HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Warren on NPR: "I am...

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:42 AM

Warren on NPR: "I am not running for president. You want me to put an exclamation point at the end?"

The entire interview with Steve Innskeep of Morning Edition is here:
http://www.npr.org/2014/12/15/370817279/sen-warren-warns-that-spending-bill-sets-dangerous-precedent

Near the end, there is this exchange:

Sen. Warren, as you must know, that even as you were fighting over this in the Senate, there was a group called Ready for Warren that wants you to run for president, that released a letter signed by more than 300 people who describe themselves as former Obama campaign workers and staffers and aides. They want you to run. What do you say to them?

I'm, I'm not running for president. That's not what we're doing. We had a really important fight in the United States Congress just this past week. And I'm putting all my energy into that fight and to what happens after this.

Would you tell these independent groups, "Give it up!" You're just never going to run.

I told them, "I'm not running for president."

You're putting that in the present tense, though. Are you never going to run?

I am not running for president.

You're not putting a "never" on that.

I am not running for president. You want me to put an exclamation point at the end?

219 replies, 21881 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 219 replies Author Time Post
Reply Warren on NPR: "I am not running for president. You want me to put an exclamation point at the end?" (Original post)
FSogol Dec 2014 OP
wildbilln864 Dec 2014 #1
FSogol Dec 2014 #3
RiverLover Dec 2014 #7
snooper2 Dec 2014 #19
Scuba Dec 2014 #39
snooper2 Dec 2014 #47
Scuba Dec 2014 #51
brooklynite Dec 2014 #84
Scuba Dec 2014 #102
brooklynite Dec 2014 #109
longship Dec 2014 #151
Scuba Dec 2014 #156
longship Dec 2014 #161
Scuba Dec 2014 #165
longship Dec 2014 #168
Scuba Dec 2014 #178
longship Dec 2014 #184
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2014 #186
dumbcat Dec 2014 #70
snooper2 Dec 2014 #73
dumbcat Dec 2014 #116
snooper2 Dec 2014 #117
krawhitham Dec 2014 #193
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2014 #185
Orsino Dec 2014 #200
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #59
snooper2 Dec 2014 #60
maddiemom Dec 2014 #62
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #71
krawhitham Dec 2014 #191
Adrahil Dec 2014 #75
Cha Dec 2014 #130
FSogol Dec 2014 #134
Cha Dec 2014 #135
treestar Dec 2014 #9
RiverLover Dec 2014 #12
Gman Dec 2014 #17
Autumn Dec 2014 #23
FSogol Dec 2014 #100
Marr Dec 2014 #113
Major Hogwash Dec 2014 #189
Gman Dec 2014 #209
QuestionAlways Dec 2014 #18
2banon Dec 2014 #44
yeoman6987 Dec 2014 #30
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #57
YoungDemCA Dec 2014 #177
RiverLover Dec 2014 #2
msanthrope Dec 2014 #10
RiverLover Dec 2014 #13
appalachiablue Dec 2014 #32
MineralMan Dec 2014 #63
FSogol Dec 2014 #92
Logical Dec 2014 #96
SidDithers Dec 2014 #179
msanthrope Dec 2014 #181
hrmjustin Dec 2014 #35
hrmjustin Dec 2014 #4
Albertoo Dec 2014 #5
L0oniX Dec 2014 #28
Albertoo Dec 2014 #33
L0oniX Dec 2014 #37
yellowwoodII Dec 2014 #53
Algernon Moncrieff Dec 2014 #66
L0oniX Dec 2014 #72
Algernon Moncrieff Dec 2014 #74
MineralMan Dec 2014 #69
L0oniX Dec 2014 #77
MineralMan Dec 2014 #78
MineralMan Dec 2014 #174
tabbycat31 Dec 2014 #206
L0oniX Dec 2014 #207
tabbycat31 Dec 2014 #208
INdemo Dec 2014 #163
MineralMan Dec 2014 #172
INdemo Dec 2014 #196
MineralMan Dec 2014 #204
Agnosticsherbet Dec 2014 #146
treestar Dec 2014 #6
FSogol Dec 2014 #11
treestar Dec 2014 #41
Cha Dec 2014 #129
RiverLover Dec 2014 #141
Cha Dec 2014 #144
Cha Dec 2014 #133
BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #182
Major Hogwash Dec 2014 #190
still_one Dec 2014 #38
treestar Dec 2014 #42
HappyMe Dec 2014 #45
INdemo Dec 2014 #166
groundloop Dec 2014 #46
treestar Dec 2014 #50
still_one Dec 2014 #55
FSogol Dec 2014 #91
Algernon Moncrieff Dec 2014 #95
FSogol Dec 2014 #103
DonViejo Dec 2014 #145
Adrahil Dec 2014 #76
Fla Dem Dec 2014 #90
bullwinkle428 Dec 2014 #107
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2014 #187
msanthrope Dec 2014 #8
snooper2 Dec 2014 #21
MyNameGoesHere Dec 2014 #58
TreasonousBastard Dec 2014 #158
NCTraveler Dec 2014 #14
NBachers Dec 2014 #15
benz380 Dec 2014 #16
riversedge Dec 2014 #20
riversedge Dec 2014 #24
L0oniX Dec 2014 #25
Union Scribe Dec 2014 #40
SidDithers Dec 2014 #43
treestar Dec 2014 #52
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #61
Ash_F Dec 2014 #110
Major Hogwash Dec 2014 #192
Zorra Dec 2014 #22
Autumn Dec 2014 #26
HappyMe Dec 2014 #27
still_one Dec 2014 #34
L0oniX Dec 2014 #99
still_one Dec 2014 #105
YoungDemCA Dec 2014 #180
aspirant Dec 2014 #201
MissDeeds Dec 2014 #48
Mass Dec 2014 #67
MineralMan Dec 2014 #29
think Dec 2014 #80
MineralMan Dec 2014 #83
think Dec 2014 #86
MineralMan Dec 2014 #88
think Dec 2014 #97
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2014 #188
AngryOldDem Dec 2014 #198
AngryOldDem Dec 2014 #197
Zorra Dec 2014 #114
MineralMan Dec 2014 #115
still_one Dec 2014 #31
FSogol Dec 2014 #94
aspirant Dec 2014 #203
joshcryer Dec 2014 #210
BeyondGeography Dec 2014 #36
madokie Dec 2014 #49
RedCappedBandit Dec 2014 #54
magical thyme Dec 2014 #56
Tatiana Dec 2014 #64
Mass Dec 2014 #65
L0oniX Dec 2014 #85
Mass Dec 2014 #87
Voice for Peace Dec 2014 #68
djean111 Dec 2014 #79
brooklynite Dec 2014 #81
benz380 Dec 2014 #106
brooklynite Dec 2014 #118
yodermon Dec 2014 #82
brooklynite Dec 2014 #119
bl968 Dec 2014 #89
brooklynite Dec 2014 #93
TBF Dec 2014 #98
Yavin4 Dec 2014 #101
FSogol Dec 2014 #104
steve2470 Dec 2014 #160
zappaman Dec 2014 #108
LondonReign2 Dec 2014 #111
FSogol Dec 2014 #112
brooklynite Dec 2014 #120
LondonReign2 Dec 2014 #124
brooklynite Dec 2014 #131
phleshdef Dec 2014 #122
FSogol Dec 2014 #123
Major Hogwash Dec 2014 #194
Union Scribe Dec 2014 #136
Javaman Dec 2014 #121
TBF Dec 2014 #125
RiverLover Dec 2014 #128
vi5 Dec 2014 #126
Cal33 Dec 2014 #142
vi5 Dec 2014 #147
Cal33 Dec 2014 #149
aspirant Dec 2014 #205
Cal33 Dec 2014 #211
aspirant Dec 2014 #213
Cal33 Dec 2014 #214
aspirant Dec 2014 #216
Cal33 Dec 2014 #217
aspirant Dec 2014 #218
Cal33 Dec 2014 #219
Doctor_J Dec 2014 #127
SidDithers Dec 2014 #132
Cha Dec 2014 #137
FSogol Dec 2014 #138
Cha Dec 2014 #139
brooklynite Dec 2014 #148
Cha Dec 2014 #150
brooklynite Dec 2014 #154
Major Hogwash Dec 2014 #195
steve2470 Dec 2014 #140
FSogol Dec 2014 #143
VanillaRhapsody Dec 2014 #152
99Forever Dec 2014 #153
brooklynite Dec 2014 #155
FSogol Dec 2014 #157
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Dec 2014 #159
INdemo Dec 2014 #162
FSogol Dec 2014 #171
PowerToThePeople Dec 2014 #164
FSogol Dec 2014 #169
baldguy Dec 2014 #167
LWolf Dec 2014 #170
FSogol Dec 2014 #173
BootinUp Dec 2014 #175
YoungDemCA Dec 2014 #176
Enrique Dec 2014 #183
brooklynite Dec 2014 #212
Orsino Dec 2014 #199
djean111 Dec 2014 #202
Rex Dec 2014 #215

Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:45 AM

1. I wish...

 

she would explain why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:48 AM

3. She did. Check out the whole interview.

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/15/370817279/sen-warren-warns-that-spending-bill-sets-dangerous-precedent

She also credits Obama for his work.
"Warren by her own words" is quite different than "Warren the DU Fantasy Presidential candidate."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:01 AM

7. She doesn't explain it because she never says she isn't going to run.

ONLY,

"I am not running for president." And she isn't, that's true. No one is, not even Hillary. Yet.

Do you think she'd have any credibility right now in the senate if she said she was going to be running for president? Hell no. Every word she says would be framed as just a political ploy for voter approval...

She's very smart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:28 AM

19. she isn't running for president...how thick do people have to be?

 

jesus pogo stick fucking christ

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:44 AM

39. I agree: She's not running for President.

 

But she may next year, and clearly left that door open.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:57 AM

47. no she didn't leave it open she isn't running, she isn't running she isn't fucking running

 

Maybe someday everyone will get a clue and support somebody besides Hillary who IS planning on running....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:02 AM

51. So why didn't she say "I will not run" when asked about it?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #51)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:41 AM

84. In other words, "why didn't she respond in exactly the way DU wants it framed?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #84)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 12:03 PM

102. She has carefully avoided saying "I will not run in 2016".

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #102)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 12:29 PM

109. ...besides, how do you know she didn't have her fingers crossed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #102)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 08:25 PM

151. In other words, she is a dishonest equivocator!!!

In that case, how could one support her candidacy?

My take is that she is an honest person, precisely the kind we need in the US Senate.

But go ahead, Scuba. You choose.

Equivocator? Or honest senator? I much prefer the latter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #151)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 08:40 PM

156. False choice, but good try.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #156)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 08:59 PM

161. She has repeatedly said she is not running in 2016!!!!

So, if we do not like Hillary, we're going to have to look elsewhere.

Plus, there are many of us who would prefer that she remain in the US Senate where her voice is desperately needed. After all, she has Teddy's seat.

Nice try at arguing for her equivocating.

As much as I love her I am not delusional. Plus, I rather like her standing in the well of the US Senate telling Citigroup that they should be in pieces.

Plus, there's the thingie that she has repeatedly, over and over and over, expressed her desire to remain in the US Senate and not run for POTUS.

I guess she's just lying, huh?

Love ya, Scuba, but
Sheesh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #161)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:14 PM

165. Hey, your cut was better than the "she'd be a quitter just like Sarah" bullshit.

 

She's said many time that she isn't running (present tense), always carefully parsing her words. If you can find a video or quote when she unequivably says she will not run in 2016 put it in a reply.

Otherwise, you might want to accept that she's left the door open.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #165)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:23 PM

168. So, she's an equivocator?

Myself, I take her at her word. However, if you are correct and she announces, she will be the last person I will support. Why? Because she equivocates. We've had too fucking much of that in the White House already.

I want a president who is honest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #168)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:04 PM

178. Hardly. She's just smart.

 

So, why the need to attach a negative label? You a Third Way member who is scared of her?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #178)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:20 PM

184. Name calling? Really Scuba?

I have been a liberal since my first presidential vote.

I trust a person like Elizabeth Warren when she has over and over and over said that she has no interest in the presidency. Apparently, some DUers think she is just playing games. Like Barack Obama, she will ditch her first US Senate term to grasp the gold ring.

Well, I would be very, very disappointed with her if she did that, just as I was with President Obama when he did the same at the time.

And yes, they are both very smart. But we need smart people in the US Senate, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #168)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:52 PM

186. No, she's not an equivocator like Hillary, I don't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:26 AM

70. Do you have trouble with

the use of tenses in the English language?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dumbcat (Reply #70)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:28 AM

73. I'm sorry you have a dumb cat

 

My cat is one smart muthafucka! He even knows how to play jacks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #73)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:17 PM

116. Does your smart cat know about English tenses?

You might ask him to explain them to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dumbcat (Reply #116)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:21 PM

117. my smart cat knows that "I'm not running" means "I'm not running"

 

Warren has plenty of time to run in the future she will pick her own path.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Scuba (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:50 PM

185. Yup, Im not running for President either, but I might. hahaha

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to InAbLuEsTaTe (Reply #185)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 08:43 AM

200. You didnt say never!

InAbLuEsTaTe '18!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:13 AM

59. Well ...

 

Who are we to believe, our fantasies, or her lying mouth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #59)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:16 AM

60. well a good chunk of americans are religious so people do like their fantasies

 

Look how much money Frozen raked in

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:21 AM

62. Almost every liberal I know "wants Liz just where she is" through 2016. I'm a little suspicious

of the drive pushing her for president. She can do more in the Senate for her full term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddiemom (Reply #62)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:27 AM

71. Agreed ...

 

Most of the Democrats that I have talked to (those that know who she is) want her to remain in the Senate where she can focus on THIS particular fight; rather than, having to split her attention to (more than) consider EVERY issue that America faces.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to RiverLover (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:33 AM

75. If she were to run now, having said what she said....

 

... I'd lose a lot of respect for her. If she were considering a run, she should had least do the usual bullshit line of, "I have a job to do, I'm not thinking about that right now." But once you say "I'm not running," I think falling back on tense is a bit disingenuous.

I know politicians carefully parse word, but that'd be stretching the point, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 04:54 PM

130. Thanks, FSogal, Where does Elizabeth

credit the President?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #130)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 05:16 PM

134. Right here:

Well, what does it say about your party that the party leadership in the Senate and apparently elsewhere, including the White House, was not with you on this?

You know, actually, I want to say that differently. You know, the president said he was very much opposed to this provision. There were a lot of Democrats who were opposed to this provision. You know, once the House passed an omnibus bill with this in it and threw it over to the Senate — and then the House left town — at that point, there was very little choice but either to pass the omnibus, even with this thing in it, or shut down the government. And we didn't want to shut down the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #134)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 05:17 PM

135. Thank you, exactly.. "We didn't want to shut down the government."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:01 AM

9. Since she is the new Messiah and a flawless leader

It does seem rather unkind of her to refuse to serve as President. Since she could do so much good and all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:03 AM

12. Not a messiah & not perfect, she voted against GMO labeling...

ah well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:19 AM

17. DU would turn on her in a split second

We're she president and didn't support GMO labeling. She'd be drawn and quartered. It was less than 24 hours after the election in 08 that DU turned on Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:31 AM

23. She voted against it as a Senator, I still support her 100%.

And I have no intention of turning against her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 12:03 PM

100. True. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:01 PM

113. I wouldn't.

 

I understand the argument against it. I might disagree with it personally, but I judge politicians on the overall balance, not on single issues-- like most DUer's, I expect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:14 PM

189. Someone said last year that if there were an EWG group in 2017, like there is a BOG group now . . .

. . . . and Senator Warren became the President of the United States . . . that almost the very same people at DU who went to the BOG group to say disparaging things about President Obama after he was elected President, would also go to the EWG group to say disparaging things about Elizabeth Warren.

He surmised that they must think that by doing that, it somehow inoculates them from being called trolls and getting banned from DU after they are blocked from such a group, for when they return to the General Discussion forum and whine about the Democratic President every single day of their miserable lives.

I have no idea what good they get out of it.
But, as far as I am concerned, there are many people who are in desperate need of a new hobby, to be blunt about it.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #189)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 02:58 PM

209. Agreed. They're little more than whiners

Who claim the power of being the "base". "Hogwash"! They're a relatively small minority that can't be counted on even if Warren was on the ballot for prez.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:26 AM

18. This is why

 

What Sen. Elizabeth Warren is saying is:
"I'm not running for president and I plan to serve out my term"

Which really means:

Until Hillary Clinton, who I signed a letter urging to run for President, decides she is not running, I will not be running. If Hillary Clinton choses not to run, only then will I consider changing my mind, and perhaps decide to run. I have "pledged to serve out my term" and will do so long as there is another viable woman presidential candidate running.

Sen. Warren realizes HRC is the most likely candidate to make history, (based on the polls) in the same way as Obama made history in 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to QuestionAlways (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:52 AM

44. based on the polls..

 

LOL! everything seems to be measured according to media manufactured "poll results". LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:35 AM

30. Being President is a horrible job!

 

Why would she want that stressfull thankless job?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:11 AM

57. She did ...

 

I'm, I'm not running for president. That's not what we're doing. We had a really important fight in the United States Congress just this past week. And I'm putting all my energy into that fight and to what happens after this.


It's pretty clear ... Her reason(s) for not running for President is that she believes she wants to focus on her fighting in Congress.

To my, that makes sense. Being a Senator allows one to focus on a narrow range of issues; whereas, being POTUS, one must take in, and address, the entire range of issues the nation faces.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #57)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:00 PM

177. Indeed

 

Good points, as always.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:46 AM

2. That's true! She's not running! No one is! Yet!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:02 AM

10. Clap for Tinkerbell! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:05 AM

13. Must be worried trying to diminish Warren supporters like that. It's cute, really.

And its going to be GREAT when she announces this spring. I like having something to look forward to!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:36 AM

32. Hi! She certainly is generating a lot of buzz. That other post became quite lively, the one on

socios. Hope I didn't offend with my remarks. Looks like it will be an interesting week!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:22 AM

63. And then click your heels together twice. I think that

takes you to Iowa, or was that Kansas? I can never remember...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:52 AM

92. Off topic, but when everyone clapped for Tinkerbell, she got better Healthcare than what the

Republicans proposed instead of the ACA*.


* paraphrasing Frank Conniff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:59 AM

96. You mean if you think Hillary is a good candidate? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:05 PM

179. Heheh...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #179)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:13 PM

181. It's all you, Sid! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:38 AM

35. I think she doesn't want to shut the door on possibilities in the future but i don't

 

think she wants to run in 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:51 AM

4. My guess is she doesn't want to go through a grueling campaign.

 

She only just won election 2 years ago and that campaign was not always pleasant for her.

In the unlikely event Hillary doesn't run she would likely rethink it but i don't think she wants to be president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:51 AM

5. I suppose it now means Hillary all the way. (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:34 AM

28. It could mean a repuke POTUS 2016.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:38 AM

33. That will depend on their candidate

 

I suppose Romney would have lost against Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:43 AM

37. Many Dems will switch to Ind and won't vote for Hillary.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:07 AM

53. That Would Be

Me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:23 AM

66. Many argued Gore was no better than Bush and voted Nader

That worked out well, didn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #66)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:28 AM

72. Generic equivalent. Save that one for those that won't vote for Hillary.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #72)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:33 AM

74. No, it's not a generic equivalent. It is, in fact, suggesting the exact same thing.

If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, DUers are expected to support her. Those who won't support the nominee, and will go the extra step of undermining the nominee by voting independent, don't belong on DU the way I read the TOS.

Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:25 AM

69. Only if Democrats don't vote for their party's nominee

in November, 2016. That's the only way a Republican will get elected as President in 2016. I don't expect that to happen, but it certainly could.

Unity is going to be needed in 2016, if we are going to regain control of Congress and elect a Democrat to be President. We can either do that our just forget it and let the Republicans take over totally. I guess it's up to all of us to decide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #69)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:35 AM

77. Some aren't into zombie voting for the candidate you select. Some will vote by their conscience...

 

and of course you won't like that. At least when Hillary continues the endless wars the Ind's will have some comfort in that they didn't vote for her. Those that do vote for her can share responsibility for all the deaths and debt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #77)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:39 AM

78. I play no role at all in who becomes the Democratic nominee.

I will vote for whomever is selected at the 2016 convention.

I have done so since 1968, win or lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #77)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:47 PM

174. I don't select candidates.

Not nationally, anyhow. I vote for candidates...Democratic candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #77)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 10:43 AM

206. we all select candidates

This is through the primary process. In 2008, my vote did not make a difference (I voted for Obama and Hillary won my state). Want a say in candidate selection? Get involved at the local level because you can select those candidates. Or even run for office yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabbycat31 (Reply #206)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 10:54 AM

207. Our district election ...the Dem candidate bailed out because of a previous commitment.

 

Real inspiring! We were left with with a Rep or Lib to vote for. People here are way fucked up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #207)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 11:21 AM

208. It happens

I've been tasked with keeping a candidate OFF the ballot before. Sometimes you get shitty or reluctant candidates and it happens. Sometimes you get no candidates and the GOP runs unopposed (which is why I've voted for Katniss Everdeen before).

I live in a red county where the GOP has absolute control of the county government and all of our state assembly and state senate seats (one district could be considered swingy but Dems are 0/6 in that district since 2011). The last time we won a county seat was in 2008 and that was by 18 votes (and went to recount).

AS a 5 year campaign staffer, my ultimate goal is to leave the local Democratic Party operations that I work with stronger than they were when I came in. A strong local party is the foundation for strong policies at the national level. (Regardless of the outcome for my candidate).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #69)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:05 PM

163. There are qualfied Democrats out there much better than Hillary so

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to INdemo (Reply #163)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:45 PM

172. That's why we have primaries.

I will vote for the Democratic nominee. You want someone besides Hillary? Get someone to run who can win the primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #172)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 07:49 AM

196. My point being Hillary is not the annoited one

 

If Hillary is nominated than it reflects which direction the Democratic has gone. That being simply an extension of the Corporate Republican party. Last weeks cluster &*() in Congress proved that to us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to INdemo (Reply #196)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 09:57 AM

204. I have never said she is. Right now, she's the most likely candidate.

That's quite clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 06:45 PM

146. It was "All the way with LBJ." Hillary will use a different slogan.

I think Tippecanoe and Tyler too, has been out of public use that it would available, if she wants to recycle old campaign slogans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:01 AM

6. She did refuse to say never

I'm getting sick of her.

She needs to say she's running. She's not impressing me at all by playing this game. If she is not, say never, will not, and cover the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:02 AM

11. Never is a long time. She could remove herself from the persistant badgering by saying,

"I am not running in 2016."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:48 AM

41. Exactly.

Just say you're not running in 2016. How hard is that. She pledged to serve her entire Senate Term. Remind people of that specifically. I'm sure it's flattering to have people demanding you run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 04:49 PM

129. Yeah, forget the "exclaimation point".. and insert "2016". The interviewer gave up too soon. :)

Although, she did turn down moveon's Million$$$ for 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #129)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 05:30 PM

141. No she didn't. An article said that, she didn't. Just the standard "I'm not running". Insert yet.

Moveon is still on with her as their(our) candidate for a reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #141)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 05:47 PM

144. "..Senator Warren has publicly announced she is not running for President in 2016.." from her

lawyers to the Federal Election Commission..

Warren's lawyers: "..and not confuse donors about a non-existent run for President"



MADem http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5963473

But, hey.. if Elizabeth wants to run.. I'm all for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 05:15 PM

133. Found something that says "No for 2016" FWIW..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #133)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:16 PM

182. Excellent find, Cha! Hopefully NOW those "draft Warren for Prez" people on DU will accept

reality. There, in black and white, it clearly states that she will not run for president in 2016. It can't be any clearer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #182)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:33 PM

190. She's a woman, she has the right to change her mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:44 AM

38. Why get sick of her when it is those who who want her to run that keep this alive. She has made it

very clear on many occasions that she is not running. It is those that want her to run that are keeping this alive.

The possible candidates who most likely will run will be Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Jim Webb, Bernie Sanders, and maybe Jack Reed for the Democrats.

Elizabeth Warren has made it very clear that she is doing the job she wants in the Senate, and believes that she can accomplish much where she is, and she is right


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #38)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:49 AM

42. Yeah, I agree. I'm sick of her supporters

more than her. Especially when they are using her to bash other Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:53 AM

45. I guess it would be a wash then.

I am sick of Clinton supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:16 PM

166. When Democrats show that they really are not Democrats than they need bashing.

 

These Republican lites want Hillary.(their Wall St connection).They need Wall St dollars for them to keep their job,'
Elizabeth Warren is working to expose these so called Democrats and their ties to Wall St and she's doing a damn good job of it.
If you want to praise the Democrats even though they aren't really Democrats, they just have a D in front their name because they are from a Democratic district and that is the only way then can win,then so be it. YES these Democrats need bashing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #38)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:55 AM

46. Ahhh..... some sanity. I'd vote for Warren in a heartbeat, but apparently not this time around


I just don't see Joe Biden running, and it doesn't appear that he's doing anything to position himself to run. The other people you mention seem like plausible candidates. At this moment it does appear that Hillary is the more likely nominee, but there's still a lot of time for that to change. In any case I sure the hell hope that we are willing to get 100% behind whoever the nominee is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:02 AM

50. Its amazing how obsessed people are with this

They stayed home 2010 and 2014. So boring. No new Messiah. They are obsessed with having that one leader that will do everything for them. Again they will be disappointed, as the Presidency is not that.

2015 hasn't even started. We have no idea who is going to run. Perhaps people no one is even thinking of now. It's absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:07 AM

55. Except Joe Biden actually told the press he is considering it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #38)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:49 AM

91. Why leave Martin O'Malley off the list? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #91)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:57 AM

95. I hope O'Malley doesn't run for POTUS

...because I suspect that Barbara Mikulski will retire rather than run in '16 (she'll be 80, no?), and I think O'Malley will be in a great position to take that seat.

I do not want Senator Erlich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #95)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 12:05 PM

103. That's kind of selfish (jk). I think he'd do well in the White House. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #95)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 06:08 PM

145. Yes, Barbara Mikulski will be 80 in 2016...

will be interesting to see if she runs then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:35 AM

76. Well... never is pretty definitive.

 

If, for example, Hillary were to have a stroke and be unable to run, then I could see her getting in the race. So NEVER seems a bit much. I'm sort of a "never say never" type of guy personally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:49 AM

90. It's smart of her to not say never. It will keep Hillary on her toes. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 12:25 PM

107. So you're "getting sick" of an outspoken Democratic Senator? That

says a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:57 PM

187. She won't say never cuz she WILL be running. Go Elizabeth!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:01 AM

8. What tense did she use? Tense matters. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:30 AM

21. she used reverse warp tense

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:13 AM

58. Yes this needs a body language expert on it too

and possibly a speech analysis. Of course I will be looking at my chicken bones to find the "real" answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 08:41 PM

158. I believe it was a pluperfect subjunctive participle...

or was it the future perfect?

Or maybe she wasn't very tense at all when she said it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:07 AM

14. It is about money and keeping the base excited duriing difficult times.

 

No matter what she does in the end, talking in this manner generates money. For her and the party. She could easily state that she isn't running in 2016. She won't. That is clear. She won't go that extra step and there is really no reason for her to do so. It keeps a positive and lively debate going in the party and brings in cash. Win win.

She is a politician. This is what they do. If it is all around positive why would she do anything else. If the uncertainty brings money into the coffers why would she do anything else. No matter what she decides the small window she continues to leave open is only positive for the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:11 AM

15. I have concluded that Elizabeth Warren is not running for president.

I have concluded that Elizabeth Warren is not running for president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:15 AM

16. Well I'm sure this makes the Corporate Queen's followers happy. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benz380 (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:29 AM

20. Name calling not cool..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benz380 (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:31 AM

24. btw---I would love

to have a Dem Primary. I do not think it healthy not to have one where issues can be clarified. But Warren seems not to be running (at the moment).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benz380 (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:32 AM

25. ^^^this^^^

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benz380 (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:47 AM

40. Sounds like it from their nasty gloating. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benz380 (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:51 AM

43. Welcome to DU...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benz380 (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:03 AM

52. This is like high school.

I'm curious, has Elizabeth Warren never worked for any bank? If she hasn't, how would she know so much about regulating them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #52)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:21 AM

61. Well ...

 

She did work for a law firm that specialized in developing MBS.

But that said, she has spent a decade (or more) studying and writing about it. I trust her knowledge on the subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #52)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 12:46 PM

110. DU 2014 /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #52)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:36 PM

192. DU high school, sounds like a Broadway play that could be turned in to a reality tv show!!

Stranger things have happened!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:30 AM

22. I believe her. Bernie Sanders 2016!!! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:33 AM

26. She's not running, Bernie says he will! Bernie all the way!

Bernie Sanders 2016. All the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:34 AM

27. Absolutely!

Go Bernie!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:38 AM

34. There is no doubt that Bernie is very serious about running. Hopefully, he will run as a Democrat,

which will not only give him a better chance, but also present the issues that need to be talked about

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 12:02 PM

99. If he runs as Ind I'll bet he gets a lot of Rep votes.

 

A lot of Reps also hate what the banksters or money'd interests have done to us all. I see it on DI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #99)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 12:11 PM

105. Nope, I don't agree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #105)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:10 PM

180. Yeah, most Republican voters are not gonna vote for Bernie Sanders

 

The rich ones won't vote for him because "he's a socialist", and most of the middle and working class ones won't vote for him because he's a secular Jew in addition to being a socialist from Vermont.

Right-wing media would have a field day if Sanders was nominated, they would point to his "inconsistency" of being an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate. Lots of regional resentment (he's from Vermont-not "Real" America!), Red-baiting, anti-Semitism, and all kinds of uproar about "class warfare" would occur, as well.

Think I'm exaggerating? Look at how they've treated Obama and the Clintons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #180)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 09:21 AM

201. How did they treat Romney as a Morman

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:58 AM

48. Go Bernie!

 

Bernie Sanders in 2016!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:25 AM

67. I did not see your post, but I agree totally!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:35 AM

29. If and when Hillary Clinton announces, I expect

that Elizabeth Warren will endorse her unequivocally. She knows what the real political situation is and that running for President will result in disappointment and distraction for her. If I were her, I'd not even consider running in 2016. She's in a great position right now to make her voice heard, and the future may be a different thing, but 2016 isn't going to be her year to run for President.

She knows what the result would be, and does not want that result. She'll endorse Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:39 AM

80. Bill & Hillary have cashed in on Wallstreet banks so that would be very sad.....

 

And the paid speeches are income not just donations to their campaigns.

I've no desire for a Wallstreet presidency.....

Bill Clinton’s $80 Million Payday, or Why Politicians Don’t Care That Much About Reelection
Posted on May 22, 2012 by Matt Stoller

~Snip~

Over the course of the next ten years after his Presidency, Clinton brought in roughly $8-10 million a year in speaking fees. In 2004, Clinton got $250,000 from Citigroup and $150,000 from Deutsche Bank. Goldman paid him $300,000 for two speeches, one in Paris. As the bubble peaked, in 2006, Clinton got $150,000 paydays each from Citigroup (twice), Lehman Brothers, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and the National Association of Realtors. In 2007, it was Goldman again, twice, Lehman, Citigroup, and Merrill Lynch...

Full article:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/05/its-not-about-reelection-bill-clintons-80-million-payday.html



Hillary Clinton's Goldman Sachs Problem
By David Corn | Wed Jun. 4, 2014 5:00 AM EDT

~Snip~

Hillary Clinton's shift from declaimer of Big Finance shenanigans to collaborator with Goldman—the firm has donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation—prompts an obvious question: Can the former secretary of state cultivate populist cred while hobnobbing with Goldman and pocketing money from it and other Wall Street firms? Last year, she gave two paid speeches to Goldman Sachs audiences. (Her customary fee is $200,000 a speech.)...

Full article:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/hillary-clintons-goldman-sachs-problem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #80)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:41 AM

83. Nevertheless, Warren will strongly endorse Hillary.

In fact, she has already done so more than once. Economic policy is one issue, but far from the only one that matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #83)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:44 AM

86. Wallstreet power trumps American democracy. I get that /nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #86)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:45 AM

88. Economic policy trumps most thing, frankly.

We live in a capitalistic society. That is not going to change in our lifetimes. So, lots of stuff revolves around capitalism here. That's the reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #88)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:59 AM

97. So Citibank selling derivatives using funds backed by US taxpayers is sound economic policy?

 

And we should just accept this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #97)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:04 PM

188. Yes, according to Hillary and her banking buddies. I accept she's a Wall Street corporatist through and through. Just sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to InAbLuEsTaTe (Reply #188)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 07:58 AM

198. It is sad. It's disgusting.

And just proves that, at the end of the day, neither party gives a rat's ass, unless you're rolling in (other people's) money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #97)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 07:56 AM

197. Yes! Get with the program!



We're here to serve the corporate masters!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #83)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:05 PM

114. If Bernie runs as a Dem, and she endorses Hillary, she will lose all her cred

as a genuine progressive reformer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #114)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:15 PM

115. Perhaps, if that concerns her at all.

Here's a prediction, though: If Warren changes her mind and decides to run, I give it about two weeks before the same people who are supporting her now will find many reasons not to, once she declares. But, I don't think there's any chance she will run, anyhow.

Progressivism is about much more than just economic policy. And that's the source of the conflict that will develop if she decided to run. There are areas where she's not as progressive as people seem to think, and every one of them will rise to the top if she runs.

I don't think she will decide that running is in her or the country's best interest. I could be wrong, though.

I'm actually not all that sure Bernie Sanders will run, either, in the end. It will be hard for him to switch to the Democratic Party, really, and I don't think he wants to do it. If he runs without doing that, it will only be a token candidacy and won't have much effect.

Either way, he'll endorse the official candidate at some point, because he understands how important it is that Republicans don't win both Congress and the Presidency. We all should understand that, I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:35 AM

31. It is quite amazing how many people here really want to see something that isn't. I have tried to

discuss rationally why Senator Warren will not run for President in 2016, besides her saying she won't. The most important reason though is because she is doing great things in the Senate, and at this time can have more effect on the changes she wants if she ran for president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:56 AM

94. I agree. Very amazing. Fantasy beats reality, I suppose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 09:48 AM

203. Why is it she is doing great things in the senate?

Could it be because she is getting access to the media microphone about a potential presidential run?

Could this exposure allow her to slide in her disgust and positions with Wall Street?

As a dem would you prefer the repubs with the microphone in Cheney's, Boehners or McTurtle's hands?

Play the game, dismissing her potential run for president doesn't enhance or widen her voice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 03:17 PM

210. Senate majority leader would also be an aspiring position.

By 2016 that's a possibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:40 AM

36. Being President is overrated anyway

Maybe she could add that sometime, if she agrees, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:59 AM

49. Never say never

it might just come back to bite you in the ass

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:07 AM

54. If she continues to endorse Hillary

throughout the primary, she's not the progressive I think many of us like to think she is.

In some ways she's great. In others she isn't. I can't really understand how she could have been a Republican for so long, especially given her only reason for switching was economics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:10 AM

56. Not an exclamation point. A "never" on the end.

 

She still didn't do that. She is not currently running for president.

I believe she is not running for president. I believe she is doing what she is doing because she believes in it. I also believe she has left herself open to run for president sometime in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:23 AM

64. She isn't running at this time. But I do believe she is testing the waters.

I don't believe in "drafting" presidential candidates. It never works out well. (Think Fred Thompson or Wes Clark.) The person has to have the personal conviction and ambition to want the Presidency.

She doesn't appear to have the ambition yet, but I do believe the amount of corruption might just press her to run if, for no other reason, to have a national platform to expose the corruption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:23 AM

65. People cannot take NO for an answer. I have read people commenting on this interview by

"she only used the present tense". People, take a grip. She is not running. We have a true progressive who wants to run : Bernie Sanders. What about supporting him rather than dreaming the impossible dream.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #65)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:42 AM

85. The thought of Hillary being the POTUS is very painful for a hell of a lot of Democrats.

 

Try to understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #85)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:44 AM

87. Yes, I agree, so why support somebody who is not running why an excellent progressive has signaled

he wants to run. Sanders is an excellent choice. He needs our support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:25 AM

68. I'm fine with her not running. No matter who runs or what direction they try to take

 

she's got the taste of blood, as they say. She is most likely
to set the populist agenda and the people are ready for a fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:39 AM

79. I am on the Bernie team, but would love to see Warren on the ticket, too.

 

No matter what happens, I sure as fuck would rather clap for Tinkerbell than clap for Hillary. Won't clap for Hillary.
That's my bottom line. The TPP drew the line, and Jamie Dimon actually fucking calling Democrats underscored it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:40 AM

81. I suppose it would be rude to say "I told you so".....

.....but I did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #81)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 12:19 PM

106. I'm sure you will gloat with the Queen at your next salon meeting.

Don't forget that 80k check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benz380 (Reply #106)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:36 PM

118. Or maybe I'll chuckle with Elizabeth Warren at our next lunch...

FWIW, neither cost nearly that much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:41 AM

82. JEEEzus. Make a Sherman statement or don't. To hell with exclamation points. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yodermon (Reply #82)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:37 PM

119. ...because how a bunch of bloggers interpret her remarks is the most important thing to her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:49 AM

89. If Warren is not running then find someone else

Because if Hillary is the democratic candidate for president in 2016, I will not vote in the next election that is a fact. I have voted in every presidential election since I turned 18. Find someone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:54 AM

93. Let's be honest: if Warren said: "I WILL NOT RUN in the future".......

people here would still claim she could change her mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #93)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 12:01 PM

98. I kind of doubt she'll run -

particularly if Hillary goes forward. I don't think anyone has officially declared yet. But a lot can happen in a year or two, especially in politics. Elizabeth is wise to speak in present tense and leave it at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 12:03 PM

101. This is becoming the "Dead Parrot" sketch

It's a dead parrot. It's not resting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #101)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 12:08 PM

104. Exactly. The depths of denial on display are breath-taking. I rofl'ed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #101)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 08:50 PM

160. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 12:26 PM

108. "No" means "yes"!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 12:50 PM

111. Isn't it odd that every single conservadem on this site is ecstatic that Liz probably won't run?

Gosh, why would that be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #111)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 12:57 PM

112. Here you go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #111)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:39 PM

120. Really? Point to one...

...I think some people find the fantasyland faith amusing, but point to any example where a Hillary supporter says they don't want Warren to run.




I'll wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #120)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 02:48 PM

124. It oozes from all your pores

Any speculation that she might run is immediately set upon by the same crew. It's hilarious.

And strangely, it's all from the same folks that think we need to keep moving the party to the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #124)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 04:59 PM

131. In other words, you can't find an example...

...I talk about the point that she doesn't want to run because...she doesn't want to run. I think an evidence-based world view is useful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #111)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:48 PM

122. Who is ecstatic? Stating currently known facts doesn't equal ecstasy.

 

Nor does it make one a "conservadem".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #122)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:54 PM

123. If only we had a way to understand what "I will not run" meant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #123)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:44 PM

194. If only we had saved our Malt-O-Meal magic decoder rings, dammit!

I wish I knew, I wish I might, be able to decode this message tonight!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #111)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 05:22 PM

136. Yep

And they apparently think they're being subtle from the vigorous denial you're receiving for pointing out their gleefulness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:46 PM

121. She's playing the long game...

I have a feeling that she will run not this time around but in 2020.

I honestly don't think whatever Dem runs this time, will win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #121)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 03:40 PM

125. She'll be 71 in 2020 -

and that I think is even more unlikely. I do agree that it will be a tough battle. I truly believe the populace is not nearly as conservative as voting may indicate, mainly because old people vote. Young folks are busy with work, kids, or thinking it doesn't really matter.

My personal feeling is that whoever talks to the Boomers and assures them they are getting their social security/medical care will win - and I'm not sure that can be Hillary with her Wall Street connections (and their mad grabs for social security ...).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #125)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 04:12 PM

128. Exactly. Age matters, its pretty much now/never. Luckily, she's never said she isn't going to run.

Just that she isn't running now. No one is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 04:07 PM

126. Too bad. I'm still not voting for Hillary.

 

Primary or GE.

I'm sure that means I want a pony or President Cruz or that I don't understand how government works or whatever other insults that gets me, but......so be it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vi5 (Reply #126)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 05:33 PM

142. Then it would mean that you are making a decision that is and should remain political into

 

a personal one. We should not be dealing with personal feelings here. We should be
dealing with the idea "Who would do more good and/or less harm to our country, Hillary
or a Republican president?

This should be the main, if not only, reason to influence your vote. To do less would
mean to fall short of your own sense of objectivity and love of country. Please think
of the millions of our fellow-citizens on or near the poverty line, who would have to
continue living in their misery for years longer -- and many of these will not survive.

Please think it over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Reply #142)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 07:13 PM

147. Not personal.

 

I don't know her personally so there's no way it could be personal. I don't like her policies or her politics regarding foreign policy, the military, the economy, Wall Street, and on any number of issues.

I'm absolutely done with the lesser of 2 evils bullshit. If the Democrat party insists on joining in the bonfire that is raging, then they won't have my help throwing wood on the fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vi5 (Reply #147)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 07:44 PM

149. I don't like her policies for exactly the same reasons. But I do think that Hillary's

 

presidency would result in far less damage to our country than a Republican presidency
would. For example: I've already mentioned in my previous post that fewer of the
have-nots of our nation would die from want -- the Republicans would cut off all benefits
to the needy and the elderly, and just let them die. They are fighting for this and have
been doing so for some time.

Hillary would never do this. Remember, she was the one who first tried to get
universal medical health coverage way back in 1993. She tried, but wasn't successful.
The Republicans fought hard against her all the way, and they won.

Aren't these lives worth saving?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Reply #149)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 10:03 AM

205. If she lost to the repubs back then, how could she win now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aspirant (Reply #205)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 04:18 PM

211. I don't quite follow what you mean. In 1993 Hillary was not an employee of the government. She

 

was the First Lady, and volunteered her efforts to get universal medical health for all
Americans. She wasn't paid for her work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Reply #211)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 07:36 PM

213. So she took on repubs and lost with the support of the president

so how is she going to stop the poor from dying in 2017 if she has a repub house and senate or just house?

Convince me that HRC has the magical powers to brainwash Repubs to pass anything she wants

If she volunteers, without pay, her efforts don't count?

You said, " the republicans fought hard against her all the way, and they won". Why would they fight hard against an unpaid volunteer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aspirant (Reply #213)

Wed Dec 17, 2014, 07:56 PM

214. Hillary isn't going to take away Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Affordable Care Act,

 

etc......,which a Republican president definitely will try to do. They already will have 2 out of 3 branches of
government beginning in January. If a Repub. should win the presidency in 2016, they'd very likely have all
3 branches under their control. God help us! Don't you see what kind of a fix we'd be in?

Beginning in a couple of weeks, the Repub. Congress will be making all kinds of bills to make the rich
richer, and the poor poorer. Obama will at least be able to veto the bills. But, after 2016, if the
president should also be a Republican -- our goose will be cooked.

Bad as a Third-Way Dem. president might be, a totally Republican president would be far, far worse. Quite
possibly s/he would start another war, just so Corporations would make more profit. This is what G.W. Bush
did to Iraq. These are sick psychopaths. To them human lives mean nothing more than tools to be used, and
thrown away once their usefulness is over.

We just can't afford to have Republicans controlling all three branches of government. Don't you see that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Reply #214)

Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:29 PM

216. If I don't vote for HRC, people will die.

So HRC is the only dem to save us. Any other dem would cave to repubs on our safety nets and let people die, right? HRC is our only savior, why can't we see that?

If you choose to vote for HRC, so be it. I am free to choose for myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aspirant (Reply #216)

Thu Dec 18, 2014, 10:07 AM

217. If you don't vote for HRC when she is running against a Republican for president, more people will

 

die, yes. But, during the primaries, there will be Progressive Democrats she'll
be running against.

I believe Progressive Democrats are better than Hillary. I'd vote for them over Hillary.
But, if Hillary wins the primaries, I'd vote for her over any Republican. She is the last
resort. I think she is better than any Republican. (Which isn't saying much).

I'd choose a real Democrat (Progressive or Liberal) any day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Reply #217)

Thu Dec 18, 2014, 10:33 AM

218. You can peddle this fear of death somewhere else

My vote belongs to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aspirant (Reply #218)

Thu Dec 18, 2014, 11:16 AM

219. Okay. I've done my best to explain, but your mind is made up.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 04:08 PM

127. then we're screwed

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 05:08 PM

132. ...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 05:23 PM

137. "..Senator Warren has publicly announced she is not running for President in 2016.. " In a letter

from her lawyer to the Federal Election Commission..



MADem http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5963473

FWIW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #137)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 05:26 PM

138. Warren's lawyers: "not confuse donors about a non-existent run for President"

DU: If only there was a clear sign!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #138)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 05:30 PM

139. Oh yeah, like Elizabeth doesn't want them to waste their hard earned MONEY! Nice person. But,

yeah, there needs to be an EVEN MORE CLEAR SIGN!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #137)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 07:14 PM

148. But how do you know she didn't have her fingers crossed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #148)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 08:09 PM

150. I don't.. she sure is expending a lot of energy to make it as to "..not confuse donors about a non-

existent run for President", though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #150)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 08:35 PM

154. MAYBE she wonders why she keeps saying she's not running, and people keep saying she is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #154)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:47 PM

195. If she changes her hairstyle suddenly, overnight, then we'll know for sure!

That's the signal to watch for!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 05:30 PM

140. I think she needs to say this...

" I will not run for President even if you hold a gun to my head. I will not run even if you threaten my family with certain death. There is absolutely nothing you can do to make me run. I will kill myself before I run".

That should be clear enough.



















in case I need to add this

yes, I'd love for her to run, but I think the good lady has been quite clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Reply #140)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 05:39 PM

143. You can't see Warren's hands. Maybe her fingers are crossed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 08:27 PM

152. She hasn't signed an oath in blood yet....so....some won't believe it!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 08:34 PM

153. The election is....

...almost 2 YEARS OUT, certainly plenty of time for Sen. Warren to decide to become an active candidate.

If Sen. Elizabeth Warren or another truly progressive and populist person is the Democratic Party's nominee, I will give them my full support and vote. If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party's nominee, I won't.

It's just that simple for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 08:39 PM

155. Hmm...what's she trying to tell us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #155)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 08:40 PM

157. If there was only some way to tell what she meant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 08:46 PM

159. Thanks for pointing that out.

When asked explicitly to clear up the 'tense' issue, she again sidestepped, when all she had to do to 'put an exclamation point on the end' was to add 'in 2016'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)


Response to INdemo (Reply #162)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:45 PM

171. What has O'Malley done that makes you think he is a "another Wall St hand me down"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:10 PM

164. Hillary is the worst. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PowerToThePeople (Reply #164)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:39 PM

169. Where in my post do I say anything about Hillary?



It is possible to accept the reality of Warren not running and not be a HRC supporter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:17 PM

167. Apparently, some people on DU think she's just another lying sack of shit politician

 

And don't respect her enough to actually believe her when she provides a direct answer to a direct question.

OTOH, I *DO* respect her & believe her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:43 PM

170. What I want

is for all those who ARE running for president to hear their voters' hunger for a candidate who opposes big money. And the more people talk up Warren, the more often she has to say this, the louder that message is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #170)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:47 PM

173. True. Even without running, she is probably pushing the Democrats to the left

on economic issues. Win win. Hopefully O'Malley, Clinton, and Webb will echo those statements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:48 PM

175. So whats the date when we can officially write her off?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:48 PM

176. I hope she's not the nominee for the following reasons

 

1. She's unelectable. Winning a Senate election in Massachusetts is a far cry from winning the US Presidency.

2. She has yet to give an adequate explanation for why, after voting for Republicans-including DU "favorites" like Reagan and Bush the Elder-for much of her adult life, she "suddenly" had an epiphany about "economic" issues. It was clear as day to most liberals that Reagan and Bush I were ruining the country with their horrific economic and social policies. ...yet Warren is suddenly a "convert" to "economic populism" and now is the "most progressive Democrat we have"?

Not questioning the sincerity of her "conversion", but I do question her past voting record and ideological views that some on DU wish to whitewash.

PS. I will vote for her if she's the Democratic nominee-I won't be a sore loser who will foolishly not vote for the Democratic nominee for President (you might as well vote Republican at that point). I do like her as a US Senator, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 10:19 PM

183. this is what candidates usually say

until they have made their decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #183)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 06:04 PM

212. It' also what non-candidates say when they're not running.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 08:42 AM

199. They just want her to declare first and get out of Clinton's way...

...because Clinton, as the default-apparent, has the privilege of declaring in her own good time.

Dumbass interviewer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 09:46 AM

202. So glad this thread popped up again - evidently it is "STFU because Liz said she is not running" day

 

So far - Liz is a lying sack of shit - fantastic Dem-supportive headline, might I add, a gift to the world - and we supporters are just like Erckel.
Did a memo go out or something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Original post)

Wed Dec 17, 2014, 07:58 PM

215. If she runs, she runs. If she doesn't, she doesn't.

 

She can say whatever she wants to now, let us see how 2015 plays out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread