How Elizabeth Warren's Own Book Makes The Case She Should Run For President

[marmar]

(Huffpost) WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren is adamant that she is not seeking to move up to the White House.

"I am not running for president," the Massachusetts Democrat told The Huffington Post, as she has told many others. "You can ask that question any way you want, but you're going to get the same answer."

That's not exactly the question HuffPost was asking, though. The question was why readers of her new memoir and political treatise, A Fighting Chance, shouldn't take from it a very powerful argument for why Warren should run.

All through the book, despite her Shermanesque declarations of non-intent, can be found passages that suggest the logical next step for the middle-class girl from Oklahoma who grew into a champion for social justice is to seek the office where she could have the greatest impact.

.....(snip).....

"I am determined -- fiercely determined -- to do everything I can to help us once again be the America that creates opportunities for anyone who works hard and plays by the rules. An America of accountability and fair play. An America that builds a future for not just some of our children but for all of our children. An America where everyone gets what I got: a fighting chance," Warren writes. .....................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/27/elizabeth-warren-president_n_5219265.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Now, that's funny. The Los Angeles Times review makes just the opposite case. Behold:

http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-ca-jc-elizabeth-warren-20140427,0,4441603.story#axzz307lElyvM

I'm inclined to believe the Times on this one.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

8. But she keeps denying she's running with ambiguous language...

STEPHANOPOULOS: You've been pretty clear, and we showed it in Jeff Zeleny's piece, that you say you're not running for president in 2016. It seems like you've just affirmed it again. You also signed a letter -- several senators signed a letter earlier this year encouraging Hillary Clinton to run.
So is she your candidate in 2016?

WARREN: You know, all of the women -- Democratic women, I should say, of the Senate urged Hillary Clinton to run. And I hope she does.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You hope she does. And if she does, she is your candidate, you're going to endorse her?

WARREN: If Hillary -- Hillary is terrific.

More...

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/04/27/elizabeth-warren-smacks-abcs-attempt-split-democratic-party.html

[longship]

2. How all her words says that she is not interested.

I do not need to cite them. They've been all over the place here.

But some people are delusional and would rather have a first term US Senator who is apparently lying about her intentions of not running for President, than any number of other possible candidates, at this time unknown.

I prefer to presume that Elizabeth Warren is speaking the truth, and not prevaricating. If I thought she was doing the latter, I do not know if I could vote for her as President. We've had altogether too much of that already.

I want Senator Warren in the US Senate. (As apparently does she.) We need her there. After all, there are three branches of the US government.

But! But! But! Warren 2016!!!!

Sorry. I take Sen. Warren at her word. And I am very happy about that. We need her there.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Hillary Clinton said repeatedly she'd ruled out running in 2016

Was that different, somehow? Could you vote for Hillary, knowing that she said that?

[longship]

5. Now you are just making shit up, Manny.

Hillary has consistently said she was not going to say whether she would run. Or that she was unsure. She may even have said that she was inclined not to.

Elizabeth Warren has consistently said, when she addressed the topic at all, that she is not interested. Secretary Clinton has never consistently said that. In fact she has recently said that she's thinking about it, something Warren has never, ever said. Vive la difference.

I want Senator Warren in the US Senate where she can do some good. Apparently she agrees with me.

And I am not a Hillary Clinton cheerleader. In fact, I do not want her to run. We fought a revolutionary war to eliminate birth right of power, or spouse's right. There's too much of that already. Bush... Clinton... Obama... (Bush or Clinton)... Then who? Chelsea? Or maybe George P. Bush. Maybe we can keep those dynasties going into perpetuity. Huh?

Or maybe we ought to thank them for their service to the country and let them fade into the sunset.

But Senator Warren has already said on multiple occasions that she is not interested and has given no inkling to the contrary.

Apparently, she's lying. And who would want her for president if she did that?

Not me. We need her in the Senate which is apparently her intentions.

But... But... But... In my dreams she runs for president!!!!!!

Sorry, Manny. Love ya. But Warren 2016 ain't going to happen. She apparently wants to be a Senator.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Are you always so rude?

You just tell people they're "making shit up" without doing a search or asking them?

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/hillary-clintons-quotes-on-2016-86804.html

[longship]

9. Well, of the links within the article, all are pretty old.

The only one I cannot verify is the 60 Minutes interview. But Google says it was January, 2013. Since all of those quotes, Hillary has apparently changed her mind about 2016, or at least moderated it to, "I am thinking about it." The last time within this last week.

Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand has mostly been mute about 2016, but has made a few statements, all in the negative, the last within the last week.

QED.

I love Elizabeth Warren. If she wants to stay in the US Senate, I am very cool with that. Very cool indeed.

I do not much care whether Hillary runs or not. There's that family dynasty thingie which bothers me, but I am willing to give her whatever credibility she deserves, which I take as positive in some respects, and negative in others. If she gets the nomination in 2016, I will work for her.

Stating a political position on a political forum is hardly rude. If you disagree, so be it. Make your case. I really cannot take the rudeness charge seriously. I enjoy some of your posts. But I respectfully disagree with this one.

Regards.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Disagreeing is one thing

Accusing someone of "making shit up" is another. No?

[longship]

12. I stand by my claim.

Hillary Clinton has recently professed to being unsure, or considering a run for the presidency.

Elizabeth Warren has consistently said that she is 1. Not interested in the presidency. And 2. Wishes to serve out her Senate term.

If you have recent credible evidence to the contrary, I would gladly admit that I am wrong.

I am a liberal. I love Warren. (Not too sure about Hillary -- we'll see I would imagine.)

But, like great senators in our past, I see Elizabeth Warren as a possible Cracker Jack, one who will make her own history. I cannot think a better place to do that than the US Senate.

I am very happy that Warren is not going to run for president. I also will be happy if Hillary Clinton runs, although I disagree with her on some issues, and I do not consider her a liberal.

So if Hillary gains the White House, liberals will need senators like Warren. That is why I am glad that Warren has taken such a strong position of not running for president.

Whoever ends up on the Democratic ticket in 2016, I will support them. But this 2016 focus at this time is maddening. We have a much more important mid-year election this year, when governors, state legislatures, school boards, 435 US Congresspersons, and one third of US Senators will be up for election.

The 2016 presidential election is a mere dream right now. But this year Democrats can make a really big splash. But only if we focus on what really matters. 2016? Nope!

I do not give a fuck who is running in 2016, mainly because nobody is running in 2016. Anybody who says otherwise is a distraction.

GOTV 2014.

[rhett o rick]

13. So you say Clinton-Sachs "changed her mind". Hmm. Is she the only one that is afforded

that? No one is "running" until they decide to go public.

[longship]

14. Well, Warren has been consistent, and insistent.

She's not interested. She wants to be a US Senator.

Why people think she's lying kind of baffles me.

[rhett o rick]

16. You do yourself a great disfavor saying statements like this,

"Why people think she's lying kind of baffles me." That's a strawman. No one has claimed she is lying. No one.

Why is it so very important to convince people that she isnt going to run?

[longship]

17. Do you mean other than the fact that she has specifically dismissed such speculations?

Unfortunately, some see Warren as a prevaricator, who says she has no interest in the presidency, but who is somehow deceiving.

I have nothing else to say about that. The argument is what it is. One can either reject it and see Warren as an honest broker, or one can view Warren as some sort of a devious political person.

Not to make a straw man here, but what is your claim? That when she has repeatedly stated that she is not interested in being president that she is not being truthful?

I like Senator Warren too much to take that stance.

[rhett o rick]

18. Situations change and people change their minds, esp in politics.

It doesnt mean they lied, it doesnt mean I dont believe her. I believe her that she isnt running and doesnt plan to run. I dont believe that precludes her from running.

Also, until people want to start their campaign, they have to have the stance that they arent running. Babs Bush said her fav son isnt running. Well, bad example, she probably is lying. My point is that it's necessary to say you arent running unless you are ready to face the onslaught of media.

Having said that, Sen Warren most likely recognizes that she cant fight the Democratic Machine in Wash the DC. Ned Lamont found that out. So if she ever wants the blessing of the Democratic Machine, she best not challenge their "chosen one."

My hope is that the populace movement can get strong enough to influence the Democratic Machine to the point that they may accept Sen Warren. I doubt that the Wall Street Oligarchs will do that tho. I think we need to try and not sit back and let Wall Street run over us.

[magical thyme]

4. oh puleeze. virtually every presidential candidate in recent history (certainly in my memory)

starts out by saying they are not running for President when they are asked.

And it's not a lie to say you are not running for President and then later decide to run.

She has said she is not running for President. That is present tense. She has not said, "I will not run for President."

Personally, I'd be thrilled if she runs and she'd have my vote over Hillary in a heartbeat. If she doesn't, well then I'm thrilled to have her keep pushing on Wall St. and the 1%.

[longship]

6. You'll see.

Last edited Sun Apr 27, 2014, 10:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Warren: I'm not interested in running for President.

Well, that's what they all say.

Warren: I want to serve out my term in the Senate.

Well, that's what they all say.

Warren: Again, I am not interested in running for president.

Well, that's what they all say.

Warren: (takes a baseball bat and hits the person over the head) I am not -- Bang! oof! -- running -- bang! oof! -- for president -- BANG! OOF!

Well, that's what they all say.

Guess what. As you nurse your baseball bat inflicted bruises... Your position is utter bullshit.

Warren is not going to run and has said so multiple times, the most recent this very week. And Hillary has not yet decided, although it seems that she's considering it -- the most recent time she said so is this very week.

But apparently Elizabeth Warren is lying.

Go for it. I prefer to think that she is honest.

[SidDithers]

10. +1...nt

Sid

[xchrom]

15. du rec.