I don't understand why Elizabeth Warren is criticizing Obama now.

[yardwork]

Obama just completed two terms as president. He's not running for office and never will again.

We're trying to save Obama's signature program, which greatly expanded health care to millions of people. The literally insane Republicans who have control of all branches of government are causing immeasurable damage to our environment, economy, and rights.

Why is Warren criticizing Obama now?

[treestar]

1. +1

WTF? Criticize Donald. He has far less idea of the average American life.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. Agree

I can't relate to any of the people in his family or cabal.

[JustAnotherGen]

2. I think because

He doesn't have the 'lived experience' of most Americans . . . I saw it on another thread.



I'm not sure I really understand what that means?

Here statement.

Like - what is the implication? He's out of touch? So was she in 1994 but that hasn't stopped her.

[yardwork]

5. And why bring this up now?

[JustAnotherGen]

10. She wants to run for President?

I dunno - but she's showing why I haven't been onboard and gung ho with Warren.

We really need a Gen X candidate in 2020. This back handed slap shit of these older pols is getting old.

[HoneyBadger]

21. Gillibrand is out

That is huge. She is Hillary. Has the same job, same mentor, same state, same hair color, etc. Perez would support her in a minute, same as Obama's and Clintons.

Again....huge, bigly.

Keith is #2 at the DNC. Bernie's ground game is stronger than ever.

Warren can drop out of 2018 and run on a solid record of winning.

The nomination is Warren's to lose at this point.

In the general, will Dems vote for her over Don? Of course.

So she is speaking to the independents.

Let's see if Harris, Booker, Tulsi, etc take a step back and let her have her day.

[JustAnotherGen]

26. Why should they?

Weren't there accusations about HRC being an anointed one - right here at DU?

Oh no my friend - I want a field of candidates like the Cons had in 2016.


She also has to come out in favor of Phil Murphy when he wins the nomination next month. Any National Democratic that takes jabs at Phil the way they did Buono -

Fuck Them.

[JayhawkSD]

100. "A solid record of winning?"

"Warren can drop out of 2018 and run on a solid record of winning."

Warren has run in one election, which is not even close to a "solid record of winning."

She is Hillary. Has the same job, same mentor, same state, same hair color, etc.

She was a college law professor until five years ago, when she was chosen by Obama to set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Merely to design the rules it would enforce because of her expertise in bankruptcy law; specifically not to be the head of it because of her lack of executive experience.

In five years in the Senate she has produced a vast amount of clever pit bull rhetoric, but has not even co-sponsored one single piece of legislation, let alone introduced one of her own. She has a clever way of wording ad hominem attacks, but she has absolutely zero experience in governance.

Oh, and "same state?" She's a Senator from Massachusetts. Hillary was a Senator from New York.

[HoneyBadger]

102. Gillibrand is from NY

She is the one like Hillary.

Warren has a solid record of winning in politics.

[LanternWaste]

116. You'll of course support your premise with objective and relevant evidence...?

"Warren has a solid record of winning in politics...."


You'll of course support your premise with objective and relevant evidence supporting it directly as such, yes?

[HoneyBadger]

120. She ran, she won

Cannot simplify it further.

[JI7]

135. Obama and Clinton both won in Massachusettes also and Won bigger there than WArren did

[frankieallen]

138. By your definition, trump has a solid record of winning too

[oasis]

132. Tulsi? No way!

[Demsrule86]

69. I won't vote for her...if she does this.

[WhiteTara]

54. Maybe she is auditioning for Bernie's Party?

It does seem strange to me. I read where Van Jones thinks he should have a "Poverty Tour" where I guess he goes around and spends his own money?

Personally, I am happy he is making money. I don't understand where it should be a problem for anyone...especially when she's out hawking a book...and Bernie says of course he's making a profit on his book.

[JCanete]

125. I don't think that's what she said. nt

[WinkyDink]

4. My best guess is that this is her clumsy, ill-considered way to "win over" Trump voters, thinking of

her future plans.

[yardwork]

6. Well, I don't like it.

[Silver Gaia]

7. Neither do I.

[Starry Messenger]

41. I don't like it either.

[ehrnst]

12. Well, isn't that the "goal" of some of the leadership right now?

I mean, if we're going to go full on Republican and start to relegate women's health to a "social issue" why not just relegate Obama to that "out of touch" president....

[delisen]

18. Pelosi and Schumer are trying to appeal to

Trump voters by distancing themselves from Democrats who they think are associated in the minds of Trump voters with "social issues."

It is a sad strategy, partly because is unnecessary. Despite the polls that say over 90% of Trump voters would vote for him again-large numbers are not sticking with him on his current performance.

Warren will criticize Obama but not Pelosi and Schumer on their money connections.

[athena]

22. This was entirely predictable.

When Democrats lose an election, they move right. It happened in 2000, and it is happening again now. Those "progressives" who stayed home or voted third-party should have studied their recent history. The way to move the Democratic Party right is by voting Democratic, and then calling and sending letters to your representatives to make sure they don't forget about your existence. You are not going to teach the Democratic Party a lesson by not voting for them. Unfortunately, it's too late now. And the saddest part is that "progressives" are likely to repeat the same mistake in, oh, twenty years or so. We never learn.

[nikibatts]

32. I really do not see or hear any Democrats saying they want to move further "right."

I hear them say they have to try to bring those Obama voters over to our side and to develop a message that ensures that they understand that we are and always have been FOR working class Americans.

[Me.]

71. Kickig The Ones Who Elected Them In The Teeth

[romana]

68. I suppose

It also shows that many Democrats either don't have a positive message (think they need to criticize Obama and Clinton) or they've cynically calculated that Trump voters aren't interested in anything positive, and just want more piling on of Obama and Clinton.

It's not a good look. I feel less and less welcome in the party every day, and I've been a lifelong Democrat.

[yardwork]

77. I think it's a very bad strategy. Elections are won on hope and positivity, not negativity.

[smirkymonkey]

106. She'll never win over Trump voters.

It's pointless.

[yardwork]

108. Many of them hate women, for one thing. Alienating the Democratic base won't make up for that.

[smirkymonkey]

110. Unfortunately, that's true.

We have to concentrate on winning over the people who stayed home, not Trump voters, and that isn't done with negativity. We need some new blood with a positive hopeful message. I think it's time for the old guard to step aside.

[yardwork]

113. I agree. New people, a new message.

[monmouth4]

8. She is lightly toasted in my book..n/t

[seaglass]

9. Appeal to Bernie supporters for her next election? She's my Senator and I am disappointed in this

and disagree with her.

[athena]

25. It's our fault for refusing to vote for HRC.

When Democrats lose a presidential election, they focus on those who voted for their opponent -- i.e., Republican voters. They don't focus on liberals who didn't vote because they assume those people are a lost cause. The same thing happened in 2000. After GWB "won" the election, the Democrats moved right for six years. To everyone on DU who said they were trying to teach Democrats a lesson by staying home or voting third-party, I said this would happen, but they all knew better.

Note: "Our" refers to progressives in general; I know that most voted for HRC, but too many didn't. Too many thought they were teaching the Democrats a lesson, despite all indications to the contrary from recent history.

[delisen]

11. She is criticizing Obama because he is out of office. She

is aligning herself with the Schumer and Pelosi, who want to present themselves as the "new' Democratic party that wants to appeal to the segment of Trump supporters who they think were turned off by Human Rights issues.

A Trump-lite strategy.

[progressoid]

96. Nope.

She criticized him when he was in office too.

[BumRushDaShow]

13. White privilege

Low-hanging fruit. Easy pickings!

[cadmium]

14. Selling a book

Saying controversial stuff. Gd Senator, but people idolize her and idols are always bound to disappoint. Interesting juxtaposition -- she's selling a book but doesn't wan† President Obama †o make money speaking.

[lunasun]

56. + 1. My thought exactly

[yardwork]

58. Not very presidential, imo

[sharedvalues]

15. Dividing dividing dividing

Focusing on differences and fights weakens Democrats. That's why the GOP is writing op eds doing that.

We should be ignoring this stuff and focusing on our values!

[angstlessk]

17. Yes, it has been blown way out of proportion!

To divide Democrats!

[demmiblue]

37. I don't even know what this is about, and I don't intend to find out.

But rest assured, whatever it is, someone will be complaining about it two years from now!

Into the trash bin... along with all the other du jours (it will keep the Obama speech threads company).

[LexVegas]

16. Appealing to the neglected racist voters. nt

[OKNancy]

19. Promoting her future ambitions

She believes the hype that Bernie supports are a majority in the party.
She believes the hype that Trumpers can be won over.
She is believing her own press.
She is believing what the media says about Hillary even though they have an obvious irrational hatred of her.

[betsuni]

20. +1

[HoneyBadger]

24. She believes the hype that there are more than a few independent votes up for grabs

It rides on Trump keeping promises. He made a lot of promises, it is essentially impossible to keep them all. Then she attacks his record. She is good at attacks.

2020 will be the most negative campaign in history with Trump vs Warren.

[Kahuna7]

27. ....

[nikibatts]

29. It is amazing that you posted this response. I came to the very same conclusions.

I went even further and sent this message to her in broken Tweets

"It doesn’t go unnoticed how you damn Hillary with faint or no praise. Everything you said you believe in as a progressive is exactly what she ran on.

For you to not acknowledge that in your response to the questions you were asked on MSNBC this morning is sad.

Millions of men and women love and respect Hillary and her lifelong work. It appears that both you and Sen. Sanders are among those who continually smugly, but subtly, smear her and continue to divide the Democratic party by continuing to deny Hillary any kind of creditability as a progressive but pragmatic Democrat."

[tallahasseedem]

122. +1

[La Lioness Priyanka]

83. She is out of touch with the base of the party

Who are not young white men on twitter

[mountain grammy]

23. I disagree with some of what she says..

but context is everything.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/01/elizabeth-warren-barack-obama-democrats-economy

[Demit]

34. Thanks for that. You're right, she said so much else in that interview.

The Guardian headline almost qualifies as clickbait. The Guardian is better than most news outlets, but they succumb to the same weakness in covering politics: playing up conflict between personalities rather than policies.

[jberryhill]

36. Yes, that is indeed the point

[yardwork]

38. I read her entire statement, in context, and it is criticism of Obama.

Why bring up Obama at all?

[mountain grammy]

53. On that point, I agree with you.

[yardwork]

57. That's my question.

[mountain grammy]

73. Personally, I don't know why she chose to do that..

She could have made valid points without doing so.. and it made the headline a bit sensational. Et tu Guardian? Still one of my first news sources, but even so.

[Adrahil]

28. Very disappointed in her.

More self-inflicted wounds and friendly fire.

[yardwork]

55. That's exactly what I see.

Warren appears to be putting her personal ambitions and ego over the good of the country. She ignores Trump and the Republicans and criticizes Democrats who have spent their adult lives working on behalf of ordinary people.

[Demit]

72. She did not and does not ignore Trump. She goes on at length about him:

From the Guardian interview:

"Warren has never met Trump but she has clashed with him on social media. She has called him a loser, an authoritarian, a liar, a racist, a sexist and a thin-skinned bully. ...

“I think what Donald Trump did was he said, ‘The system is rigged and I will be out there for working people every single day; that is my first priority,’” she said. “He got elected and did a 180-degree turn, headed in the exactly the opposite direction. He put millionaires and billionaires in charge of his government; he has signed off on one law after another to make it easier for government contractors to steal people’s wages, to make it easier for corporations to hide it when they kill or maim their employees, to make it easier for investment advisers to cheat retirees.”

The prime example, she said, was Trump’s attempt to repeal and replace Obama’s signature healthcare legislation, the Affordable Care Act.

“It was like in a microcosm,” she said. “If you want one emblematic what does he really stand for, who does he really work for? It was take away healthcare coverage for 24 million people, raise costs for a lot of working families. Why? So that he could produce tax cuts for a handful of millionaires and billionaires.”

[yardwork]

76. Her criticism of her own party gets the headlines, though.

[progressoid]

91. This headline? " Run against Trump? Elizabeth Warren will certainly stand and fight"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/01/elizabeth-warren-donald-trump-fight

[Demit]

98. That's the media's doing. Newspapers choose what to headline. C'mon, you know that.

[yardwork]

103. Exactly. A winning strategy takes the media's behavior into account.

I don't think that Democrats should be publicly criticizing one another right now. We need to pull together to defeat the Republicans.

[Demit]

112. I think acting defensively is an exact wrong strategy.

You can't ever control how others will react to you. Trying to anticipate what people will think of you and adjusting your actions to that is a mug's game. It's timid and people sense that. Better to have the courage of your convictions and speak the truth as you see it—and back it up with reasons for thinking the way you do.

Warren had good reasons in that interview for saying what she did. And, as you noted earlier, Obama is not in politics anymore, and can't be hurt by criticism of his policies when he was president. Time moves on and we have to deal with things as they are. The Democratic party is exploring what new policies will be effective in dealing with what we are confronted with now, the way Obama did in his time.

[yardwork]

114. You're completely missing the point. It's not about hurting Obama.

Warren's approach will depress Democratic turnout and give the Republicans ammunition.

Warren's approach hurts US.

[Demit]

119. ? You started this thread around Warren's criticism of Obama.

I didn't miss that point at all.

But I think you missed mine—that the voting public respects a politician who firmly and forthrightly expresses what he or she thinks—in terms that are easy to understand, a gift Elizabeth Warren has had from the get go. She's not mealy-mouthed, she's not thinking Oh my god, I better not say this because the media might distort it! I'll say something else that's so anodyne it won't have any meaning! She's articulate, she knows how to communicate, and she's not afraid of what the Republicans think is ammunition. She fires it right back at them. Remember "Nevertheless, she persisted"?

We disagree, I guess. I'm not as worried as you are about Elizabeth Warren's approach to the issues we face. I certainly don't think it will depress Democratic turnout. But time will tell.

[beachbum bob]

30. I think she is trying to sidetrack her failure to bring voters to hillary in 2016....

she definitely did not convince the left/far left of the democratic base to vote or not support stein...

[Demit]

31. Whatever she thinks she's doing, it's negative and will backfire.

Voters aren't attracted to negative. I'm surprised at her.

[workinclasszero]

33. I agree

I mean WTH, Sen. Warren?

[jberryhill]

35. Someone took three sentences out of an interview and decided they could get clicks

...and so DU decides to make it look like she's on some kind of rampage.

Fact of the matter is that Barack Obama will return her phone calls. Not yours.

[yardwork]

39. That is an exaggeration and misrepresentation of my OP.

Where do I say anything about Warren being on "a rampage?"

I would like to know why she is criticizing Obama at this time. He's not running for office. He is enormously popular as a past president. What is the point?

[jberryhill]

44. "I would like to know why she is criticizing Obama at this time"

Because you have read an excerpt of a few sentences from an interview, and you don't even know what she was asked. The newspaper gets a "juicy quote" in response, runs with it, and DU erupts in agony.

I did not even mention your OP, since obviously your question needed its own thread instead of the several threads on the same few sentences from the interview.

[yardwork]

47. You're telling me what I think and why I posted this OP.

I'm not interested in being bullied.

[jberryhill]

49. I have no idea what you think

Your question was "why did she say that".

My answer was that she was giving an interview. In other words, she said it in response to a question which you, nor I, nor anyone else but the author of the article knows.

[yardwork]

52. Your personal attack on me:

Bold mine:

"Because you have read an excerpt of a few sentences from an interview, and you don't even know what she was asked. The newspaper gets a "juicy quote" in response, runs with it, and DU erupts in agony."

I did not even mention your OP, since obviously your question needed its own thread instead of the several threads on the same few sentences from the interview."

[jberryhill]

60. That is a factual statement, not a personal attack

Okay, so if you do know what she was asked in the interview, then please state what it was.

Are you trying to say that you know what question evoked her response, but that for some reason you are not sharing it?

Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else running around with hair on fire over a few sentences from the interview know the question which evoked the response.

In what way is pointing that out a "personal attack"?

If you do, in fact, know what the question was, then why not tell us?

[ucrdem]

61. It's not a "juicy quote." It's three paragraphs and she starts by naming Obama:

“I think President Obama, like many others in both parties, talk about a set of big national statistics that look shiny and great but increasingly have giant blind spots,” she told the Guardian. “That GDP, unemployment, no longer reflect the lived experiences of most Americans.

“And the lived experiences of most Americans is that they are being left behind in this economy. Worse than being left behind, they’re getting kicked in the teeth.”

The senator went on take a swipe at members of her own party while describing the collapse of old distinctions between left and right. “I think there are real differences between the Republicans and the Democrats here in the United States,” she said. “The Republicans have clearly thrown their lot in with the rich and the powerful, but so have a lot of Democrats.”

[jberryhill]

63. It's three sentences. People don't speak in paragraphs.

I guess the interview lasted all of ten seconds. Either that, or you are only seeing what the author sought to include.

[ucrdem]

64. Actually 6 sentences. And she packed three unwarranted insults into them:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9009207

Very thrifty.

[brush]

78. Why are you defending unnecessary attacks on Dems. She didn't have to go there.

So what if she was asked a question. She's no rookie pol. She should know how to sidestep set-up questions by reporters by now.

If she hasn't learned that it's going to be rough for her on the campaign trail in 2020.

Not smart to alienate Dem voters by attacking other Dems, especially Obama who is out of office and still admired by most Dems.

That was a totally unforced error. And I don't care if it was just 3 paragraphs. She should know the game that editors play by now. They'll cherry pick choice quotes for headlines and click bait so don't give them such low-hanging fruit.

I thought she was smarter than that.

[jberryhill]

82. Lol

Why am I defending a leading Democrat, who is on wonderful terms with Obama, from exaggerated hyperventilating attacks?

Good question.

To be frank, I have no idea why so many threads have erupted to attack a leading office-holding Democrat.

Perhaps you might explain it.

[brush]

88. Laugh it up. Why is she not smarter than that. And why don't you explain why a Dem is attacking Dems

[jberryhill]

92. Why don't I explain what other people say?

Is that actually a question?

I believe the best course in understanding why someone said something is to ask them at the next opportunity to do so. Explaining what other people think is a stupid exercise, as is asking someone other than the speaker to explain why the speaker said what they did.

Yes, here on Democraticunderground, we now have several threads attacking Democrats in office. I have no explanation for that either, but it is an observation I find interesting.

The OP, since it is directed to "Explain why someone said something I don't like" is merely an invitation to speculate about whatever dark, awful motives drive this obviously now-odious person who, until the Guardian published a snippet of conversation, was otherwise an elected Democrat who has no shortage of criticism from the other side.

[brush]

97. Here. Go to this link. It does a great job in explaining the folly of attacking popular Dems

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029009481

[6000eliot]

128. People ALWAYS disingenuosly say this about words taken out of context by the media,

and it does happen all the time, but the fact of the matter is that smart politicians KNOW this is going to happen. Does anyone honestly think that Warren is completely unaware that those particular sentences are the ones the media is going to run with?

[yardwork]

50. It's not about whether or not Obama returns her phone calls.

Your nasty swipe at me stating that Obama won't return my phone calls was uncalled for.

Warren's criticism of popular Democrats serves to divide and demoralize Democratic voters. Why would she do that?

[jberryhill]

65. Obama returns your phone calls?

I apologize for assuming he doesn't. Wow, I had no idea you were so influential.

He doesn't return mine, and I have no idea why it would be a "nasty swipe" for someone to make that truthful statement.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

80. Obama also returns calls from Trump. What does that have to do with anything ?

[jberryhill]

84. Yes, I'm sure his relationship with Trump is exactly the same

But as long as Obama is no longer in office, let's see how much we can tear into actual office-holding Democratic public officials.

Who's next?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

90. You didn't answer my question. How does it matter in this convo whose calls obama returns?

[jberryhill]

93. Oh, that's simple

I'm sure that the OUTRAGE! over this snippet of an interview doesn't trouble Obama in the least.

It is, however, a convenient cudgel to go after a Democratic office holder. Carry on.

I'm not familiar with Massachusetts law. Perhaps someone can look into whether Warren can be recalled, so that Scott Brown can get his seat back.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

104. Is anyone calling for the recall of warren?

[jberryhill]

109. No, did I suggest there was?

Perhaps someone might. That's what I said.

Obviously, she needs to be punished in a manner appropriate to her offense.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

127. Lol. Ok.

[Volstagg]

40. Because he's doing something she doesn't agree with?

Or is that not allowed--disagreeing with Obama?

Personally, I think Obama can do whatever he wants and charge whatever he wants. But I'm not overly happy that he is giving the impression he is cozying up to Wall Street. They're a bunch of fuckers.

[yardwork]

43. That's not the criticism in referencing, though.

She said that he's out of touch with average voters. Why bother to say that now? He's not running.

[Volstagg]

46. He's still a big face of the Dem party.

Perhaps she's indicating that she things the Dems need to distance from this type of thing if we want to win in 2018/2020? I would tend to agree with her.

[yardwork]

59. Hmmm..... I don't like it.

[Demit]

95. She did not say that Obama is out of touch with average voters.

Read it again:

She said, “I think President Obama, like many others in both parties, talk about a set of big national statistics that look shiny and great but increasingly have giant blind spots,” she told the Guardian. “That GDP, unemployment, no longer reflect the lived experiences of most Americans."

Warren said that it was the Gross Domestic Product statistic, and the unemployment statistic, that don't reflect what Americans are experiencing.

Sure, Obama touted those statistics because that's what politicians do, put a positive spin on things. But wages have been flat for years, and the new jobs that were created were mostly low-wage service jobs, and people who used to have good jobs have lost them and when they can find another job it doesn't pay as well. THAT'S what Americans have been experiencing. And there's no denying it.

[86derps]

42. It's not hard people!!

She basically said this,

Elizabeth Warren, one of the most prominent Democrats in the Senate, has broken ranks to criticize Barack Obama for misreading the economy and a swath of Democrats for selling out to wealthy elites

.

She is entirely correct. Establishment democrats who accept money from wealthy elites are not truly progressives, because they are beholden to them and not the citizenry. This why "the people" never get what they want and wealthy elites and corporations get what they want.

Please open your mind and your defenses and understand this my moderate democratic friends.

[yardwork]

45. I'm not a moderate.

[ucrdem]

51. She names Obama and takes 3 unwarranted swipes in 50 words:

“I think President Obama, like many others in both parties, talk about a set of big national statistics that look shiny and great but increasingly have giant blind spots,” she told the Guardian. “That GDP, unemployment, no longer reflect the lived experiences of most Americans.

“And the lived experiences of most Americans is that they are being left behind in this economy. Worse than being left behind, they’re getting kicked in the teeth.”

The senator went on take a swipe at members of her own party while describing the collapse of old distinctions between left and right. “I think there are real differences between the Republicans and the Democrats here in the United States,” she said. “The Republicans have clearly thrown their lot in with the rich and the powerful, but so have a lot of Democrats.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/01/elizabeth-warren-barack-obama-democrats-economy

1. Obama is "like many others in both parties." That is unwarranted.

2. Obama has "giant blind spots" about "lived experiences of most Americans." Ditto.

3. "a lot of Democrats" have "thrown their lot in with the rich and the powerful." Ditto, since she's only named one Democrat, namely Barack Obama.

[world wide wally]

48. She has just lost the next primary, in case she was interested.

[brush]

85. She probably lost some votes with those unneccessary swipes at Dems. Not smart at all

Those words will come back to haunt her if she runs in 2020.

And the thing is, she's no rookie pol and should know not to give reporters and editors negative click bait, headlines like that.

[alarimer]

62. Under the bus with her!

It's getting crowded under there.

[yardwork]

74. Warren is the one criticizing President Obama. I'm asking why.

[alarimer]

140. It's ridiculous that no one is supposed to criticize Obama ever.

THAT is the ridiculous thing. He is not a saint. He did things, that if done under some other administration, would make us all mad. Being way too friendly to Wall Street, for one. Some of those guys belonged in prison.

But this idea that Obama is above criticism just because we liked him or because we voted for him is silly. It is nothing but putting people on pedestals they do not deserve. We need to be much more objective and rational than that.

[yardwork]

146. And you're totally missing my point. Obama doesn't care what Warren says about him.

The entire point is that this kind of internal fighting gives Republicans ammunition to use against Democrats in elections. We need to be encouraging people to support Democrats, not handing Republicans attack lines against us.

[TalenaGor]

66. positioning for 2020?

[Lee-Lee]

67. You have to get yourself in headlines when your book comes out

[MineralMan]

70. Criticizing Barack Obama is not how to win a presidential election.

It's a very poor idea if you're thinking about running as a Democrat. I can't imagine how anyone would think otherwise, frankly.

If that sort of thing continues to be said by Warren, she will not be anything like a viable candidate in 2020. Poor choices make a poor candidate.

[George II]

75. It certainly is disappointing, particularly in light of her financial background and how she....

...accumulated her wealth (and her original party affiliation).

[La Lioness Priyanka]

79. As opposed to when she implied he was untrustworthy regarding TPP?

im not being snarky but she is out of touch with how people of color feel about obama.

[JI7]

134. yup, and Obama was right about TPP

it would have had some power over china.

now China has more power and Trump is doing business deals with them .

and people complain about obama, hillary , other dems instead of this administration .

[La Lioness Priyanka]

141. of course he was right and i was sorry to see HRC cave in to the populist nonsense

[Orsino]

81. What quote has concerned you? n/t

[oberliner]

86. She is promoting a book

And is doing interviews.

98 percent of the content of these interviews have nothing to do with Obama.

But, of course, the media likes to focus on one very small remark that was mildly critical.

[MojoWrkn]

87. Agree!

[progressoid]

89. Why are you singling out Obama?

She said, "...Obama, like many others in both parties, talk about a set of big national statistics that look shiny and great but increasingly have giant blind spots,” she told the Guardian. “That GDP, unemployment, no longer reflect the lived experiences of most Americans.

“And the lived experiences of most Americans is that they are being left behind in this economy. Worse than being left behind, they’re getting kicked in the teeth.”

She's criticizing "many in both parties". This is nothing new. She has never shied away from pointing out problems even if it means implicating members of our own party.

Regardless, have you forgotten the last 8 years on DU? She simply said what that a lot of us have been saying all along.

[yardwork]

105. Warren singled out Obama.

[progressoid]

111. No, she used him as an example of "many in both parties"

Turns out he's the most prominent member of the party. Should she have picked my local school board member instead?

[yardwork]

115. No Democrat should be attacking ANY prominent Democrat right now.

[progressoid]

117. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by

[yardwork]

123. Obama is no longer the president. This is stupid.

[progressoid]

126. So, what are you saying?

Since he's no longer president, we can criticize him or we can't criticize him?

[yardwork]

129. I'm saying that it is not at all strategic for Democrats to criticize him now.

He's a popular past president who will never run for election again. We need to leverage his popularity to motivate voters.

Do Republicans criticize Reagan? No they do not, because they know that it's far more strategic to praise him. It encourages positive feelings among their voters.

[progressoid]

131. So at some point it will be strategic to criticize him?

Well, let us know when it is acceptable to do so.

[zipplewrath]

144. Around here, never

Don't expect that time to ever come. You're still not suppose to criticize Clinton. BILL Clinton.

[heaven05]

94. I don't understand either

maybe it's to distance herself from the Obama years enough in a vain hope that some of the racist despicable deplorables will come over to the Democratic Party. Hey Elizabeth, ain't going to happen.

Yeah Obama had shortcomings, yet none of these 'critics' are saying anything about the unprecedented obstructionism faced by the first great AA POTUS and him making possible the fact that 20 million people without health care had a chance to get it and took that chance. He will always be my President and First Family.

To give ammunition to the low life nazis and rabid racists now running ameriKKKa, is to me, unconscionable. Period.

[brush]

101. Yes. Totally not smart. Don't give them low-hanging fruit to use against you in 2020.

[yardwork]

107. This is what I'm seeing, and it's not just Warren. Bad strategy on the part of some Democrats.

[86derps]

118. Democrats are becoming Derps too

Establishment democrats are becoming derps, like Republicans, because they can't admit truth. All of the democrats who can't admit that Warren and Sanders are correct when saying that democrats who take wealthy elite and corporate dollars are beholden to them. You would say that about republicans right? You would admit that republicans don't care about the well being of our citizens unless it's to protect their rights to extract maximum dollar from our capitalist system, correct?

When democrats seek and take campaign contributions and kick backs they fall into the same "beholden" trap. Trump to moderate votes from Hillary, because he said he was not beholden to donors (total lie of course) while Hillary said she took the money but was not beholden to them. A large portion of the American electorate knows that this can't be true. We see it everyday in politics, which is why so many people hate politics.

Questioning democrats who fall into this establishment trap is DEMOCRATIC !!! Returning criticism back to progressives who support Warren and Sanders is actually derpish.

Please tell me why this is not correct.

[loyalsister]

121. She's right

I was really irritated to hear about the great economic indicators when there was 20% poverty in my area. Low unemployment numbers didn't sound the way they thought to people working more than one job.
During the campaign, there were some throw away lines about "people who didn't feel the recovery." When people who saw it as getting burned with no bankruptcy or welfare for back up to help them get a fresh start really felt ignored.

It was not unreasonable for them to feel left behind and unrepresented. If some people responded to anger and we're reeled in by the idea of voting for something new and different, I'm not going to judge. I hope that the will begin to pay attention to the voters who stayed home or voted down ballot but not for president.

Pointing it out is not some kind of betrayal. Party introspection should be encouraged.

[mvd]

130. That is what I always have liked about her

Her ability to speak her mind no matter who she is talking about. I thought she was missing some of that during the primaries and when she was campaigning for Hillary. She seemed forced into a box and was uncomfortable. I agree with her that Obama sometimes didn't realize the recovery was more than about numbers. I will be getting her book. I certainly miss President Obama now, but I don't forget that I had some real differences with him.

[loyalsister]

133. Unconditional loyalty is for the GOP

Willingness to accept criticism is something I always hope to see in elected public officials.

[yardwork]

137. Obama is no longer an elected official. It's stupid to do this.

The Republicans are dismantling our country and we're engaged in a circular firing squad, which does nothing but help the Republicans.

[loyalsister]

145. Seriously?

The GOP also has no standing to criticize this when their president is doing worse. This may have been deliberate to provoke this very criticism. The hope being that Democrats have the good sense to be consistent.

[zipplewrath]

142. Not around here

Introspection is not appreciated around here. There are practically rules against it unless one is very careful, or very tricky.

[loyalsister]

143. Sadly that's true

I'm not going to give up on it, because I think it's healthy.

[bettyellen]

124. She is seriously out of touch.

[Cha]

136. I'm thinking she wants to sell her damn books..

or she's trying to carve out a niche for 2020 that doesn't include the Obama coalition.

She's ignorantly attacking him.. it has to be willful.. she had a front row seat to all the unprecedented Obstruction in Congress.

[frankieallen]

139. How fast the DU hero's fall, there was a time EW could do no wrong.