"Elizabeth Warren can snatch the candidacy from Hillary"

[NYC_SKP]

Elizabeth Warren can snatch the candidacy from Hillary

It won’t be for a lack of trying. Elizabeth Warren is reaching right into the Democrat’s heart and soul to take the wind out of Hillary Clinton’s sails. Warren possesses energy and ideas. She knows Democrats’ priorities and if she continues with her messaging it will be transparent to Middle Class Americans that she is their champion. The LA Times is on the story and LA is a great place for Warren to make a statement.
Elizabeth Warren takes the stage in Los Angeles
Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

"We don't win what we don't fight for."

[font color=red]You can’t fight for your constituents’ agenda when you are balled up answering why you short-circuited the government email system, why you accepted money directly from dubious foreign sources, why you maintained a conflict of interest with the “foundation,” and how you contributed your part to the Benghazi disaster. There is too much legacy burden to carry, Hillary.[/font color]

Elizabeth Warren has the energy, creativity, and feisty leadership ability to champion the American Middle Class.

Warren isn’t afraid to differentiate herself from the Obama administration either. She takes him on eye to eye as someone needs too.

More at: http://www.examiner.com/article/elizabeth-warren-can-snatch-the-candidacy-from-hillary

[boston bean]

1. Ben Ghazi ~ said in my best god father voice...

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Apropos of what?

Or is any resistance to America's Next President responded to in such a manner?

[delrem]

10. If only it could be reduced to a joke.

But what the US did to Libya is no joke, even though Hillary Clinton laughed.

[sabrina 1]

70. What was done to Libya by NATO was to create a hell on earth for a people who lived in

one of the more advanced countries in Africa. And it was NOT done to 'rescue people from a dictator'. There was zero interest in the people there. It was done as are all these invasions by the Western Imperial powers, for the 'interests' of Western powers.

If anyone doubts that now, all they have to do is compare what that country was like before NATO decided to destroy it, and then look at the suffering of the people there now.

Not a word is ever mentioned by our 'news' media about that country they were all over while it was being destroyed and its people brutalized as they still are.

And now those allies of ours do not want to take in the refugees they created. THAT is how much they really cared.

[NYC_SKP]

73. ***The clip. It is pretty disgusting. Ewwww.

[pocoloco]

58. Dailykos had it right!

?1429127468

bad place for a nose!

[GoneOffShore]

93. Excellent cartoon.

Spot on.

[sharp_stick]

2. The Examiner

seriously...You use The Examiner as a source to back up an argument against Clinton by a left wing challenger that has said repeatedly that she is not a candidate?

That's pathetic.

[dsc]

31. this is an improvment for this OP

He has previously used the man who brought us the wrong Loretta Lynch to argue against Hillary.

[WillyT]

3. Huge K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[NYC_SKP]

8. I seem to have upset a member or two. But the message holds true. Voters are a discerning lot.

Voter may not have a lot of the facts available but people have instincts that can tell them when they're being lied to and when they're not.

Sanders and Warren both have passionate, clear messages that resonate with, probably, mainstream American workers and working poor, the 99%, of all political persuasions.

Hillary is in trouble, make no mistake.

[WillyT]

13. Oh Hell... That's An Hourly Occurence For Me...

Many of us old-timers are about to be... "Invited to leave."

[NYC_SKP]

18. ~~~DU Poll of 796 members, only 9% choose Hillary to 91% Sanders.

That's pretty significant.

She's weak. Rich, but weak.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6592890

[zeemike]

25. But her and her supporters expect that money to be a steamroller.

And dismiss the fact that her support is thin.
And count on the fact that once she has the nomination there will be no other to vote for.

[NYC_SKP]

27. Sad, isn't it? They are prepared to let the Citizens United ruling chose their candidate.

Hillary is using two Super PACs.

Because she HAS TO, of else she'll never be able to end it!!!

[Jackpine Radical]

34. Aw, c'mon now.

You know those were 700 paid Bernie sockpuppets.

[NYC_SKP]

36. We are Legion!

We are worsted polyester!

And, to our fallen brothers who ten years ago tomorrow were hung for their beliefs:

[Jackpine Radical]

40. Well, at least nobody can accuse us of pulling the wool over their eyes.

But think of all the polyesters who were sacrificed to make us…

[merrily]

63. Second worsted, at the very least!.

[Jackpine Radical]

84. Knitpicker.

[merrily]

85. You've had me in stitches today.

[Jackpine Radical]

86. Wha'd I do?

You couldn't possibly have been watching when I…uh, nevermind.

[merrily]

89. knitpicker--knit--stitches. Sigh. I guess I didn't spin that yarn very well.

I'm always balling things up.

[Jackpine Radical]

90. Aw, you're a true purl, m'dear.

And I'm not just telling yarns, although it is kinda fun to needle you.

[merrily]

94. Elegantly done. I'm about to unravel.

[Segami]

78. Still early but....

Clinton campaign leaders and outside loyalists also bridle at the perception that she is less of a progressive politician than, say, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). They point to Clinton’s early career as a crusading lawyer in Arkansas and lifelong professional commitments to improving women’s lives.

Warren has said she isn’t running but has declined so far to endorse Clinton. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is running a strongly populist challenge to Clinton, and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley — who has suggested Clinton is too hesitant and poll-driven — is expected to enter the race this month.

“If Clinton and other candidates are not seen as standing with Warren on the [Trans-Pacific Partnership] trade deal and a number of other economic issues critical to working families, it could create an even greater sense of urgency” to get Warren into the race, said Gary Ritterstein, an adviser to the support group Ready for Warren.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/running-to-the-left-hillary-clinton-is-banking-on-the-obama-coalition-to-win/2015/05/17/33b7844a-fb28-11e4-9ef4-1bb7ce3b3fb7_story.html

[NYC_SKP]

79. I haven't given up hope. Imagine Warren and Sanders running.

And then becoming a dream ticket together.

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. The examiner.com is not a reputable news site.

Examiner.com

[boston bean]

6. also, see this...

Matt Smith of the San Francisco Weekly noted in 2007 that numerous articles and photos by Sharon Gray were from other sources, including the Sacramento Bee, and constituted apparent plagiarism. Smith suggested that the case showed that "free isn't always a bargain."[24] When questioned, Jim Pimentel, executive editor of Examiner said,


"They're blogs. They don't get edited. We don't give any direction to people on what to write in their blogs. And that's standard operating procedure."[4][24][needs update]

After Smith brought the issue to Pimentel's attention, the voluminous Gray material was removed from Examiner.com. Pimentel said the Examiner has "a less-strict standard for accuracy and attribution in stories that appear on the Web" than for publications in print.[24] According to Smith, Robert Gunnison, director of school affairs at the U.C. Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism, shares his own view that newspapers "should observe the same journalism standards online as they do in print."[24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examiner.com

[NYC_SKP]

7. Truth is truth no matter the source. How about the LA Times?

Really, you should watch the full address and you'll find that it's as if she's addressing Clinton directly.

She probably won't run, but I don't fancy her endorsing the very candidate that, in our party, so well represents what's wrong with us.

http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-elizabeth-warren-convention-20150516-story.html

[boston bean]

11. Funny, I didn't see the word Benghazi in tha LA Times article and I saw

that she was directing her words towards the White House...

Not even a mention of Hillary...

More made up crap from some blogger at the examiner.

[still_one]

52. She won't endorse any candidate until a nominee is chosen, and then she will support the nominee

[BainsBane]

64. There is no truth. It's pure propaganda

GOP propaganda from a far RW site. This is as transparent as it gets.

The TRUTH: Elizabeth Warren supports Hillary Clinton. Elizabeth Warren doesn't get in the mud with the GOP to trash Clinton and help the GOP's electoral prospects. Go figure, even though she is a former Republican, she doesn't behave like one anymore, and she doesn't help the GOP's electoral chances. Imagine that.

[delrem]

12. And just like that you dismiss Elizabeth Warren's speech to CA Dems.

lame

[Agnosticsherbet]

81. The Examiner pays it's bloggers to write sensationalized stories

and pays them by the hit. They are trash news propaganda that are about as honest and truthful as the Koch Brothers because they will print any, sensationalized story that brings readers to their site so they can make money.

I said nothing about Warren. She has no control over people using her image and words to make a buck.

[demmiblue]

15. Interesting

Examiner.com is a multiuser blogging site that presents itself as a news site. Don't be fooled.

Examiner.com pays its writers based (among other things) on pageviews.[1] As a result, a lot of Examiner material tends to be sensationalistic to attract attention — positive or negative doesn't matter, it's all clicks. Headlines such as "U.S. to bomb moon on UFO witness John Lennon's birthday"[2] and "Official disclosure of extraterrestrial life is imminent"[3] are par for the course. You will see enthusiastic Examiner bloggers linkspamming furiously on other sites (to the point of being in Wikipedia's spam blacklist[4] since 2009[5]), often touting their work as "media coverage" (and themselves as "journalists" or "the press"[6]) rather than just a blog post they themselves wrote. Not that it pays very well — Writers Weekly considers it "just another pay-per-click meat market,"[7][8] exploiting writers to attract people to their site by paying them pennies.

Cranks and those with really bad critical thinking skills will link Examiner articles as if they're edited journalism rather than just some guy blogging. If you use an Examiner page as a reference for anything whatsoever, treat it with great caution. Not all Examiners are rubbish, but it's the way to bet.

[Agnosticsherbet]

82. That is why I criticized the source.

It is difficult to find well sourced, reliable information.

Examiner.com is not to be trusted.

[brooklynite]

5. ...except for the fact that she doesn't want to.

[6000eliot]

14. Holy Cow! Right-wing horseshit right here on DEMOCRATIC Underground!

[ColesCountyDem]

53. +1000! n/t

[okasha]

16. "If she continues with her messaging"

maybe folk like the writer of this column will finally hear her when she says she isn't running and doesn't want to be President. Like Senator Sanders, she's invaluable right where she is--in the Senate.

Jayzus. Whatever happened to "No means no?"

[onehandle]

17. Examiner.com is run by a wingnut who wants to be the 'Fox News Of The Internet.'

Slow clap...

[merrily]

62. Anything in the article that is wrong?

[joshcryer]

19. There is truth to this, but I'd still support Sanders in the primary.

[NYC_SKP]

21. Yes, indeed! Her's and Bernie's messages and policies are not far apart.

Watching the entire clip, it could have been Sanders speaking, or Warren warming up for him.

This is the California State Convention and none of what I've heard seems remotely like the Clinton Campaign's rhetoric.

[onehandle]

24. Wait... Who are you supporting?

I thought this was all about supporting Bernie, not merely attacking Hillary.

I is confused.

[NYC_SKP]

30. I'm supporting any real Democrat willing to run. Warren, Sanders, they both rock.

I think Sanders can win this bad boy, can't wait to watch a debate!

[onehandle]

43. Not Hillary FTW.

Still.

[NYC_SKP]

44. Because I want to win in the General Election, I have to prevent Clinton from being the nominee.

They'll tear her up.

[onehandle]

46. Then you do Bernie supporters a disservice with that logo.

I'm thinking I like Senator Sanders more than you do.

[joshcryer]

55. Well I guess I won't be allowed to.

At least in a certain group.

Off to contemplate a Bernie Sanders mega thread with no BS in Politics 2015.

[NYC_SKP]

56. I saw that and I don't know why.

Now that I'm back at home I may have a word with my fellow hosts of that group.

In the Progressive Reform of the Democratic Party group we have a policy that might be a little less unkind.

Did you get a warning of any sort?

[joshcryer]

57. Two actually.

From the same poster who conveniently I was having a "disagreement" with (talk about conflict of interest). But I posted nothing that would violate the warning afterward, which I construed as a threat, in any event.

In fact, I was told, straight up, that I should've been banned without warning, which I took as a threat.

Whatever, I will await the response about the banning and won't discuss it further.

[hrmjustin]

22. The Examiner is a rw source so it is hard to take them seriously.

As for Warren if she got in the race she would no doubt be formidable but still not the favorite.

But she doesn't want to run.

I noticed that the rw guy this morning on ABC was trying to play up Warren. No doubt this will be a stratergy on their part because in all honesty they are scared shitless of Hillary.

[Thinkingabout]

29. It is obvious the RW wants somebody other than Hillary to run. Sure they do not Hillary to run.

[redstateblues]

37. Warren has charisma. Bernie not so much.

I like Bernie but he just does not seem presidential. I know saying that on DU is heresy but it's just how I see it

[hrmjustin]

41. I don't see Sanders as presidential either.

Love him but i think he is more congressional politician.

[AtomicKitten]

23. We should be so lucky.

k&r for the feckin' champion of the American people.

[bvf]

26. Warren. is. not. running.

As much as I'd like to see her in the race, I take her at her word.

Why can't people leave this alone, FFS?

[NYC_SKP]

28. Sanders, very much like Warren, is running, I think, I'm pretty sure. Yeah, he's in.

Hillary has nothing but money to run on.

[bvf]

33. Sanders is in because he said so.

Warren is not for the same reason.

Give it a rest.

[zeemike]

38. Because is not is not the same as will not.

She made no public promise, only a statement of fact, and there is no need to take her at her word as to the fact that she is not running.

I think it is wishful thinking by some that is not means will not, because if she did Hillary would go down in flames...and even her supporters know it.

[bvf]

47. Uh...

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2015/01/elizabeth-warren-says-she-will-not-run-president-2016

Wish it weren't so, but there it is.

[whatchamacallit]

32. If only...

Good thing we have Bernie.

[KMOD]

35. Everybody loves Elizabeth Warren.

[George II]

48. Not everybody, but many people....but she'll never run and if she does, she'll never win.

[CharlotteVale]

39. K&R

[sadoldgirl]

42. She would not "snatch" it at all.

If EW would run she would soundly beat HRC mainly
because she earned it for standing up for the average
person as well as to the POTUS.
There would not be much baggage either.

Since I take her word for it that she does not run
(not will not), it will be up to the progressives and
Bernie to fight the fight.

I doubt that she will support anyone during the
primary though, as much as I would love her to
give her voice to Bernie.

[JDPriestly]

51. You never know with Elizabeth Warren.

She is the accidental candidate. I don't think she intended to run for the Senate. In fact she states plainly that she did not. But there she is, in the Senate.

So I'm a Bernie volunteer, but I would not count Elizabeth Warren on. And she could be the vice presidential candidate although she is from a state too close to either New York or Vermont. Normally I would expect a vice president from, say, Texas, California or a Southern or Western or Midwestern state, maybe Ohio, maybe Florida.

[dreamnightwind]

74. She actually is from the midwest

She was born in and grew up in Oklahoma in 1949, leaving in 1970 when she got married. She later returned to the midwest, spending much of the 80's in Texas. I personally don't view any of that as a positive, but I do think it is part of her appeal, she seems down to earth rather than a privileged elitist type, and people pick up on that.

I still wish she would run, Bernie is more my guy on policy but Warren is a force of nature to be reckoned with, she would be a formidable opponent for anybody. I am pretty sure she will not run, sadly, and I doubt she would run as Bernie's VP, though I think the two of them together on a ticket, with either of them at the top, would be a winning combination.

[George II]

45. HUH? How can a person who has proclaimed DOZENS of times she's not running "snatch" the candidacy?

[JDPriestly]

49. You have to imagine what a thrill it is to be sitting in the audience of a California Democratic

Convention. The crowd is enormous and you can tell how excited Elizabeth Warren was when she looked out into the audience. Actually, it is thrilling but too many people for me. People, people, people. The national convention is of course an even larger crowd. But California Democrats are particularly enthusiastic.

http://www.cademconvention.org/

What a great speech. Truly, Elizabeth Warren is the most inspiring of the Democratic speakers. It would be great if she were to run. We shall see. You just never know what might happen.

I'm a Bernie volunteer, but I would like to see both Elizabeth and Bernie run because the message of progressive Democrats would get a hearing as never before. Either one of them or both of them could really change this country. Even without winning.

I just hope all Americans get to hear Elizabeth Warren's message. She speaks to the hearts of all of us with our broken dreams. Thank you, Elizabeth Warren.

[NYC_SKP]

50. Thanks! I can't wait for my delegate friend, Tom, to report back.

He was very excited last week to be going.

[MohRokTah]

54. .

:

[quickesst]

59. the examiner.....

........c'mon


These types of threads remind me of another one about the right baiting the left into attacking Clinton. I'm sure this one isn't, but it might as well be for all intents and purposes.

[blue neen]

60. I don't think there was any good reason to post this thread.

Not at all.

[BainsBane]

61. No right wing source goes unturned

I thought you all were happy with Sanders? Not so much now? Did he somehow prove himself human and therefore unfit to serve? Have to dredge up more RW shit to watch the Democrats go down? This is a divide and conquer tactic.

Shame on you for spreading transparent right-wing propaganda the GOP plants to get themselves elected and serve the corporate interests you claim to oppose. If people gave the slightest shit about inequality, leftist goals, or the people of this country they wouldn't keep rolling around in the mud with the GOP.

If you actually had even the slightest amount of respect for Elizabeth Warren, you wouldn't invoke her in this duplicitous fashion. She is not running and she has said she backs Hillary Clinton. She doesn't spew GOP propaganda for pure spite. She sticks to discussions of policy. Yet you go to the Examiner website to bring the latest GOP spin over here.

Adopting right-wing sources, tactics, and lies in the name of liberalism or whatever it is you think you are doing is NO DIFFERENT from a Republican making the same argument. You use their sources and their arguments, you become them. You show your values are identical and that personal animus toward a single politician means more than any policy point, any principle. You are what you spew.

[blue neen]

67. Beautifully stated.

Like you, I am undecided at this point about the Democratic candidate for 2016. There are probably thousands of us on DU feeling the same way and thousands more undecideds who peruse this site.

One would think this would be a golden opportunity for supporters of the different candidates to tell us why we should support Bernie, Hillary, O'Malley, whomever else. Instead we're treated to daily mud-slinging posts using right-wing sources or posts about imaginary candidates.

We want facts about policy. We want facts about issues. We want real journalism (as much of it that actually exists anymore). We want these things so we can make educated decisions.

Thank you for your post. It was incredible.

[merrily]

65. Survey says....

"Elizabeth Warren can snatch the candidacy from Hillary"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026686593

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This kind of use of right-wing propaganda to divide and conquer for the GOP is uncivil and unfit for a Democratic website. The Examiner is a RW source and this post helps the GOP alone. This shit needs to stop. Why can't he post some positive threads about Sanders? Why does he have to carry the water for the GOP?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon May 18, 2015, 12:07 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This OP was about E. Warren, not Bernie Sanders and I'm seeing nothing negative or factually incorrect in the poster's material. It seems to me this alert is fishing around for a hide.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Intentionally vulgar use of the word "snatch" in the subject line here. HIDE IT.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Please. Just...please.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[NYC_SKP]

66. If the primaries were over, the alerting member might have had a point.

And Juror #3 has their mind in the gutter!

Hell, we need to go into the general with the best candidate we can find, someone whose message is better than the GOP message.

I don't see Hillary winning in the general.

[merrily]

69. The source may well have had its mind in the gutter, but using the same

headline as the source is not a reason to impute sexism to an OP or to impose a hide on an OP, IMO.

Until I saw the juror comment, the "pun" had not occurred to me and I am not going to give a hide on the assumption it had occurred to the OP (you, in this case)

More and more, I am seeing people alerting instead of just discussing.

[B Calm]

92. If I had been on the jury I would have voted to hide!

[SidDithers]

68. Clap for Tinkerbell!! Clap as hard as you can!!...

I do believe in fairies! I do believe in fairies!

Sid

[AtomicKitten]

71. 'kay

[NYC_SKP]

72. Ha! Last time I wished this hard I got a Black President named Hussein Obama!

And the then inevitable somebody didn't quite make it.

I tell ya, that clapping tinkerbell thingy works!

[merrily]

76. I want to watch whatever they're watching!

[geek tragedy]

75. Sanders is the progressive alternative to Clinton. Not Warren. nt

[NYC_SKP]

88. Then let us shift our support to Sanders. I will start with a sigline shift and reTweet:

[blm]

77. Would LOVE to cast my vote for Warren, but, always watchful not to buy in

to RW manipulations. Good to knw the difference. Examiner is NOT a tool of the left.

[NYC_SKP]

80. The point of the OP isn't Warren. It's that Hillary's progressive credentials are thin.

Regardless of source the observations made therein are fair.

Warren, were she to run, could take it away from Clinton.

Sanders is running and Clinton is, I'll bet, concerned.

[blm]

83. You should know me by now - I've focused on RW propaganda machine since the 90s.

No surprise to me that this source is taking this approach.

I know exactly why the 'observations' were made.

Would still LOVE to vote for Warren - but, as a longtime fan of Bernie Sanders will be happy to vote for him, as well.

[kenfrequed]

87. I want Warren to run too...

But I am not going to sit around waiting for her since she has said no.

We have a great candidate in Bernie Sanders who has announced and needs our support.

[B Calm]

91. I thought the Benghazi and e-mail scandals are made up republican talking points!

This kind of shit on a democratic board is not helping anyone but the GOP!