.

You won 5-2.

[msanthrope]

69. 'd'idn't 'f'ucking 'k'now about that. Thanks for your vote, and thanks for

telling me.

My, my how irritable some have become!

[JoePhilly]

80. Its the nature of the perpetually disgruntled. nt

[Bobbie Jo]

41. This crew is loaded to the gills

with the double standard throw-downs.

One for True Progressives (™) and one for the rest of us lowly Democrats.

[Peacetrain]

48. Hello!!!

You hit that one out of the ballpark.. as a lowly Democrat who knocks on doors, calls, sits in polling places.. it never ceases to amaze me, how "some" (and I have some in quotes) just cannot tolerate the fact that some of us belong to an organized party around a party platform, and we do the best to get the most out of what we are trying to do.

If Elizabeth Warren was the Democratic canidate, I would vote for her in a heartbeat. Not even a second thought.. but I have some doubts it would go the other way with a few people.

[VanillaRhapsody]

57. And the best part is .....we HAVE an impressive "ground game" in place.....

what do they have to get their "dream dates" elected? The words "jack and shit" come to mind....

[Peacetrain]

61. Yes we do!

have some very impressive people coming up..

[VanillaRhapsody]

64. Agreed!!!

[JoePhilly]

76. Your comment reminds me of a theory I have ... curious what you think ...

Back when Senator Obama was running for President in 2008, folks on the right wing started to claim that Democrats thought he was some kind of "Messiah". The claimed that Democrats thought Obama was going to turn the US into their Socialist Utopia.

Basically, the right was using this line to attack and mock us. I thought they sounded crazy.

Obama was clearly a moderate Democrat. And I did not know anyone who thought he was some kind of Messiah. I sure didn't.

Watching some of Warren's most ardent supporters, I now think I see what I might have missed back then. She's their new Messiah.

Some of them saw Obama as the deliverer, and when they realized he was really a moderate Democrat, they got angry, and then angrier, and they have stayed very angry.

Now, they've found a new Messiah. They don't seem to do "ground game". They confuse attacking Obama, or Hillary, here on DU, as activism.

They screamed for a primary of Obama ... but had no candidate in mind. Back then I suggested to some of them that they needed to focus on 2016 ... find this awesome progressive candidate they want ... build up that person.

For the most part, they've done nothing. Other than complain I mean.

Maybe Warren will run. Would not be the first time some one said "not running" and then did.

If she does, it will be interesting to see how they react. I don't know that anyone could live up to their expectations.

[VanillaRhapsody]

79. That is the point.....and proceeds to a thought I keep having...

Much easier to stand around and sling mud at those that DO run....than to actually WORK to get someone elected. If they are never happy with the candidates....no one expects them to DO anything. They think that is very clever...

[treestar]

147. Exactly. I've said 100 times that if EW won the WH

In no time those same people would be disappointed, and we'd be supporting her and hearing about how we shouldn't cheerlead her.

[JoePhilly]

149. I think so too. The way she answered

... the question about Hillary tells you she's got a pragmatic side. She left herself open to run, or support some one else, or support Hillary.

The pure ideologue they want would not do that.

[joshcryer]

194. Personality cults.

And yes, you characterize it perfectly. Rose colored glasses. I've seen people seriously argue that Obama changed, was someone different, didn't do all these things he was supposed to do.

Yet... he campaigned on basically everything he did.

[msanthrope]

70. Thank you!!! YOU hit is out of the ballpark....we tend to be the Democrats who actually DO...

but we are not "true" progressives.

[MineralMan]

132. It goes beyond that. My activism is in a district represented

by Betty McCollum, a progressive by any definition. I worked to get her elected. I work to get her and other progressives endorsed by the DFL party here in Minnesota. I worked to get rid of a state Senator who wasn't pro-labor enough and helped convince him to withdraw his candidacy.

And despite all of that, when I advocate for election advocacy in an election to be held this year, I am not considered a progressive for some reason I cannot understand. So, all I can do is repeat:

GOTV 2014 and Beyond! Every election is crucial to progress.

[treestar]

150. Since doing that, have you held Betty's feet to the fire?

[MineralMan]

155. I correspond with her regularly, and chatted with her

in March at our Senate district convention. Not much need to hold her feet anywhere, though. They are planted firmly in progressive territory.

[mcar]

152. And you're criticized on this Democratic board

by those same pure progressives for advocating GOTV in 2014. Last I checked, that came before 2016, but what do I know?

That blew my mind, for sure.

[MineralMan]

156. Not everyone's priorities

here are where they say they are, I think.

[JoePhilly]

58. Some of them ...

... act like the High Priests of Liberalism.

They get to define the religion, preach the gospel, sit in judgement, and condemn the heretics (umm, us).

[VanillaRhapsody]

67. I like that ....."High Priests of Liberalism"

They MUST be the ones wearing the "Fancy-pants" and living in the Ivory Towers I always heard about. Did they cash their "Soros checks" because I never got mine!

[treestar]

144. +1

You can tell when EW is being used, not really supported.

[MohRokTah]

20. I think the Warren supporters would be better off directing their efforts towards Sanders.

Sanders has at least said he may run. Warren has stated emphatically she will not run, so Sanders seems to be the better option for support at this time.

It doesn't alter my plans to support Hillary Clinton, but I think the Warren supporters would be better off focusing their efforts on somebody more likely to actually run.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. What I want is an action packed, talent heavy primary slate of Democrats so appealing

that the mere sight of them at the first debate causes Republican panic. I love primary races, especially tight and hard won primary races. 2008 may have driven some DUers and others I know to distraction, but it was the healthiest thing to happened to the Democratic Party in years. Our ranks expanded, our turnout soared, our candidates won. Even if I had a candidate of choice in mind today, I'd still want every possible contender to show up and try to beat my candidate, for the sake of the party and of my candidate. Those who want an anointing are missing the point entirely and strangely, this cycle they want to anoint a person whom last cycle they often called a racist war mongering doody head for simply running for the nomination. It's ironic. It's funny. It's of no consequence at all.
Let them whine, we have politics to do, elections to win.

[quinnox]

28. +1000. I fully agree!

[Autumn]

33. Be still my heart. You said it

[Bluenorthwest]

45. I'd even say I value the folks who get all primary frothy, they are part of the background

noise and energy that helps make a good season of politics, people who are perhaps absurdly devoted to a candidate are important, if annoying, in any campaign or promotion. It's cute that they get passionate and resentful and personally invested, that will get some of them to the phone banks and eventually all of our interests merge in a general, so if they want to wear the tee shirt and order a hat and hang homemade banners on freeways, I say bless them for it.

[WillyT]

108. + 1,000,000,000 What You Said !!! - K & R !!!

[JoePhilly]

27. If the Warren supporters spent their time building up Warren, rather than attacking

Hillary, the question you posed in the OP, would be a moot point.

The Warren folks can't constantly attack Hillary, and then act surprised when people point out where she aligns well with Hillary (or Obama, for that matter).

The folks suffering with a great deal of "consternation" on this topic, are those who don't like the fact that Hillary, at present, is the front runner for the Democratic nomination.

[VanillaRhapsody]

40. Yep....they want to have their cake and eat it too....

we MUST suffer their full on hatred of all things Hillary Clinton.....and tolerate being called Conservadem or Authoritarian....

But they are soooooo innocent.

[Iggo]

30. Remember, Clinton ain't runnin' either.

Not yet, anyway.

[Capt. Obvious]

31. She's waiting to see what Biden's plans are

[Autumn]

39. I can't imagine a scenario where Biden doesn't run.

[VanillaRhapsody]

42. If that happens then some heads are REALLY going to explode to discover that Biden is not as

far left as Hillary Clinton is...

[Autumn]

43. Heads are going to explode anyway. Biden is why I think Hillary will not run.

[VanillaRhapsody]

44. Maybe Biden will be ready for a quiet retirement then....

who knows...but one thing we do know....right now Elizabeth Warren is not even in the "I am thinking about running" category....

[Autumn]

50. And one thing we do know....right now no one has said they are running.

[hack89]

84. If Hillary wants to run then Biden will be shoved to the curb

he is no fool - he will find a way to gracefully remove his name from consideration if it is clear that Hillary will run.

[Autumn]

90. If Biden wants to be Prez, he will run and Obama WILL back him

!00%.

[hack89]

102. Hillary has the organization

all the operatives and fundraisers that put Obama in office now work for Hillary. Biden has no organization. Nor does he generate the interest and excitement that Clinton does with Democratic voters. 2016 represents an opportunity to put a woman in the White House - that is a huge motivator for a huge segment of Democratic voters. An "its his turn" candidate will not gain much traction with the electorate in that situation.

I don't think even Obama's support will make much difference - the voters will see it as a proforma political obligation, go "meh" and vote for Hillary.

[Capt. Obvious]

105. "An "its his turn" candidate will not gain much traction with the electorate"

Because it's Hillary's turn.

[hack89]

107. No - I was referring to the supposed tradition of a VP succeeding the President they served.

like we have seen throughout our political history.

It is not Hillary's turn. It is simply that she has put in the work and organization to make her the frontrunner. Biden has a long up hill fight if he wants to challenge her.

[Beacool]

169. No, he won't.

If Hillary and Biden both run, Obama will stay neutral. He will probably stay neutral no matter who is running. He will obviously endorse the nominee, but not sooner.

[TBF]

87. That's for sure -

the comfortable old grandfather got where he is because of all the corporate money in his home state. I'd take Hillary over him any day.

I also like Warren and I'm very curious about Martin O'Malley. He is younger than all of them. Maybe a worthy opponent against Jeb?

[VanillaRhapsody]

60. She IS thinking about it....Elizabeth Warren isn't...

that's the difference...

[Iggo]

94. Actually, one of them isn't running and the other one isn't running.

Same difference.

[dionysus]

49. i like all 3 of them, to varying degrees...

it's tearing down one to build up another I don't like.

[quinnox]

59. Same here, I think all of them are good

I happen to like Hillary, always have, but that doesn't mean I have to hate Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.

[dionysus]

68. having been on DU since 2001, i think somewhere around 2004, the primary wars never ended, they

became internecine, went underground, or hid themselves in arguments about other issues. They continue in many shapes and forms, to this day, and it got even worse in and after 2008.

I was a late blooming Deaniac in 2004, and loathed Kerry, but after it was over, I let it go and think overall he's a good guy. I kept having to replace or repair my stolen\damaged Kerry signs. (I still have some Dean signs that I've saved...)

I said many nasty things about Hillary in the 2007-8 primaries, but in retrospect it wasn't right, and I'm not proud of it at all.

(but I'm not perfect, I still hold "smoove johny" in great contempt, for brazenly trying to get away with what he did. he could have sunk the party in 2008 had he got the nomination. he rhetoric was great, but was the opposite of his voting record. I think he's phoney. but that's just my opinion)

the flame wars were awful...

but I fear that'll be a picnic compared to what's gonna start in 2015.

when * was in office we were all united.. after he left and a Dem got in, DU was never the same.

[quinnox]

82. For sure, but then, 2008 WAS a doozy. It will be hard to top

It was almost like a fight to the death! lol

[Autumn]

96. "smoove johny" , would that be John Kerry ? No, John Edwards

I salute you on both counts

[joshcryer]

189. I was a Clinton defender in 2007-2008.

I got into hundred reply threads with madfloridan over the delegate numbers. With ProSense over many pro-Clinton Krugman blog posts and over whether Obama was going to pick Clinton as SoS.

But I tried to be kind to Obama, I rarely mentioned he was a newbie though I felt it then and I argue it today. I only once or twice talked about his connections (but to me they were kind of typical of any politician).

I think you are right that they never ended and I think that DU3's permissiveness allows a lot to be said.

[VanillaRhapsody]

62. Good point because....

No one is tearing down Elizabeth Warren. Pointing out what she says...like "she is not running for President" and that she thinks "Hillary is terrific" and has written a letter of support for a Hillary Clinton campaign....is not tearing her down...

Now things I have seen about the person with the MOST potential to win (against ALL comers) I HAVE seen ripped to shreds on Democratic Underground...I have seen many say that no matter what happens they WON'T vote for her even if she wins the primary.

[Zorra]

78. Recommend. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

97. Because Inevitability™ works on the same principle that keeps Wile E. Coyote from falling after he

Last edited Wed Apr 23, 2014, 03:16 PM - Edit history (1)

runs off the edge of a cliff.



It is vitally important that everyone accept the Inevitability™ of a certain inevitable™ nominee, to extra ensure that the inevitable™ doesn't not happen again, this time.

[quinnox]

100. Meep Meep!

[Iggo]

103. Joe-mentum?

[MisterP]

99. most of Reagan's foreign-policy appointees were "ex-Dems"--ie Dems who thought that primaries

that mattered was taking things too far (oh, and Carter was a Red to them, too)

[Spitfire of ATJ]

104. Some people have bought into the idea that we have to have a "moderate"....

That's why RMoney picked Paul Ryan.

[MineralMan]

109. If someone wants to point out the importance of 2014, more power to them.

You don't want posts about this mid-term election for some reason? Please explain.

I hope Warren and Sanders compete in the primaries in 2016, but that election hasn't begun yet, and nobody serious will declare until after the 2014 election. So, I'll concern my self with that at that time.

Nobody has to let anyone support anything. This is DU. DUers can post what they please. Are you saying that people shouldn't post about the 2014 election or advocate for a strong GOTV effort in that election? It sure seems that way to me.

I want a robust primary race in 2016. That's two years away. There's something going on this year that could be even more important.

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

[leeroysphitz]

136. It isn't Warren's turn yet. n/t

[Iggo]

154. Yeah, and it wadn't Obama's either. (n/t)

[winter is coming]

163. We're talking about elections, not deli queues.

I can see how people could get confused, though, since both have schmears.

[bvar22]

141. They are simoply ashamed of how poorly their candidate compares to a real Democrat.

Thats all it is.


[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[appleannie1]

151. Warren is a threat to the 'haves'. So they have to put bad juju out there in the hopes some

of it will stick.

[arely staircase]

153. if people want to root for someone for president who isn't even running

they should root for me.

[pacalo]

157. Just ignore it.

It's too early to get worked up about the primaries (at least, for me).


And, besides, dammit...

[RiffRandell]

166. Love it!

Good to see you!

[pacalo]

173. Poor Walter -- I did like him.

Good to see you, too!

[Obnoxious_One]

161. only Putinistas don't support the corporate choice

You're not a Putinista are you?!...

[merrily]

177. I favor free speech at DU and a lively, authentic primary in the real world.

Both should be "givens," especially the latter.

As for the women, there are pros and cons about both. However, all that is moot unless there is a real primary.

[Skip Intro]

183. I don't see anything wrong with it.

People should vote for and root for whoever they like.

Hillary will be the Dem nom, though. I mean, aliens could attack and destroy the planet before the primaries, but something short of that kind of thing, Hillary has the nom if she wants it.

Not sure how 16 would go though. Repub nom could be anyone from Christie to Cruz to Paul to Bush. A Clinton vs. Bush match up would just turn so many people off, on both sides, I have no idea what to expect from that one.

[Beacool]

197. I think that you got the whole thing backward. DU is drooling over Warren.

The hate posts come out when there is a positive Clinton thread.

Personally, I don't give a crap one way or the other. I know who I want to see run, but it's her life and her decision to make. Meantime, back in the parallel world of DU, people are having a tizzy because Liz Warren said that Hillary is terrific. How dare she, she should have just spit and made the sign of the cross to ward off the "one who should not be named".

In other words, a typical day at DU, where things are the opposite of real life.