Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Segami

(14,923 posts)

5. "..Between now and Election Day 2016, one should reasonably expect..

Reply to Segami (Original post)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 02:36 PM

Dec 2013

...that Hillary Clinton's campaign against Elizabeth Warren will be so well-funded, that Warren won't be able to get past the primaries without all the mud that Wall Street can throw against her being thrown, and we should therefore expect that, if Senator Warren runs, then the campaign that Wall Street financed in 2012 for the then-incumbent Massachusetts U.S. Senator Scott Brown, whom she was running against, will be amplified to a deafening roar, even in the Democratic primaries, before there is any contest at all against the ultimate Republican U.S. Presidential nominee in 2016...."

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

30 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Who Is Financing the SMEARS AGAINST Elizabeth Warren? [View all] Segami Dec 2013 OP

Get a list of the USA's wealthiest corps intaglio Dec 2013 #1

Didn't a number of RW hacks 2naSalit Dec 2013 #2

The real question is, who isn't? reformist2 Dec 2013 #3

Where were Cowan-Kessler for the last year? cheyanne Dec 2013 #4

"..Between now and Election Day 2016, one should reasonably expect.. Segami Dec 2013 #5

That's nonsense for one reason, Elizabeth Warren is not going to run for president. Beacool Dec 2013 #9

K&R Who is funding ALL the corporate propaganda, woo me with science Dec 2013 #6

That pic tells all... Whisp Dec 2013 #7

I think we know now. Apparently when Big Corps want to go after someone they consider sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #8

Well, it won't really matter since Warren is not going to run Beacool Dec 2013 #10

Smearing Warren is, IMO, an attempt to shut down Progressive ideas. djean111 Dec 2013 #27

The WSJ is not third way, it's a conservative paper outright. Beacool Dec 2013 #28

I will be more specific - two people from the Third Way had an op-ed published in the WSJ, djean111 Dec 2013 #29

Righteous DURec for wider exposure! bvar22 Dec 2013 #11

Oh, the Wall Street Whores love their Champagne... Segami Dec 2013 #12

55 Wall St. is a cavernous space that is used for parties. Beacool Dec 2013 #13

What's your point? dreamnightwind Dec 2013 #15

That "party" was a group of Wall Street Thieves SomethingFishy Dec 2013 #22

If that's the case, then they deserve the opprobrium that went their way. Beacool Dec 2013 #23

Third Way is like DLC in hiding NuttyFluffers Dec 2013 #14

Huge K & R dreamnightwind Dec 2013 #16

Its starting early, isnt it? 7962 Dec 2013 #17

"....As sourcewatch also notes , the major funders of Third Way include.... Segami Dec 2013 #18

In other words, they are the enemy. Enthusiast Dec 2013 #20

According to dailykos, the Waltons also fund the Third Way Foundation antigop Dec 2013 #21

Fuck Third Way Republicans posing as Democrats. Enthusiast Dec 2013 #19

This chart gives more than a little insight into who's funding the Third Way ... Scuba Dec 2013 #24

Makes one ask who's interest is really being served? Segami Dec 2013 #25

The Koch brothers of course SummerSnow Dec 2013 #26

which company was throwing that party? justine93 Apr 2014 #30