General Discussion

WowSeriously

(343 posts)

316. It looks like underground means exactly what I thought it meant.

Sat Dec 28, 2013, 02:10 AM

Dec 2013

The Democratic Party was out of power, and its policies would be ignored through traditional means, and there was a need to go "underground" to move the country forward, as it were. Thank you for confirming that.

I've reviewed our email exchanges, no doubt I was the more civil. Small victory for me.

Max Baucus is extremely important. The Democratic Party is larger than the "M" Massachusetts state. When it is argued that more Democrats need to be elected, it means more Democrats than can possibly be elected an a single "M" Maryland state. Democrats like Max Baucus denied Single Payer advocates a seat at the table. Having that Democrat was a net loss.

There are dozens of examples of Baucus like Democrats. You knew that. As for Kucinich, the fact that you mock him with the tiresome laughing avatar is indicative of Third-way Democrats. He did not sway many voters, or legislators. He was a visually unfortunate messenger for an excellent message. Much like FDR would be in today's media hypnotized and shallow public.

As for the TOS, somehow I think electing more Democrats includes the understanding that the Democrat advocates for Democratic policies that reflect Democratic values. Because we, as in you and I, both know that if George W. Bush had been the Democratic nominee 2000, neither one of us would have voted for him. At least I hope that would be the case.

And I've that HRC in a walk once before, circa 2008.

Cheers

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

426 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Elizabeth Warren Comes Down Hard Against Global Warming, Separates Herself From Hillary Clinton [View all] KoKo Dec 2013 OP

"Common" Dreams....stirring the pot, they just can't help it. MADem Dec 2013 #1

You say "stirring the pot" as if that was a bad thing. It's way past time to stir the pot. rhett o rick Dec 2013 #9

When EW campaigns for HRC, heads are gonna explode up in here. MADem Dec 2013 #10

No heads will explode whatchamacallit Dec 2013 #14

Coulda fooled me. MADem Dec 2013 #17

I probably won't vote for HRC whatchamacallit Dec 2013 #26

This is a "party partisan" site, you know. MADem Dec 2013 #30

Any D will do? WowSeriously Dec 2013 #38

You're just sooooo coooooool, with all that snark-n-such! MADem Dec 2013 #45

Tell me the benefits we had with the Max Baucus D. WowSeriously Dec 2013 #137

Changing the subject because one can't address the rank unfairness that is the thesis of this MADem Dec 2013 #141

You have said that we need to vote D while simultaneously WowSeriously Dec 2013 #185

You can do what you want--vote as you please. Pull the lever for Christie or Rand Paul, for all I MADem Dec 2013 #187

I'm sorry. I don't understand what you just said. WowSeriously Dec 2013 #205

"Do what you want" is pretty plain. Don't behave like an aggrieved and put upon voter MADem Dec 2013 #254

I don't know if you've been reading what I've been writing WowSeriously Dec 2013 #263

Only someone who hasn't been paying any attention would believe that MADem Dec 2013 #266

I'm here to advocate for the policies of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party. WowSeriously Dec 2013 #270

Excellent! bvar22 Dec 2013 #273

Wow, thanks! I've never made an original post. But I might give it a go. WowSeriously Dec 2013 #306

You've been here for just over a month, and your tone, attitude and demeanor are MADem Dec 2013 #284

I have not been hear before, and with the exception of WowSeriously Dec 2013 #303

"Underground" doesn't mean what you think it means. MADem Dec 2013 #307

It looks like underground means exactly what I thought it meant. WowSeriously Dec 2013 #316

I have never had any "email exchanges" with you--so I'm not sure what you're on about. MADem Dec 2013 #317

Email, texting, blogging, whatever you call this communication. WowSeriously Dec 2013 #318

I've never texted or blogged to you, either. MADem Dec 2013 #323

Posts WowSeriously Dec 2013 #324

Yeah, sure it is. MADem Dec 2013 #336

I already am! WowSeriously Dec 2013 #350

This message was self-deleted by its author SidDithers Jan 2014 #416

I don't speak German. And MADem and I have concluded our discussions. WowSeriously Jan 2014 #417

This message was self-deleted by its author SidDithers Jan 2014 #418

Do you have something constructive to contribute? WowSeriously Jan 2014 #419

This message was self-deleted by its author SidDithers Jan 2014 #420

The part of the thread I was speaking about was WowSeriously Jan 2014 #421

Well, you've had a chance to see the comments... SidDithers Jan 2014 #422

No need to sel defeat. And that was a clever WowSeriously Jan 2014 #423

And now you're gone again... SidDithers Jan 2014 #424

Good one Titonwan Dec 2013 #244

That's my theory as well. WowSeriously Dec 2013 #252

<Yawn> whatchamacallit Dec 2013 #39

Do what you want. MADem Dec 2013 #44

I didn't play that whatchamacallit Dec 2013 #49

Like the Obama partisans didn't throw HIM under the bus, either, when he didn't satisfy their every MADem Dec 2013 #54

Not sure if you can grasp this, but here goes whatchamacallit Dec 2013 #58

Oh, ok--now I'm "stupid"--unable to "grasp" things. MADem Dec 2013 #60

If it plays out as you desire whatchamacallit Dec 2013 #64

Oh, gee, if I keep tryin' real hard, maybe I'll figure it out. It's just so hard an' all, I need MADem Dec 2013 #66

Glad to help whatchamacallit Dec 2013 #68

I'm quite sure you are. nt MADem Dec 2013 #74

Party Partisan doesn't mean D or Die. WowSeriously Dec 2013 #138

It does mean being fair in one's characterizations, which this hit piece isn't. MADem Dec 2013 #140

If the idea were to elect Democrats in name only ... MrMickeysMom Dec 2013 #147

The TOS is pretty clear. MADem Dec 2013 #150

This isn't the kind of money raised for the progressive�. MrMickeysMom Dec 2013 #152

The candidates who -- with the exception of Al Gore, who wuz robbed-- get the most votes MADem Dec 2013 #156

AFIC, supporting Democrats bvar22 Dec 2013 #274

FDR had no problem violating the Constitutional rights of US citizens based on their race. MADem Dec 2013 #278

The article isn't about Hillary. It's really about Warren versus the establishment. NYC_SKP Dec 2013 #282

Good take whatchamacallit Dec 2013 #290

Yeah, that's why the title of the article is MADem Dec 2013 #295

Hillary is arguably the single most representative person in the Democratic establishment. NYC_SKP Dec 2013 #301

Well, that's POTUS's State Department, if we're going to get technical. MADem Dec 2013 #344

No doubt there. Sadly, Hillary and Obama have more in common with each other than they do... NYC_SKP Dec 2013 #345

I don't know about that. I think they're closer than some here want to admit. MADem Dec 2013 #347

Are you really going to argue that environmental stewardship is some radical far left position that TheKentuckian Dec 2013 #34

No - I am "arguing" that this article is pure horseshit. MADem Dec 2013 #37

BUT in TRUTH it DOES...or you wouldn't be trying to diffuse the Facts.... KoKo Dec 2013 #82

What "facts?" That HRC isn't in public life now, that she was subordinate to the POTUS and MADem Dec 2013 #86

"...subordinate to the POTUS and didn't make energy policy?" KoKo Dec 2013 #92

Only someone who doesn't "get" how it works would think that a SECSTATE isn't subordinate to their MADem Dec 2013 #99

Hillary is a strong Woman she survived Monica Gate...her Husband was President KoKo Dec 2013 #192

If you don't understand that the job of cabinet officials is to execute the POTUS's policy, I can't MADem Dec 2013 #194

You deserve a freaking medal. Good Lord, just READING this hysterical exchange has made me tired Number23 Dec 2013 #238

Ha--thanks! MADem Dec 2013 #264

um.... wildbilln864 Dec 2013 #385

You gotta do better than that....ooooh the "Utah Minutemen!!!" MADem Dec 2013 #387

Interesting that they are trying to sell Clinton as "eight more years of the status quo". nm rhett o rick Dec 2013 #259

Yes and no - in diplomacy with other countries, he has to make offers acceptable (and pre approved) karynnj Dec 2013 #275

Keystone merrily Dec 2013 #174

You'll have to wait until she selects her cabinet to know, I suppose. nt MADem Dec 2013 #181

No, I know now. merrily Dec 2013 #183

Time will reveal all.... nt MADem Dec 2013 #190

And I assume you would support her no matter who she selected for her cabinet. rhett o rick Dec 2013 #260

I do think she'll make good choices, but I'd not be afraid to criticize a bad pick. MADem Dec 2013 #268

Yes if you think Clinton is liberal then we disagree on the definition. rhett o rick Dec 2013 #280

I think she's a moderate--like Elizabeth Warren is--on most issues, and liberal on others. MADem Dec 2013 #286

I will be glad to "whack" anyone that supports the Patriot Act. Why do I single her out? rhett o rick Dec 2013 #292

Well get busy, then--you've got 97 more souls to beat to a pulp. MADem Dec 2013 #294

They are not running for president, but Goldman-Sachs-Clinton is running for president. rhett o rick Dec 2013 #296

Well, you said you'd be glad to whack them, and now you change your mind and single out just one. MADem Dec 2013 #308

You keep changing the focus. But I will gladly clear up how I feel about the rhett o rick Dec 2013 #311

No, not really, I just posted a list of everyone in the Senate during the vote in question. MADem Dec 2013 #321

Kennedy and Wellstone both voted NO. They didnt bow down to King Georgie and kiss his ring. rhett o rick Dec 2013 #328

No they did not. Go to the link and have a look at the YEA beside their names. MADem Dec 2013 #330

Sorry I was talking about the vote to authorize the war. Somewhere we rhett o rick Dec 2013 #338

Well, there's another false characterization of me. Why do you do that? MADem Dec 2013 #339

I agree it was rude. I try to not slip into that. rhett o rick Dec 2013 #341

It would seem there is daylight there on the issue, seems to some in critical areas TheKentuckian Dec 2013 #276

Well, that's just not true, but good effort, there. MADem Dec 2013 #287

You really think plausible deniablity is going to fly with someone as well known as Hillary Clinton? TheKentuckian Dec 2013 #297

Throw Joe Biden under the bus, too, then. How dare HE be a "good soldier!" MADem Dec 2013 #300

I said not a word about Biden but I don't much think we are debating his positions TheKentuckian Dec 2013 #313

Biden was on that stage with both HRC and POTUS--how soon we forget! MADem Dec 2013 #322

You are veering into distortion, you brought up Biden and are now bringing up Obama TheKentuckian Dec 2013 #326

No I'm not. MADem Dec 2013 #327

So what? I still didn't mention them and I am angry because of your distortions and putting words in TheKentuckian Dec 2013 #363

Wow, what a run-on ramble that was, too! FULL of personal insult, too! MADem Dec 2013 #370

Good posts. It is interesting that people are trying to sell Clinton as "possibly not as bad rhett o rick Dec 2013 #342

People like to lie about HRC. The Paulbot crowd, especially, gets rabid about her. MADem Dec 2013 #351

She accepted $400,000 from Goldman-Sachs and she isnt even running yet. HMMM. rhett o rick Dec 2013 #364

You still haven't provided any links. MADem Dec 2013 #367

So you've resorted to name calling. I guess by calling those you disagree with "haters" you rhett o rick Dec 2013 #373

If the shoe fits, you go wear it. MADem Dec 2013 #374

Ah man. It's graft when any of them do it. Speeches by politicians are a common and rhett o rick Dec 2013 #375

Funny how you only protest when SOME do it, though..... MADem Dec 2013 #376

I'm thinking weirdo con job, a lame attempt to coral the left without doing or even saying anything. TheKentuckian Dec 2013 #362

This message was self-deleted by its author NYC_SKP Dec 2013 #281

She won't campaign for HRC in the primary. Ken Burch Dec 2013 #85

If there's a primary, at least one of any consequence. MADem Dec 2013 #98

support for military families is a separate issue from supporting a big war budget. Ken Burch Dec 2013 #108

You can favor a strong military and not be an endorser of waste... MADem Dec 2013 #113

Yes they have served, and served well, but this didn't serve feminist ends. Ken Burch Dec 2013 #130

Yes, "those women." I wonder if they're any relation to the "You people" I'm often MADem Dec 2013 #143

I meant nothing at all like "you people"-it was simply a way to denote a group. No slur at all. Ken Burch Dec 2013 #236

But "those women" can't be feminists, you've declared. MADem Dec 2013 #258

I wasn't calling soldiers warmongers and you know it. Ken Burch Dec 2013 #265

I hear beeping. MADem Dec 2013 #267

I am not sure they are all that separate. merrily Dec 2013 #202

I am aware that the conservatives of the Party have control and I suspect that Clinton will win the rhett o rick Dec 2013 #88

I don't support people who create dramas and fake catfights amongst hardworking Democratic MADem Dec 2013 #105

You sound arrogantly certain that it will be HRC. Why? Ken Burch Dec 2013 #111

"Arrogantly certain?" Well, that's getting off on the right foot, there! MADem Dec 2013 #115

She knows that the big money is on Clinton. Clinton/Christie or Christie/Clinton the banksters rhett o rick Dec 2013 #365

There you go again! nt MADem Dec 2013 #368

I dont doubt for a minute that Sen Warren will support the Democratic nominee. rhett o rick Dec 2013 #112

I answered that question--do you want me to cut and paste my answer? nt MADem Dec 2013 #117

Yes plez. I apparently missed it. nm rhett o rick Dec 2013 #119

Here you go. MADem Dec 2013 #121

Pot stirring is a journalistic speciality, not a leftist "issue." merrily Dec 2013 #177

I can undestand that as a political decision Kelvin Mace Dec 2013 #170

Well, if you think you'll get a better deal from her opponent, go on ahead and withhold that vote. MADem Dec 2013 #172

Nope, Kelvin Mace Dec 2013 #245

You've laid out what she's "not" going to do before she has even taken the oath. MADem Dec 2013 #246

The Clinton track record of center-right political Kelvin Mace Dec 2013 #248

How amusing (and telling) that you conflate her husband's record with hers... MADem Dec 2013 #250

The Clintons, Kelvin Mace Jan 2014 #426

Do you think that Hillary cares at all about the environment? JDPriestly Dec 2013 #239

Yes, I do. MADem Dec 2013 #269

What is her position on reigning in Wall Street's excesses? JDPriestly Dec 2013 #277

That would be "reining" and we'll have to wait and see who she appoints as Treasury Secretary and MADem Dec 2013 #279

But Hillary would never appoint Elizabeth Warren. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #299

So glad you've got the "inside scoop" on what HRC might do. She told you this, I suppose? MADem Dec 2013 #305

Creepy and personal? DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2013 #331

Do you always "ride to the rescue?" Or are you making a 'personal' exception, here? MADem Dec 2013 #334

I really don't need a re-pasting of what I already commented on. DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2013 #337

Since you didn't apparently read it the first time, I think you might. At least go back and re-read MADem Dec 2013 #340

Way past time to "stir the pot." Agree... KoKo Dec 2013 #11

Agreed. Phlem Dec 2013 #133

"Stirring"? daleanime Dec 2013 #19

But don't cha know Phlem Dec 2013 #134

Yes. Enthusiast Dec 2013 #56

I dont see that the lower classes have a chance. Ironically Citizen's United will rhett o rick Dec 2013 #89

I wonder what Hillary will do under Citizens United that she did not do in 2008, merrily Dec 2013 #173

I think the big money would rather see Clinton as the nominee than others. rhett o rick Dec 2013 #195

Maybe, but that is a different from the point I was trying to make. merrily Dec 2013 #200

"But we could simple refuse to vote for people who use Citizens United as a convenient excuse. " rhett o rick Dec 2013 #206

I agree about campaign money swaying voters, but that was true before Citizens United as well. merrily Dec 2013 #215

If you really believe that treestar Dec 2013 #253

Does "stirring the pot" challenge your precious status quo? rhett o rick Dec 2013 #256

Discussing principles implies they have them... bobduca Dec 2013 #262

Conservative Democrats were Republicans before the Party left them. nm rhett o rick Dec 2013 #283

Why do you miss the point? treestar Dec 2013 #291

Not all Democrats are on the side of the lower classes. The Lieberman Wing rhett o rick Dec 2013 #293

Sometimes, the pot must be stirred, Autumn Dec 2013 #41

Well, the writer of that piece of crap put garbage in a pot. MADem Dec 2013 #42

Thank goodness for trash thread. Try it, you might like it. Autumn Dec 2013 #43

Sounds like YOU might be more in need of it than I am.... MADem Dec 2013 #55

I think the article is absolutely great. It hit's on all cylinders with me. Autumn Dec 2013 #63

It "hit's" (?) on a desire by some people--for reasons which are not always magnanimous-- MADem Dec 2013 #65

Two strong, smart women with differences. Not a bit of harm in Autumn Dec 2013 #69

She hasn't said she's not running, either. MADem Dec 2013 #76

Well when she does announce, people can get behind her. Autumn Dec 2013 #77

The people trashing HRC on this thread have no intention of getting behind her. MADem Dec 2013 #79

A trashed thread can't be derailed bobduca Dec 2013 #251

Odd that so many of us disagree with your sentiments. Enthusiast Dec 2013 #52

Ahhh, Might (on a single thread the day after Xmas) makes Right, you're saying? MADem Dec 2013 #53

Putting words in my mouth? Enthusiast Dec 2013 #57

You're the one that brought up numbers--not me. MADem Dec 2013 #59

I will never again support sulphurdunn Dec 2013 #81

So, you're levying a personal insult at me, and calling ME --who worked to get Warren elected-- MADem Dec 2013 #107

Working to get Warren, rather than Brown, elected Senator does not mean one merrily Dec 2013 #175

Well, gee, part of Brown's "schtick" was his "crossover appeal" to DINOs and Indys. MADem Dec 2013 #179

Your reply doesn't refute the content of my post. merrily Dec 2013 #182

The content of your post doesn't apply to me. How can I "refute" a suggestion, slyly made and MADem Dec 2013 #209

Huh? merrily Dec 2013 #212

Go back and read your words in 175. Not sayin'...but just sayin'.... nt MADem Dec 2013 #221

Because saying your argument is flawed does not = saying you are a DINO. merrily Dec 2013 #224

What argument? That I worked to elect EW to the Senate? MADem Dec 2013 #230

A Democrat working to elect any other Democrat does not necessarily merrily Dec 2013 #232

And saying I worked to get EW elected wasn't an argument...so there we are. nt MADem Dec 2013 #233

I didn't call you anything, but sulphurdunn Dec 2013 #257

Sure you did--let me quote you, just so everyone is clear: MADem Dec 2013 #261

Post removed Post removed Dec 2013 #271

Clinton supporters can be smug because they side with the big money. She has rhett o rick Dec 2013 #91

Well, when EW supports Clinton, will you throw her under the bus? nt MADem Dec 2013 #101

If Clinton loses to Christie, who will you blame? Ralph Nader? nm rhett o rick Dec 2013 #118

She won't lose. nt MADem Dec 2013 #122

In 2012 Obama ditched the left to woo the moderate conservatives (Centrists, The Third Way'ers, etc. rhett o rick Dec 2013 #129

Christie is a vengeful bully. He'll have to beat back Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, too. MADem Dec 2013 #165

Nasty comment? To say that you side with the big money? Clinton is the BIG MONEY Democratic rhett o rick Dec 2013 #203

Cinton is the candidate with the most support. Most of her supporters, sorry to break this to you, MADem Dec 2013 #231

Yes some choose Wall Street and some choose the 99%. nm rhett o rick Dec 2013 #90

So, when EW supports Clinton's run for the Presidency, what percentage will she be supporting? MADem Dec 2013 #103

She would be supporting the Democratic nominee and, sorry, but I wont throw her under the rhett o rick Dec 2013 #116

Don't be sorry--that's nice, that you will continue to support her and her choices. nt MADem Dec 2013 #120

Sen Warren has a Party obligation to support Clinton, I dont. nm rhett o rick Dec 2013 #123

So she has a gun to her head then? Like she did when she signed the Senate Women's letter? MADem Dec 2013 #151

I didnt say that. Those are your words. Do you think Clinton will be tough on rhett o rick Dec 2013 #153

You implied it with your words. MADem Dec 2013 #154

You think that Clinton, friend of Wall Street will appoint Sen Warren to rhett o rick Dec 2013 #159

Time will tell. MADem Dec 2013 #161

Oh please! Like READY FOR HILLARY is going to fund her campaign. Just last week she sympathized rhett o rick Dec 2013 #164

They're a great start--and they don't just represent cash, they represent committed voters. MADem Dec 2013 #171

If holding her accountable for her support of Georgie Bush's war means I've lost the rhett o rick Dec 2013 #199

I think the middle class will get a far better deal with ANY Dem than they will a Republican. MADem Dec 2013 #219

Crickets~ sheshe2 Dec 2013 #126

I will not. EW owes a lot to the Democratic Party. merrily Dec 2013 #188

many others do agree with MADem's sentiments Pretzel_Warrior Dec 2013 #289

There is a tiny nugget of news wrapped in all that politicized verbiage: Comrade Grumpy Dec 2013 #87

Common Dreams Is The Best By Far billhicks76 Dec 2013 #211

Maybe EW believed the hype that HC was in first place fadedrose Dec 2013 #372

Signs point to NO on that one, sorry. MADem Dec 2013 #377

You say you are sorry? fadedrose Dec 2013 #378

I am saying, politely as I can manage, that you are mistaken. MADem Dec 2013 #379

Thank you for the lovely picture fadedrose Dec 2013 #380

It was part of a thank you/constituent mailer. Mine is on the fridge. MADem Dec 2013 #381

So you DO like Warren? fadedrose Dec 2013 #382

Do you think I would have busted my ass for her if I didn't? MADem Dec 2013 #386

No reflection on you or others who support her fadedrose Dec 2013 #389

You're just not gonna get your way on this. MADem Dec 2013 #390

Indeed nt XRubicon Dec 2013 #392

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2013 #393

No they aren't. MADem Dec 2013 #394

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2013 #396

It's not my opinion. MADem Dec 2013 #399

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2013 #400

Nothing funny at all. MADem Dec 2013 #403

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2013 #404

It's not an "outstanding liberal site" though. MADem Dec 2013 #405

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2013 #406

No, it's not. MADem Dec 2013 #407

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2013 #408

CYA is what you should have done before you started down this road. nt MADem Dec 2013 #409

Come back soon, again...nt SidDithers Jan 2014 #410

Ha ha ha!!! I'll bet he just got those socks outta the dryer, too! nt MADem Jan 2014 #411

Wow your ignore list is getting big. hrmjustin Dec 2013 #395

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2013 #397

I have never put people on ignore. Makes life boring. hrmjustin Dec 2013 #398

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2013 #402

Well, you won't have to worry about that fellah. MADem Jan 2014 #412

Yes we nuked him in mirt. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #413

Happy New Year and many thanks to all you fine MIRTers! MADem Jan 2014 #414

And a great new year to you my friend. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #415

how dare she G_j Dec 2013 #2

I'm glad there's SOMEBODY in government minding the environment. immoderate Dec 2013 #3

Again Elizabeth Warren is on the correct side. RC Dec 2013 #4

With all this global warming just how much has the sea level risen in the last doc03 Dec 2013 #5

Totally the biggest issue, eh? truebluegreen Dec 2013 #36

I hear about the polar ice caps melting and how the sea levels doc03 Dec 2013 #72

Yes, there's a ton of flippin' evidence that sea levels are rising, truebluegreen Dec 2013 #166

What is your point? merrily Dec 2013 #191

NOAA - Not quite a foot since 1900, but that's a global average, with regional variations hatrack Dec 2013 #255

You've got to be kidding. /nt Marr Dec 2013 #333

Plenty of AGW effects are more dangerous than sea level rise NickB79 Dec 2013 #67

Thank you. You have way more patience than I do. truebluegreen Dec 2013 #167

Must make it tough for the apologists on this site to reconcilce their support of the biosphere's villager Dec 2013 #6

The names Sanders and Grayson are prominently missing... malthaussen Dec 2013 #7

That is interesting mimi85 Dec 2013 #28

Yes, that line-up Iwillnevergiveup Dec 2013 #145

K&R bahrbearian Dec 2013 #8

Only $70 bil in global damages over 50 years?? Beartracks Dec 2013 #12

+ A shit load! nt Enthusiast Dec 2013 #48

Climate science: check. Scuba Dec 2013 #13

Can a real populist beat a semi-corporatist? ErikJ Dec 2013 #15

Me too. NorthCarolina Dec 2013 #83

No one seems to believe me but: Utopian Leftist Dec 2013 #16

+1 daleanime Dec 2013 #20

+ 2... druidity33 Dec 2013 #71

Protesting? more like a tantrum bobduca Dec 2013 #247

That dude is a frothing maniac for $hillary n/t Titonwan Dec 2013 #249

Looks to me like Clinton has considered her options and chosen to side with the Wall Street rhett o rick Dec 2013 #95

+1 (nt) NYC_SKP Dec 2013 #110

+1,000! We don't know where "EW" is and how long she will stand KoKo Dec 2013 #148

To topple Hillary, Warren would also have to run for Pres. Not sure she will. merrily Dec 2013 #210

My God. I hope this woman becomes President. peoli Dec 2013 #18

I adore her also mimi85 Dec 2013 #29

Elizabeth Warren is our treasure. She does not asjr Dec 2013 #21

Since when is doing the right thing being at war? hootinholler Dec 2013 #22

Tar sands crude is being refined even as we speak mountain grammy Dec 2013 #23

+1 a whole bunch.......nt Enthusiast Dec 2013 #47

Keep it up Elizabeth, there are not many we can count on any more. Paper Roses Dec 2013 #24

And another Inter-Democratic Party battle begins between Progressives and Corporatist DINOs. ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2013 #25

Sen Warren would have a tough battle against the big money of the corporate fascists. nm rhett o rick Dec 2013 #93

That hasn't stopped her yet. ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2013 #97

Wow - just in case anyone wondered where Obama stands on the environment... polichick Dec 2013 #27

that is a completely unfair and biased article Pretzel_Warrior Dec 2013 #31

in what ways? nt G_j Dec 2013 #32

Yeah, shoot the messenger. That'll change the facts. 99Forever Dec 2013 #114

I expect Common Dreams pisses you off bobduca Dec 2013 #272

no. I tend to laugh at their hackneyed and vitriolic (amateur) writing and analysis Pretzel_Warrior Dec 2013 #288

In October Senator Warren did sign on to a letter encouraging Hillary Clinton totodeinhere Dec 2013 #33

SHHHHH!!!!!! Don't SAY things like that!!! MADem Dec 2013 #73

The Clintons are Charming People...are you warning us that Warren is just another Clinton KoKo Dec 2013 #96

Elizabeth Warren is a wonderful Senator for my state and she has pledged to complete her term. MADem Dec 2013 #100

You have the INSIDER SCOOP....And, Thanks for your reply KoKo Dec 2013 #142

It's not the "INSIDER SCOOP." Truly. MADem Dec 2013 #144

I don't watch Network or Cable TV...and THANKS for your Honesty! KoKo Dec 2013 #160

The article is about divide and conquer. sheshe2 Dec 2013 #131

Tell me about it. That's it, exactly. MADem Dec 2013 #149

We are both from Mass... sheshe2 Dec 2013 #155

They want to drag her onto a national stage and start playing the "war whoop" game all over again. MADem Dec 2013 #157

Focusing on a person, rather than on issues, is for the Bieber crowd. merrily Dec 2013 #189

merrily I say... you are correct! sheshe2 Dec 2013 #197

That is the title of the Common Dreams article. merrily Dec 2013 #201

I am not the one on DU focusing on Warren or Clinton. sheshe2 Dec 2013 #213

Gee, maybe the writer of that shitstain of an article cited in the OP should have taken that advice! MADem Dec 2013 #198

It's good advice for everyone. merrily Dec 2013 #204

Can you provide a link to the letter? MannyGoldstein Dec 2013 #169

The letter that was supposed to remain secret? That would be hard. merrily Dec 2013 #186

A *secret* letter. Interesting. MannyGoldstein Dec 2013 #220

Beats me. All I know is what I read in the funny papers. merrily Dec 2013 #222

The actual letter has still not emerged publicly but there are multiple totodeinhere Dec 2013 #314

"We have no idea where she stands on anything aside from banking/Wall Street!!1!" bullwinkle428 Dec 2013 #35

She also favors a strong military, and is an advocate for military personnel and their families. MADem Dec 2013 #109

Yes...I've read that she supports maybe more Military than I would vote for... KoKo Dec 2013 #162

It would be great (keep dreaming, I know) if we could stick the Koch suckers no outlet for their Dustlawyer Dec 2013 #40

I'm not too bright. But I suspect Elizabeth Warren Enthusiast Dec 2013 #46

"Separates Herself From Hillary Clinton" Hubert Flottz Dec 2013 #50

The thing that is important right now is the thing that gets her elected. lumberjack_jeff Dec 2013 #51

More fake stories about 2.strong Democratic women highlighting a split msanthrope Dec 2013 #61

And whoooop--there it is! MADem Dec 2013 #62

I agree. This is an editorial, not an article OKNancy Dec 2013 #70

Divide and Conquer...yes it is! sheshe2 Dec 2013 #158

I hope Warren and the progressive dems prevail. BlancheSplanchnik Dec 2013 #75

Why is the target HRC when it says clearly that Obama is paving the way for approval NOW BrotherIvan Dec 2013 #78

As you point out...that got lost in the discussion.....and thanks KoKo Dec 2013 #84

Wow! What bullshit this headline is cthulu2016 Dec 2013 #80

Always read what's UNDER THE HEADLINE....Makes one Literate. KoKo Dec 2013 #94

I undid my rec of this story. I absolutely like Warren and her position on this is excellent. CreekDog Dec 2013 #102

There is an "actual fight" in the Democratic Party. 99Forever Dec 2013 #124

Speaking of misquoting, don't even say that I was denying the fight between liberals and centrists CreekDog Dec 2013 #125

I'm okay with that. A misread on my part. 99Forever Dec 2013 #127

thanks for saying. CreekDog Dec 2013 #132

Spot on! Phlem Dec 2013 #139

Indeed...and it's early for 2016 since we don't know ..yet how Obama will KoKo Dec 2013 #168

Indeed, so VERY much baggage, growing monthly w/every corporate "contribution"/bribe Divernan Dec 2013 #304

"Creek Dog" ..what do you have a problem with in the article? KoKo Dec 2013 #146

You unrecc'd Koko's DU post because of Eric Zuesse's Common Dreams title? merrily Dec 2013 #184

Are you saying i didn't read beyond the headline? CreekDog Dec 2013 #214

Not at all. As to you, I said (implied strongly) only that I don't understand merrily Dec 2013 #217

I think it's acceptable to unrec based on the wording of the headline vs. the article CreekDog Dec 2013 #234

Obviously, you think that because you said you unrec'd based on the title. merrily Dec 2013 #237

K & R !!! WillyT Dec 2013 #104

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Dec 2013 #106

Uh-oh! Despite the denials, could we be looking at a Warren/Sanders, or Sanders/Warren ticket? Zorra Dec 2013 #128

You know that's the end of the Democratic party as we know it. Phlem Dec 2013 #136

Ending the party as we currenty know it would not be a bad thing dflprincess Dec 2013 #180

Who was the last liberal head of the Democratic National Committee? merrily Dec 2013 #207

That would Shake Up the Money Trees for Sure! KoKo Dec 2013 #176

Anything is possible, but I'd have a Plan B, just in case that merrily Dec 2013 #193

Why couldn't we have a plan B, C, D, E, F, G.... Phlem Dec 2013 #227

The more plans the better. I just wouldn't make moving the party left in the merrily Dec 2013 #228

Sorry I wasn't replying directly towards your content. Phlem Dec 2013 #229

If there is a candidate that I can enthusiastically vote for I will do it tularetom Dec 2013 #135

Warren is definitely not running. joshcryer Dec 2013 #163

So ...you believe Fracking and Heavy Tar Sands through Pipelines KoKo Dec 2013 #178

You could ask that same question of most Democrats in office today. merrily Dec 2013 #196

The corporate lobby is too powerful. joshcryer Dec 2013 #216

And whose fault is that? merrily Dec 2013 #218

What legislation would reduce the power in this situation? joshcryer Dec 2013 #223

I replied to the post you originally made to me. merrily Dec 2013 #225

I posed that as a possible piece of legislation. joshcryer Dec 2013 #226

No, why would you think that? joshcryer Dec 2013 #208

Nothing screams STATUS QUO! quite like a Clinton. blkmusclmachine Dec 2013 #235

Easy for EW to separate from Hillary the Corporatist DINO who pretends to look out for the little people while pocketin $300k+/speech from corporate fatcats. InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2013 #240

Not just any corporate cash. Goldman Sachs. anti partisan Dec 2013 #241

Yup, you are spot on. Hillary is a corporate sellout, plain and simple. Surely, we can do better. InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2013 #243

121 Recs and a lot of corporate whining. Good to see DU woo me with science Dec 2013 #242

Eye Popping bvar22 Dec 2013 #285

You're in the crowd that is "desperately clutching at Warren..." MADem Dec 2013 #298

MADem tiredtoo Dec 2013 #302

ALL you need to know about Hillary: bvar22 Dec 2013 #309

Wait a minute, you're using an Obama For President advocacy video to put down HRC? MADem Dec 2013 #319

....aaannnnnd, not a word about Hillary's advocacy for the Top 6%, bvar22 Dec 2013 #325

Aaaaaand....not a word about how the OP is a steaming load. MADem Dec 2013 #329

She rejected raising FICA taxes on those making over $97,000/year, her base. bvar22 Dec 2013 #332

You know you're grasping at straws. Here's an easily read link for you. MADem Dec 2013 #335

Video is FOREVER! bvar22 Dec 2013 #343

Yes, it is. MADem Dec 2013 #346

Like Obama, she also pledged to Renegotiate NAFTA. bvar22 Dec 2013 #352

Psst--she didn't get elected, so how's she supposed to do that? MADem Dec 2013 #353

Wow, what a tap dance. The issue here was what did Clinton say? She said she didnt want to raise rhett o rick Dec 2013 #348

Yes, what DOES she say about helping the middle class? MADem Dec 2013 #349

She may not run...she may throw support to Hillary if she's the Nominee... KoKo Dec 2013 #310

Some are beginning to think even without the tanks though.... think Dec 2013 #312

You mention Bernie.... MADem Dec 2013 #320

Oh...indeed I know about "HillPAC" and for years donated to "Emily's List" KoKo Dec 2013 #354

Peace back at you. MADem Dec 2013 #355

Hear, hear!!! Beacool Dec 2013 #315

Ahhh....but we have MORE FACTS at our fingertips and a long history... KoKo Dec 2013 #356

EW is gonna make a big difference in this world, and she's already started. MADem Dec 2013 #361

well....I can understand what you are saying with this... KoKo Dec 2013 #383

I have no problem with that at all. MADem Dec 2013 #384

Still...her Voice for Plain Speak and Honesty...is a Vision KoKo Dec 2013 #388

What people need to do is give her a few friends in the Senate and the House. MADem Dec 2013 #391

Wow. I go off to finish the War on Christmas and this is what happens when I get back? Rex Dec 2013 #357

GEEZE....Fox News is still pushing that "Old Meme?" KoKo Dec 2013 #358

Anyone that believes an ounce of what Foxnews pedals, well you know what I think Koko. Rex Dec 2013 #359

Sorry...that was a rude snark at you on my part. KoKo Dec 2013 #360

No thanks, I don't agree with PACs. Rex Dec 2013 #366

Uh, HILLPAC was disestablished. That was her PAC as a SENATOR, that she created to help MADem Dec 2013 #369

Might be time to send Warren a teeny donation fadedrose Dec 2013 #371

k&r for Elizabeth Warren. n/t Laelth Dec 2013 #401

I appreciate she is coming down hard against big oil ... ananda Jan 2014 #425