Elizbaeth Warren - Signs Letter Urging Hillary Clinton To Run in 2016

[Agschmid]

[center][/center]

All female Democratic senators signed a letter to Hillary Clinton encouraging her to run for president in 2016.

Sen. Kay Hagan mentioned the letter on Monday at an Emily's List event, which was an accident according to ABC News.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) organized the 16 senators to sign the private letter, Democratic aides told ABC News.

Boxer did not comment to ABC about the letter, but reiterated her support for Clinton.

"I have repeatedly said -- publicly, privately and in writing -- that Hillary Clinton should run for president in 2016," Boxer said in a statement to ABC news. "I can only speak for myself. I'll leave it to my colleagues to describe their views."

Boxer's support for Clinton comes as less of a surprise than the support of senators like Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), whose names have been discussed as possible candidates in 2016 as well.

The senators reportedly sent the letter to Clinton in February.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/democratic-female-senators-sign-letter-encouraging-hillary-clinton-to-run

[mcar]

1. Does this mean that Senator Warren is corrupt?

A warmonger? Corporatist, turd-wayer? Victim of Stockholm Syndrome?

I'm having a hard time keeping up.

[artislife]

5. Yes you seem to

I always thought this letter was something else.

One, no one had to ask Hillary to run. She was going to and the fact that she acted coy about it was silly, at best.

Two, it was a sisterhood thing and kind of a promise that they wouldn't mount their own campaigns.

Three, it was for girls to know that women can encourage each other.



I liked 3, I was sad Liz wouldn't run.

Equally sad at 1.

[marym625]

63. +1

[Agschmid]

7. Not to me.

But it certainly shows some folks are trying to have it both ways.

[Krytan11c]

12. Did I miss something?

Did Sen. Warren endorse Mrs. Clinton and I missed it? I would have thought something like that would make the news.

[Agschmid]

14. No she absolutely did not endorse her.

[Krytan11c]

23. So why bring this up?

This might be relevant again if Sen. Warren had endorsed Mrs. Clinton. Then an article like this one would show consistent support. However, an endorsement hasn't happened so I am failing to see the point of this OP. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

[Agschmid]

24. Because it was brought up in another thread.

I thought it was worth an OP.

That's how it works here.

[treestar]

91. But she encouraged Hillary to run

Why would she encourage a Third Way Corrupt Corporatist to run?

[BlueCaliDem]

101. EXACTLTY! eom

[Agschmid]

104. She wouldn't.

[Hortensis]

40. She will endorse our choice after the primary.

[Agschmid]

43. I agree I doubt she will endorse before.

Then again some argue endorsements don't matter, I think hers would.

[Hortensis]

45. I agree, hers definitely will.

[Mojorabbit]

77. +1000 nt

[treestar]

89. I do believe this makes her part of the oligarchy

[BlueCaliDem]

102. Hah!

[Krytan11c]

2. This article is 2 years old n/t

n/t

[Agschmid]

8. Yes and?

[99Forever]

66. And?

And...

That was THEN, this is NOW.

I understand that such a difficult concept is beyond the ability of some people to grasp.

[Agschmid]

67. Really?

That's what your going to run with.

[99Forever]

68. Really. Since apparently you can't figure it out for yourself.

So, being the helpful sort of Berniebro I am, I gave you a hand.

No need to thank me, I always try to help the under-informed.

[Agschmid]

73. I hate that it always gets personal on here.

Thanks for your help this under informed voter really appreciated the assist.

[uponit7771]

9. Irrelevant, Warren stands behind her letter today

[Krytan11c]

13. And yet...

And yet she still hasn't endorsed anyone for the nomination.

[uponit7771]

15. red herring, no one is talking about endorsements, she urged Hillary to run cause at least

... Warren thought Clinton had the character that Sanders supports and the right says she doesn't

[Hortensis]

42. Yes, we are noting that Warren urged Hillary to run. Simple truth.

[riversedge]

70. Thanks for the reminder. And thanks to Sen. Warren

[Agschmid]

110. Yes she does.

[RiverLover]

39. And Warren explained the (ir)relevance of that letter a year & a half ago...

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

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

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

WARREN: If Hillary -- Hillary is terrific.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, you've said she is terrific very many times. You say that again in this book, "A Fighting Chance." But this book leaves out something of a pointed criticism from your earlier book, "The Two Income Trap."

There you praised first lady Hillary Clinton for her opposition to this bankruptcy bill pushed by the big banks, but go on to talk about how she, as New York senator, seemed she could not afford that principled position.

Senator Clinton received 140,000 in campaign contributions from banking industry executives in a single year. Big banks were now part of Senator Clinton's constituency. She wanted their support, and they wanted hers, including a vote in favor of that awful bill.

So do you think that -- are you worried that somehow she will bow to big business, those were your words in that book, if she becomes president?

WARREN: Look, I've made it clear all the way through this book and really what I've been working on for the last 25 years, that I'm worried a lot about power in the financial services industry.

↓ Story continues below ↓

And I'm worried about the fact that basically starting in the '80s, you know, the cops were taken off the beat in financial services, these guys were allowed to just paint a bull's eye on the backsides of American families.

They loaded up on risk. They crashed the economy. They got bailed out. And what bothers me now is they still strut around Washington. They block regulations that they don't want. They roll over agencies whenever they can. And they break...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Did they rollover Hillary Clinton?

WARREN: Well, that's -- they break the law, and still don't end up being held accountable for it, and going to jail. ...

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/abcs-stephanopoulos-makes-elizabeth-warren

[marym625]

64. +100

Great minds and all. I posted the interview too. But from abc.

[RiverLover]

109. marym!

great minds

[MADem]

80. People have no problem bringing up old articles for discussion here.

This one is as valid as any other.

[Agschmid]

105. Yes it's was odd to see that this was a moot point because it's two years old.

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. This story is not new. It was posted back when Warren was being

Pressured to run.

[Agschmid]

10. Nope it's not new.

Does that mean we shouldn't talk about it?

[Agnosticsherbet]

21. That was my way of asking how people can forget.

I have the memory of a Swiss Cheese.
If my keys were not attached to me I would lose them in the ignition.
This played prominently in the conflict between the draft Warren crowd and The Clinton supporters.

Talk about it? Yes!

I am still surprised.

[Scootaloo]

33. Are you talking about it?

What exactly about it, would you like to discuss?

[Agschmid]

44. My point is her words and actions matter, all of them.

We can't have it both ways.

[marym625]

4. Wow, she must not be paying attention.

Who would have thought Senator Warren didn't know Hillary Clinton is running?

Oh. I see. The article is two years old.

[Agschmid]

11. So because it's old it doesn't matter?

I guess we should move on from a bunch of stuff then huh?

[marym625]

16. Didn't say it didn't matter

It's a strange thing to post at this time, imho. Of she endorsed Clinton, that would be news. But so far at least, she hasn't.

[Agschmid]

17. It's relevant to another thread in GDP.

No endorsement, and I don't see one coming anytime soon.

But her words and actions matter, all of them.

[marym625]

29. haven't seen whatever you're talking about

Yes, words do matter. Words like,

Words like

The above is from the same source as your post, btw. Just an FYI

And so many other words matter.

[Agschmid]

30. Words do matter.

Hey those are pretty old too should we discount those too?

[mcar]

31. ..

[marym625]

36. Of course not

There's no comparison. You posted a story about women sending an undisclosed letter encouraging Hillary Clinton to run. The letter is nearly 3 years old. The story is 2 years old. Your subject title has Elizabeth Warren in while she isn't quoted in the story at all. This is not news. It is not significant in anyway more than sisterhood, and that's an important thing. But that's all it is.

Should we discount the words I posted?

I'm sorry but I find your post, considering the timing, to be nothing more than trying to manipulate people into believing Warren endorsed Clinton. And she most certainly did not.

[Agschmid]

41. I clearly stated several time that she hasn't endorsed her...

If that's manipulating people successfully I guess I am really good at it.

[thesquanderer]

71. Then maybe it should have been posted as a reply in the thread where it was relevant?

The reason you're getting heat here is summed up by your line, "It's relevant to another thread in GDP." Then posting it there would certainly have been sensible. But by making it its own post, you're reaching two audiences: people who are reading that other thread (who would have seen and gotten your message if you posted there), and people who aren't reading that other thread... and to these people, without the context of the earlier thread, there's no obvious reason to post this old news, so it comes across like you're trying to imply something more. People are generally trying to say something when they create an OP. What do you think your OP says, if read out of context of the other thread that they don't know you're responding to? I'd say it looks like, "Don't forget, Elizabeth supports Hillary!" But in fact, we have no reason to believe she actually prefers Hillary to some other candidate (or vice versa). Heck, when she that original letter was written, there wasn't a single announced candidate!

[Agschmid]

72. I did post it in that thread.

And then I decided it should be an OP as well.

Heck I even posted it twice.

[TM99]

25. Why yes, of course.

Because a meaningless letter of support for Clinton running (like she wasn't already going to do so anyway!) is totally the same as Clinton's pimping of the Bush's Iraq War, her server issues, and her horrendous non-support of LGBT rights.

[Agschmid]

26. Are Warrens words meaningless now?

I can't keep it straight?

[marym625]

37. that's a ridiculous thing to say in reply

Why not post Elizabeth's words of you're going to use her, and not someone else's?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/04/elizabeth-warren-hopes-hillary-clinton-makes-2016-run-but-declines-to-endorse-her/

[Agschmid]

46. I am just making the point that we can't have it both ways here.

[marym625]

52. again, I don't know what you are talking about.

But whatever it is, this falls short.

[Agschmid]

53. IMO I've successfully made my point.

[marym625]

54. not to me

Especially since you used Elizabeth Warren's name but not her words

[Agschmid]

57. She signed the letter that reflects her words.

To say otherwise makes no sense.

[marym625]

59. except the letter is not there

So, no, doesn't cut it

[Agschmid]

60. What do you mean "it's not there"?

[marym625]

61. I mean there is no link to the letter

I've clicked through and read 3 deep and I don't see the actual letter.

And again, you posted an article, using Elizabeth Warren's name, but the article does not have a single quote from Elizabeth Warren. It's click bait.

Had you used that title with something that actually used Warren's words, like I posted in this thread, maybe then. But it's still an attempt to make it seem as though Warren endorsed Clinton. And you know exactly what you did.

Your sudden revelation that you're supporting Clinton is a sham as well. If you're truly surprised, you're the only one.

For the last time, especially since you haven't shown me what the hell this is in retaliation to, you've only made the point that you're posting old news, using an insincere subject line.

We're obviously getting nowhere so let's move on. I hope you have a great day.

[Agschmid]

62. Yes let's move on.

[MADem]

85. The letter has never been released. Warren has said she signed it, though--

a number of times already. I don't think she's lying about that.

This is a pretty lousy thing to say to someone, IMO:

Your sudden revelation that you're supporting Clinton is a sham as well. If you're truly surprised, you're the only one.

What, everyone has to be "certain" and no one is allowed to spend time weighing options?

Good grief, there'd be no "undecided" voters if everyone thought like you did.

[marym625]

93. absolutely no one, including me,

Neither said, nor implied, that it was a lie that she signed the elusive letter. At least nowhere I've seen and not in this thread. Since I posted a link to an interview with her stating she signed the letter, your saying that to me is a pretty lousy thing to say.

Agschmid has been posting pro Hillary stuff for months. To a much greater degree than anything else. Your comment about undecided voters and what I said to a particular person, is ridiculous.

I won't comment on what I think about much of what you say to people here.

Have a great day, Mad.

[Agschmid]

94. Correction...

I post stuff in support of our candidates, all of them. I'm not a negative poster when it comes to people who will need to win an election.

Again as I've said again and again, I will do everything I need to in order to get the democratic nominee elected. Whoever that nominee is, why whether it is Sanders, Biden, or Clinton.

I am for the advancement of the ideals and policies I believe in.

[marym625]

95. I have no doubt

That you will fully support the nominee in the GE. Never said it thought otherwise

[MADem]

82. I think you have--the fact that you're getting so much pushback and

whining pretty much proves the point!

[Agschmid]

83. Yup.

Couldn't agree more.

[MADem]

87. It's truly unfortunate

that you would get accusations of "sham" because you took your sweet time making up your mind. You know, like you have a RIGHT to do...!!!

smh.

I guess we're all for genuine democracy and all that "one person, one vote" stuff only if and when you're on the "right" team.

[Agschmid]

90. Luckily I'm a big boy and I can handle it.

See you around DU.

[marym625]

96. please explain

How my calling out something that has been obvious for months, Agschmid's support for Clinton, has anything at all to do with, "I guess we're all for genuine democracy and all that "one person, one vote" stuff only if and when you're on the "right" team." Or how it has anything to do with anyone being undecided.

[MADem]

97. Just because a DUer can see good in both candidates, and hasn't made up his mind, it's pretty

rotten business to accuse them of perpetuating a "sham" because they aren't bang - out screeching an endorsement for one or the other to suit a schedule you've constructed.

Nothing has been "obvious for months" except perhaps in your head.

[marym625]

99. you didn't answer my questions.

And again, you're putting words in my mouth. Never said that. Not at all surprising

Not just in my head. And the posts and replies made it obvious. To many.

[MADem]

100. Unnnnh.....you did not ASK any questions. You pretty much told it like you thought it was,

and then got annoyed with me when I suggested that maybe you have perception issues.

You were the one who so proudly used that "sham" word. What, were you talking about a cleaning cloth? A decorative pillowcase?

[marym625]

107. you're a riot.

There you go again, making stuff up.

"Please explain" was obviously questioning. But, whatever.

You're just not worth my time.

[MADem]

108. Anyone can read what you said, in its full context and glory.

Star Member marym625 (16,139 posts)
96. please explain

How my calling out something that has been obvious for months, Agschmid's support for Clinton, has anything at all to do with, "I guess we're all for genuine democracy and all that "one person, one vote" stuff only if and when you're on the "right" team." Or how it has anything to do with anyone being undecided.

You truly believe that what you imagined (has been obvious for MONTHS, no less) is apparent to everyone. It's not.

I remember when that poster had Bernie sig pics all over his posts. He wasn't sufficiently fervent, though, apparently, and that earned him some wrath. Then he professed that he was undecided, and he started getting some noise. The second he decides "for" Clinton, the next thing you know, he's under the Greyhound Bus.

In a democracy, people don't have to march in lockstep. There's more than one candidate on POTUS ballots in USA. People are "allowed" to support whosoever they choose, and they are "allowed" to be undecided, or even change their mind about the candidate they favor. You shouldn't be accusatory OR defensive about this sort of thing. It's what happens in democracies.

Keep up the great job, though--you're a superb recruiter for Hillary!

[Agschmid]

106. You are trying to callout something that wasn't so.

[JTFrog]

49. "And I hope she does." "Hillary is terrific."

[TM99]

69. Sorry I don't worship Warren.

Meaningless or meaningful they still don't compare to the words spoken against LGBT people or words spoken in support of Bush's hard-on for death.

[MADem]

98. ..............

[uponit7771]

6. +1, Somehow to Sanders supporters Warrens words mean less than the NRA's when the

... NRA gave Sanders a D+ it's because of his votes when Warren supports Clinton it's because of politics

go figure

[BlueCaliDem]

103. And candidate that has above an "F" by the NRA is not a candidate I will support.

Period. Having an "F" rating from the NRA is an honorable rating.

[MuseRider]

18. I don't understand why this is being brought up again.

So what? I too am glad there is a woman running. Very glad, extremely glad. I don't support her because of many things but I certainly, absolutely support there being a woman running.

I did not see an endorsement here from EW. Has she recently endorsed her? It is OK if she does, it would make no sense to me but still she will do what she thinks is best. Won't change many minds I don't think about Hillary but it might change minds about EW. Still, who cares about this letter?

It is great that the women were encouraging the one woman interested in running. I would have signed it too but still supported Bernie. I would like to sign half a dozen of those kinds of letters.

[Agschmid]

19. No endorsement.

[MuseRider]

22. Thanks, I had not read

up thread. Sorry.

[appalachiablue]

20. On one of the Sunday political shows this am Warren came up as a possible VP for BIDEN

thought by some to finally enter the race this week. Neither is a development I welcome. Biden's involvement with prison legislation and the bankruptcy bill in the 90s before he was VP was brought up, and whether he draws voters from Hillary or Bernie.

[Agschmid]

50. That was an interesting segment, I was watching both ABC and NBC.

He will dramatically charge the race if he enters.

[whatchamacallit]

27. She also did this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=693545

[Agschmid]

28. Yup, she did.

It's an interesting video to watch, frustrating for sure.

[DhhD]

32. Your OP has taught me to start using Sanders and Warren instead of just Sanders when I

write and/or write in support Sanders' policies in the GD. In thinking about the Primaries, I cannot think of a single thing that binds the policies of Warren with Clinton since Clinton announced her candidacy for presidency. Clinton has tried to me back toward Warren's policies but Glass-Steagal has put an impasse between them, IMO. To me they are not even in the same Democratic Party level with Clinton being a 1% Populist and Warren a Progressive Reformer.

[Skwmom]

34. Letter sent Feb 2013. With what has come out since then would Warren still sign the letter? n/t

[Agschmid]

47. You could ask.

[book_worm]

35. Encouraging somebody to run for president isn't the same as endorsing that person

She may yet endorse Hillary but she hasn't as yet.

[Agschmid]

48. Yes it's not the same thing, and I'm certainly not saying or implying that it is.

[Thinkingabout]

38. K & R It was posted Warren did not sign a letter, proof here is she did. It must have been

important in the past week denying Warren had signed a letter but within a week it is not important. Got it, if something happened two years ago, it is not worth talking about, then we can move on from here.

Good Post Agschmid

[oasis]

51. I agree with Warren 1000 percent.

[frylock]

55. And Hillary is running, showing how influential Sen Warren can be.

[Android3.14]

56. Old news. Means zilch. Thanks for nothing

Nothing.

Moving on with Bernie.

[Agschmid]

58. Old news clearly matters...

But only sometimes.

[jfern]

81. This isn't that sometimes

This is a nothing from a while ago

[Agschmid]

84. Warren signed the letter.

She is very careful with her words and actions she clearly on some level supports (note I did NOT say endorses) a Clinton candidacy.

If she didn't why would she have signed the letter?

[jfern]

86. Two things here

One is that every female Democratic senator signed, so there was probably some pressure there.
The other is that this was 2 years ago when Hillary was riding high in the polls. In addition to being 60+% in the primary, she was looking inevitable in the general election with the October 2013 PPP poll having her up 48-39 over Jeb, for example.

Also to note, she's not the only person who signed that letter who hasn't endorsed Hillary. I know Cantwell hasn't, and there could be others.

[Agschmid]

88. So Warren caved to political pressure?

That's the takeaway here?

That's not good for her.

[jfern]

92. It's just signing a letter

And every politician takes into account political pressure.

[lunamagica]

65. "Hillary is terrific"~ Elizabeth Warren

Great opinion, from someone who knows her

[Autumn]

74. BEFORE Bernie announced. So that isn't exactly an endorsement.

[Agschmid]

78. I didn't say it was.

[George II]

75. Good OP, thanks for the reminder (and none of the signatories have recanted, by the way).

Sad that many have to editorialize on the point of fact that the letter was indeed written.

Thanks again.

[jfern]

76. Talk about beating a dead horse. She hasn't endorsed.

[Agschmid]

79. I'd didn't say that she did.

Do you think she signed it only for political reason?