Sun May 17, 2015, 09:04 PM
NYC_SKP (68,644 posts)
"Elizabeth Warren can snatch the candidacy from Hillary"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
|
94 replies, 7927 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
NYC_SKP | May 2015 | OP |
boston bean | May 2015 | #1 | |
MannyGoldstein | May 2015 | #9 | |
delrem | May 2015 | #10 | |
sabrina 1 | May 2015 | #70 | |
NYC_SKP | May 2015 | #73 | |
pocoloco | May 2015 | #58 | |
GoneOffShore | May 2015 | #93 | |
sharp_stick | May 2015 | #2 | |
dsc | May 2015 | #31 | |
WillyT | May 2015 | #3 | |
NYC_SKP | May 2015 | #8 | |
WillyT | May 2015 | #13 | |
NYC_SKP | May 2015 | #18 | |
zeemike | May 2015 | #25 | |
NYC_SKP | May 2015 | #27 | |
Jackpine Radical | May 2015 | #34 | |
NYC_SKP | May 2015 | #36 | |
Jackpine Radical | May 2015 | #40 | |
merrily | May 2015 | #63 | |
Jackpine Radical | May 2015 | #84 | |
merrily | May 2015 | #85 | |
Jackpine Radical | May 2015 | #86 | |
merrily | May 2015 | #89 | |
Jackpine Radical | May 2015 | #90 | |
merrily | May 2015 | #94 | |
Segami | May 2015 | #78 | |
NYC_SKP | May 2015 | #79 | |
Agnosticsherbet | May 2015 | #4 | |
boston bean | May 2015 | #6 | |
NYC_SKP | May 2015 | #7 | |
boston bean | May 2015 | #11 | |
still_one | May 2015 | #52 | |
BainsBane | May 2015 | #64 | |
delrem | May 2015 | #12 | |
Agnosticsherbet | May 2015 | #81 | |
demmiblue | May 2015 | #15 | |
Agnosticsherbet | May 2015 | #82 | |
brooklynite | May 2015 | #5 | |
6000eliot | May 2015 | #14 | |
ColesCountyDem | May 2015 | #53 | |
okasha | May 2015 | #16 | |
onehandle | May 2015 | #17 | |
merrily | May 2015 | #62 | |
joshcryer | May 2015 | #19 | |
NYC_SKP | May 2015 | #21 | |
onehandle | May 2015 | #24 | |
NYC_SKP | May 2015 | #30 | |
onehandle | May 2015 | #43 | |
NYC_SKP | May 2015 | #44 | |
onehandle | May 2015 | #46 | |
joshcryer | May 2015 | #55 | |
NYC_SKP | May 2015 | #56 | |
joshcryer | May 2015 | #57 | |
joshcryer | May 2015 | #20 | |
hrmjustin | May 2015 | #22 | |
Thinkingabout | May 2015 | #29 | |
redstateblues | May 2015 | #37 | |
hrmjustin | May 2015 | #41 | |
AtomicKitten | May 2015 | #23 | |
bvf | May 2015 | #26 | |
NYC_SKP | May 2015 | #28 | |
bvf | May 2015 | #33 | |
zeemike | May 2015 | #38 | |
bvf | May 2015 | #47 | |
whatchamacallit | May 2015 | #32 | |
KMOD | May 2015 | #35 | |
George II | May 2015 | #48 | |
CharlotteVale | May 2015 | #39 | |
sadoldgirl | May 2015 | #42 | |
JDPriestly | May 2015 | #51 | |
dreamnightwind | May 2015 | #74 | |
George II | May 2015 | #45 | |
JDPriestly | May 2015 | #49 | |
NYC_SKP | May 2015 | #50 | |
MohRokTah | May 2015 | #54 | |
quickesst | May 2015 | #59 | |
blue neen | May 2015 | #60 | |
BainsBane | May 2015 | #61 | |
blue neen | May 2015 | #67 | |
merrily | May 2015 | #65 | |
NYC_SKP | May 2015 | #66 | |
merrily | May 2015 | #69 | |
B Calm | May 2015 | #92 | |
SidDithers | May 2015 | #68 | |
AtomicKitten | May 2015 | #71 | |
NYC_SKP | May 2015 | #72 | |
merrily | May 2015 | #76 | |
geek tragedy | May 2015 | #75 | |
NYC_SKP | May 2015 | #88 | |
blm | May 2015 | #77 | |
NYC_SKP | May 2015 | #80 | |
blm | May 2015 | #83 | |
kenfrequed | May 2015 | #87 | |
B Calm | May 2015 | #91 |
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:08 PM
boston bean (35,786 posts)
1. Ben Ghazi ~ said in my best god father voice...
![]() |
Response to boston bean (Reply #1)
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:22 PM
MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)
9. Apropos of what?
Or is any resistance to America's Next President responded to in such a manner?
|
Response to boston bean (Reply #1)
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:23 PM
delrem (9,688 posts)
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.
|
Response to delrem (Reply #10)
Mon May 18, 2015, 01:03 AM
sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)
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. |
Response to delrem (Reply #10)
Mon May 18, 2015, 01:46 AM
NYC_SKP (68,644 posts)
73. ***The clip. It is pretty disgusting. Ewwww.
|
Response to boston bean (Reply #1)
Sun May 17, 2015, 11:43 PM
pocoloco (3,180 posts)
58. Dailykos had it right!
![]() bad place for a nose! |
Response to pocoloco (Reply #58)
Tue May 19, 2015, 05:54 PM
GoneOffShore (17,143 posts)
93. Excellent cartoon.
Spot on.
|
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:10 PM
sharp_stick (14,400 posts)
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. |
Response to sharp_stick (Reply #2)
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:11 PM
dsc (51,932 posts)
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.
|
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:11 PM
WillyT (72,631 posts)
3. Huge K & R !!! - Thank You !!!
![]() |
Response to WillyT (Reply #3)
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:21 PM
NYC_SKP (68,644 posts)
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. ![]() |
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #8)
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:27 PM
WillyT (72,631 posts)
13. Oh Hell... That's An Hourly Occurence For Me...
![]() ![]() Many of us old-timers are about to be... "Invited to leave." ![]() |
Response to WillyT (Reply #13)
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:38 PM
NYC_SKP (68,644 posts)
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 |
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #18)
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:59 PM
zeemike (18,998 posts)
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. |
Response to zeemike (Reply #25)
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:05 PM
NYC_SKP (68,644 posts)
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!!! ![]() |
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #18)
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:15 PM
Jackpine Radical (45,274 posts)
34. Aw, c'mon now.
You know those were 700 paid Bernie sockpuppets.
![]() |
Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #34)
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:18 PM
NYC_SKP (68,644 posts)
36. We are Legion!
We are worsted polyester!
And, to our fallen brothers who ten years ago tomorrow were hung for their beliefs: ![]() ![]() |
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #36)
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:22 PM
Jackpine Radical (45,274 posts)
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…
|
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #36)
Mon May 18, 2015, 12:17 AM
merrily (45,251 posts)
63. Second worsted, at the very least!.
Response to merrily (Reply #63)
Mon May 18, 2015, 03:29 PM
Jackpine Radical (45,274 posts)
84. Knitpicker.
Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #84)
Mon May 18, 2015, 03:42 PM
merrily (45,251 posts)
85. You've had me in stitches today.
Response to merrily (Reply #85)
Mon May 18, 2015, 03:44 PM
Jackpine Radical (45,274 posts)
86. Wha'd I do?
You couldn't possibly have been watching when I…uh, nevermind.
|
Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #86)
Tue May 19, 2015, 12:46 AM
merrily (45,251 posts)
89. knitpicker--knit--stitches. Sigh. I guess I didn't spin that yarn very well.
I'm always balling things up.
|
Response to merrily (Reply #89)
Tue May 19, 2015, 10:38 AM
Jackpine Radical (45,274 posts)
90. Aw, you're a true purl, m'dear.
And I'm not just telling yarns, although it is kinda fun to needle you.
|
Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #90)
Tue May 19, 2015, 11:09 PM
merrily (45,251 posts)
94. Elegantly done. I'm about to unravel.
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #8)
Mon May 18, 2015, 10:18 AM
Segami (14,923 posts)
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 |
Response to Segami (Reply #78)
Mon May 18, 2015, 10:25 AM
NYC_SKP (68,644 posts)
79. I haven't given up hope. Imagine Warren and Sanders running.
And then becoming a dream ticket together.
![]() |
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:12 PM
Agnosticsherbet (11,619 posts)
4. The examiner.com is not a reputable news site.
Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #4)
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:15 PM
boston bean (35,786 posts)
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 |
Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #4)
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:19 PM
NYC_SKP (68,644 posts)
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 |
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #7)
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:23 PM
boston bean (35,786 posts)
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. |
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #7)
Sun May 17, 2015, 11:15 PM
still_one (89,216 posts)
52. She won't endorse any candidate until a nominee is chosen, and then she will support the nominee
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #7)
Mon May 18, 2015, 12:18 AM
BainsBane (52,854 posts)
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. ![]() |
Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #4)
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:27 PM
delrem (9,688 posts)
12. And just like that you dismiss Elizabeth Warren's speech to CA Dems.
lame
|
Response to delrem (Reply #12)
Mon May 18, 2015, 11:12 AM
Agnosticsherbet (11,619 posts)
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. |
Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #4)
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:31 PM
demmiblue (36,198 posts)
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. |
Response to demmiblue (Reply #15)
Mon May 18, 2015, 11:18 AM
Agnosticsherbet (11,619 posts)
82. That is why I criticized the source.
It is difficult to find well sourced, reliable information.
Examiner.com is not to be trusted. |
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:14 PM
brooklynite (89,697 posts)
5. ...except for the fact that she doesn't want to.
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:29 PM
6000eliot (5,643 posts)
14. Holy Cow! Right-wing horseshit right here on DEMOCRATIC Underground!
Response to 6000eliot (Reply #14)
Sun May 17, 2015, 11:18 PM
ColesCountyDem (6,943 posts)
53. +1000! n/t
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:31 PM
okasha (11,573 posts)
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?" |
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:34 PM
onehandle (51,122 posts)
17. Examiner.com is run by a wingnut who wants to be the 'Fox News Of The Internet.'
Slow clap...
|
Response to onehandle (Reply #17)
Mon May 18, 2015, 12:13 AM
merrily (45,251 posts)
62. Anything in the article that is wrong?
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:41 PM
joshcryer (62,228 posts)
19. There is truth to this, but I'd still support Sanders in the primary.
Response to joshcryer (Reply #19)
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:44 PM
NYC_SKP (68,644 posts)
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. |
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #21)
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:57 PM
onehandle (51,122 posts)
24. Wait... Who are you supporting?
I thought this was all about supporting Bernie, not merely attacking Hillary.
I is confused. ![]() |
Response to onehandle (Reply #24)
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:09 PM
NYC_SKP (68,644 posts)
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!
![]() |
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #30)
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:40 PM
onehandle (51,122 posts)
43. Not Hillary FTW.
Still.
|
Response to onehandle (Reply #43)
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:43 PM
NYC_SKP (68,644 posts)
44. Because I want to win in the General Election, I have to prevent Clinton from being the nominee.
They'll tear her up.
|
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #44)
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:47 PM
onehandle (51,122 posts)
46. Then you do Bernie supporters a disservice with that logo.
I'm thinking I like Senator Sanders more than you do.
|
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #21)
Sun May 17, 2015, 11:29 PM
joshcryer (62,228 posts)
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. |
Response to joshcryer (Reply #55)
Sun May 17, 2015, 11:31 PM
NYC_SKP (68,644 posts)
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? |
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #56)
Sun May 17, 2015, 11:36 PM
joshcryer (62,228 posts)
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. |
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
joshcryer This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:44 PM
hrmjustin (71,265 posts)
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. |
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #22)
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:07 PM
Thinkingabout (30,058 posts)
29. It is obvious the RW wants somebody other than Hillary to run. Sure they do not Hillary to run.
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #22)
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:19 PM
redstateblues (10,563 posts)
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
|
Response to redstateblues (Reply #37)
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:23 PM
hrmjustin (71,265 posts)
41. I don't see Sanders as presidential either.
Love him but i think he is more congressional politician.
|
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:52 PM
AtomicKitten (46,585 posts)
23. We should be so lucky.
k&r for the feckin' champion of the American people.
![]() |
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:04 PM
bvf (6,604 posts)
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? |
Response to bvf (Reply #26)
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:06 PM
NYC_SKP (68,644 posts)
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.
|
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #28)
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:14 PM
bvf (6,604 posts)
33. Sanders is in because he said so.
Warren is not for the same reason.
Give it a rest. |
Response to bvf (Reply #26)
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:20 PM
zeemike (18,998 posts)
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. |
Response to zeemike (Reply #38)
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:47 PM
bvf (6,604 posts)
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. |
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:13 PM
whatchamacallit (15,558 posts)
32. If only...
Good thing we have Bernie.
|
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:17 PM
KMOD (7,906 posts)
35. Everybody loves Elizabeth Warren.
Response to KMOD (Reply #35)
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:48 PM
George II (67,782 posts)
48. Not everybody, but many people....but she'll never run and if she does, she'll never win.
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:32 PM
sadoldgirl (3,431 posts)
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. |
Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #42)
Sun May 17, 2015, 11:12 PM
JDPriestly (57,936 posts)
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. |
Response to JDPriestly (Reply #51)
Mon May 18, 2015, 03:16 AM
dreamnightwind (4,775 posts)
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. |
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:46 PM
George II (67,782 posts)
45. HUH? How can a person who has proclaimed DOZENS of times she's not running "snatch" the candidacy?
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Sun May 17, 2015, 11:09 PM
JDPriestly (57,936 posts)
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. |
Response to JDPriestly (Reply #49)
Sun May 17, 2015, 11:12 PM
NYC_SKP (68,644 posts)
50. Thanks! I can't wait for my delegate friend, Tom, to report back.
He was very excited last week to be going.
![]() |
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Sun May 17, 2015, 11:53 PM
quickesst (6,275 posts)
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. |
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Sun May 17, 2015, 11:55 PM
blue neen (12,270 posts)
60. I don't think there was any good reason to post this thread.
Not at all.
|
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Mon May 18, 2015, 12:00 AM
BainsBane (52,854 posts)
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. |
Response to BainsBane (Reply #61)
Mon May 18, 2015, 12:31 AM
blue neen (12,270 posts)
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. |
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Mon May 18, 2015, 12:19 AM
merrily (45,251 posts)
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 |
Response to merrily (Reply #65)
Mon May 18, 2015, 12:27 AM
NYC_SKP (68,644 posts)
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. ![]() |
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #66)
Mon May 18, 2015, 12:55 AM
merrily (45,251 posts)
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. |
Response to merrily (Reply #65)
Tue May 19, 2015, 04:52 PM
B Calm (28,762 posts)
92. If I had been on the jury I would have voted to hide!
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Mon May 18, 2015, 12:46 AM
SidDithers (44,228 posts)
68. Clap for Tinkerbell!! Clap as hard as you can!!...
I do believe in fairies! I do believe in fairies!
Sid |
Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #71)
Mon May 18, 2015, 01:40 AM
NYC_SKP (68,644 posts)
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! ![]() |
Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #71)
Mon May 18, 2015, 09:10 AM
merrily (45,251 posts)
76. I want to watch whatever they're watching!
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Mon May 18, 2015, 09:08 AM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
75. Sanders is the progressive alternative to Clinton. Not Warren. nt
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #75)
Mon May 18, 2015, 06:13 PM
NYC_SKP (68,644 posts)
88. Then let us shift our support to Sanders. I will start with a sigline shift and reTweet:
![]() |
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Mon May 18, 2015, 10:05 AM
blm (112,086 posts)
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.
|
Response to blm (Reply #77)
Mon May 18, 2015, 10:27 AM
NYC_SKP (68,644 posts)
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. |
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #80)
Mon May 18, 2015, 11:18 AM
blm (112,086 posts)
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. |
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Mon May 18, 2015, 06:10 PM
kenfrequed (7,865 posts)
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. |
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
Tue May 19, 2015, 10:44 AM
B Calm (28,762 posts)
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!
|