Is Elizabeth Warren a progressive?

[JoePhilly]

12. I don't think its productive to have purity or litmus tests.

But that doesn't answer your question. So ...

I get the sense that Warren passes most of the litmus tests that DU currently has available. I say that even though I don't think she's had to make many tough votes yet. Congress is such a mess that for most Democrats, knowing how to vote is pretty straight forward right now.

But lacking anything else, yea, I'd conclude she's a progressive. So far, I like the things she's saying.

But like I said, litmus tests aren't all that productive.

It won't bother me too much if she takes campaign money from special interests, or if at some point she waffles or even votes against something I'm for. I'm going to be watching the bigger picture with Warren.

On the issues, I'm not a one issue voter, not even close. And so I generally don't pick candidates on one issue. I tend to compare candidates on a wide array of dimensions derived first from their policy positions, their character, whether I think they have the personal strength to actually do the job, and whether or not I think they can move the broad array of issues forward. If you look at that list, Carter was strong on the first two, weaker on the other two. And sadly, that probably cost him in both accomplishments, and a second term.

Here on DU, attacking Hillary is now common place, and I commend you on not selecting that path. I think that some on DU think that trashing Hillary is a good way to help Warren ... its not. The best way to help Warren, is to help make sure that people who would support Hillary, start to consider Warren. Among other things, Hillary is strong on those last two elements. She's proved she could do the job. And for many Democrats, that's important. Hillary's positions on the issues were very close to those of Obama, and outside DU, Democrats are not abandoning Obama. Hillary can say there is so much more to do, and because she's a known quantity, its easy for her to tweak her positions going forward.

Side not on Hillary. Many women in business have proved that they could do the job, only to be passed over for some one else, usually a man. And most woman know other women to which this has happened. I've had plenty of women tell me "Hillary is NOT going to be passed over THIS time." Would those woman be ok swapping Warren for Clinton? I'm not sure. But I don't think this is an insignificant question.

Warren has a taller hill to climb. She has to prove herself on the issues and on the "CIC" aspect. Sure, some on DU will scream that she has nothing to prove to them, but they are the choir. Most of America can't name their own Senators. Name recognition isn't just name recognition, its an awareness of who you are. Hillary is known. And people generally think that Hillary has what it takes to be President ... they might not WANT her to be President, but no one will be arguing that Hillary lacks the experience, or the ability to do the job. Warren will have to prove that she also "has what it takes". And then, that she deserves it more than Hillary.

Finally, I think we can walk (2014) and chew gum (2016) at the same time. The folks who have been complaining about Obama for the last 5 years should have started to think about 2016 long before now. So it is good to see them begin to move in a direction that actually has a positive impact. Endless gripping doesn't help.

Finding "better" candidates and promoting them in a positive way, helping them become known quantities, that helps. And its never too early to do that.