General Discussion

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)

157. Some of them were.

Fri Feb 7, 2014, 01:53 PM

Feb 2014

Every accomplishment is too little.

FDR or LBJ would have gotten more. Warren would have too (read up thread).

The stuff we're seeing around Warren lately on DU is the same kind of thing that caused the right wing to claim that progressives saw Obama as some kind of Messiah.

I'm enjoying watching Warren's deification on DU by the same folks who use terms (since you are concerned about "terms people throw around&quot , like DLCer, DINO, 3rdway, sycophant, authoritarian, fascist, warmonger (I could continue) for Obama supporters now. Its hilarious.

The effort to pit Warren against Obama, the guy who gave her the role that allowed her to become known at all, is pretty comical.

And after all, Putin probably forced Obama to give her that role because certainly Obama did not want to do it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

188 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Thought experiment: Would President Warren actually have any different results than Obama [View all] BlueStreak Feb 2014 OP

here is how DonCoquixote Feb 2014 #1

Ditto Armstead Feb 2014 #12

hardly...you are being hyperbolic... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #44

Ha...You think THAT's hyperbolic? Armstead Feb 2014 #85

Well it is blown out of proportion no matter who does it... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #117

Only in a dream world. Apparently imaginary President Warren controls the media... KittyWampus Feb 2014 #38

They don't seem to understand the minds of the Teabaggers....they hate WOMEN more than VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #45

So, your contention is that the media would not cover the President of the United States' speeches? Egalitarian Thug Feb 2014 #62

I'm not sure we HAVE extra money and resources......... clarice Feb 2014 #106

So Ms Warren would control the media! She would force them to put her on TV!! VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #118

not all of it, not even a majority DonCoquixote Feb 2014 #155

She won't be able to do any better against the Grand Obstruction Party than Pres. Obama does. VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #160

Exactly! Andy823 Feb 2014 #178

they seem to think that Elizabeth Warren will talk them into it... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #179

Nope. No one will until we have control of both the House and a super-majority in the Senate Tx4obama Feb 2014 #2

Would you agree that we would have a better chance of getting those majorities BlueStreak Feb 2014 #5

No I would not agree. We don't really know that much about Warren yet other than her... Tx4obama Feb 2014 #7

Her passion for financial related issues is important Armstead Feb 2014 #10

What don't we know? MannyGoldstein Feb 2014 #14

She is strongly pro-military. MADem Feb 2014 #53

Then NO. BGFisher200 Feb 2014 #156

Yeah, whatever. MADem Feb 2014 #175

She also opposes the outright legalization of marijuana Tx4obama Feb 2014 #173

I know--she'll be wanting to backtrack on that 'un, I suspect! MADem Feb 2014 #174

The way districting works makes that problematic. joshcryer Feb 2014 #16

I agree that voting reforms are the thing to push for now cprise Feb 2014 #34

Score or range voting limits that effect a lot. joshcryer Feb 2014 #42

If 2016 is a wave election even bigger than 2008, perhaps, nyquil_man Feb 2014 #20

Maybe there are two waves BlueStreak Feb 2014 #32

You're on to something there Armstead Feb 2014 #88

This: CrispyQ Feb 2014 #33

It is said that President Obama has to walk on eggshells because of that "Angry Black Man" thing BlueStreak Feb 2014 #39

Nope neither would I ....these Teabagger types HATE women....they resent them... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #46

No, that I do not think is true treestar Feb 2014 #70

It's not fair mimi85 Feb 2014 #139

you mean kids? treestar Feb 2014 #177

I have to agree with you mercymechap Feb 2014 #35

OH YES she would....these teabagger types HATE women more than they have Black men! VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #47

There seems to be a consistent theme with your posts on this thread. randome Feb 2014 #80

If they think the Rightwingers would go easier on a woman than a Black man VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #123

That's true, but I always thought mercymechap Feb 2014 #182

Those are the women that they feel agree with the Patriarchy.... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #183

True that..... mercymechap Feb 2014 #184

Didn't we have that for a while in the second half of 2009? n/t hughee99 Feb 2014 #56

for 2 whole months....who could have predicted that Ted Kennedy would pass away! VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #129

From 9/25 to 2/4/10? hughee99 Feb 2014 #146

we only had the filibuster proof majority of 60 for 2 months... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #147

September to Febuary, as I said. hughee99 Feb 2014 #151

So the had 2 1/2 months...not 2 mos. Auntie Bush Feb 2014 #168

14 weeks is more than 3 months, or a more than 50% difference. hughee99 Feb 2014 #171

Upps! Not paying attention. Auntie Bush Feb 2014 #172

Gosh, don't you remember mercymechap Feb 2014 #186

I remember pretty well. That was sort of what I was getting at. hughee99 Feb 2014 #187

+1 treestar Feb 2014 #69

+1000 VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #149

Yes. She's a far more daring communicator with a more assertive point of departure. NYC_SKP Feb 2014 #3

she has something worse....she has a vagina.... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #48

Um I think Sarah Palin has one of those too Armstead Feb 2014 #91

Michele Bachmann and Phyllis Schlafly HappyMe Feb 2014 #102

Who ALSO support the Patriarchy! VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #116

I understand the tea party. HappyMe Feb 2014 #120

Yeah and having Alan West and Herman Cain didn't mean that they aren't racist either did it? VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #124

Good grief! HappyMe Feb 2014 #127

what I AM pointing out is....their hatred of women is even deeper.... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #130

The only people they don't hate are themselves. HappyMe Feb 2014 #131

Exactly the While Male Patriarchy... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #138

Yeah only because she supports their male dominated ideology! VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #114

That's not the point Armstead Feb 2014 #140

No she won't sorry.... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #142

So i assume you think Hillary should not run? Armstead Feb 2014 #145

I am not saying neither SHOULD NOT run... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #153

I guess Clinton's screwed too then. HappyMe Feb 2014 #152

I am NOT saying screwwed....I am saying they won't do any better.... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #162

What are 'Holier Than Thou' standards? HappyMe Feb 2014 #163

You know exactly what that means and it wasn't necessarily directed at you... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #164

As of right now, I'm not supporting HappyMe Feb 2014 #167

I think the second round of Wall Street bailout would have looked different, and perhaps the first BainsBane Feb 2014 #4

She's had a couple of great solutions for our ills in the past few weeks Phlem Feb 2014 #6

And the jury results are in... aikoaiko Feb 2014 #8

I think I get it. They said Jewish lobby instead of saying AIPAC. reusrename Feb 2014 #9

Well, yes it is ... it's like using the word frazzled Feb 2014 #11

Well said my friend, well said. William769 Feb 2014 #18

Well, no it isn't. reusrename Feb 2014 #19

I should have said "Pro-Israel lobby", but to my knowledge BlueStreak Feb 2014 #22

I believe you misspoke. reusrename Feb 2014 #26

Totally agree. nt Cali_Democrat Feb 2014 #21

Thank you so much for posting this. Egalitarian Thug Feb 2014 #63

Huge difference. MannyGoldstein Feb 2014 #13

she going to do that with a magic wand? All by herself I suppose! VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #49

No need to ProSense Feb 2014 #121

and single handedly without Congress...SHE IS MAGIC!!! VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #126

Yep... I Believe The Warren Actually WOULD Put On A Comfortable Pair Of Shoes, And... WillyT Feb 2014 #15

I believe we would have seen her on the ground in Wisconsin when it mattered. BlueStreak Feb 2014 #23

How many times has she marched with workers as MA senator? (nt) Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #31

How many times has she *needed* to? MannyGoldstein Feb 2014 #37

Stephen Lynch (but not Warren) showed up to support these nurses: Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #60

That's not in the same league as Wisconson, or MannyGoldstein Feb 2014 #143

and that does what? VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #50

Well... If Nothing Else, It Means You Keep Your Word/Campaign Promises... WillyT Feb 2014 #55

How does it change anything? VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #57

God Dammit Vanilla !!! - WE TOOK HIM AT HIS WORD !!!! WillyT Feb 2014 #58

AND we GOT change and we HAVE hope... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #135

You excuse everything, don't you? /nt Marr Feb 2014 #133

No I don't but if "not being emotional enough" is the current complaint... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #137

To what end? Just keeping a promise? tia uponit7771 Feb 2014 #150

This is a very important question, and I believe the answer is YES, it would be very different. reusrename Feb 2014 #17

Probably not. There's always the "campaign" version of a candidate, & then there's the REAL version blkmusclmachine Feb 2014 #24

I don't know, but I'd sure like to find out. Crunchy Frog Feb 2014 #25

Thanks elleng Feb 2014 #30

Done. BlueStreak Feb 2014 #36

No, because of congressional repugs,. elleng Feb 2014 #27

Many DUers claim that the opposition to President Obama is driven mostly by racism. Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #28

Where was the Bipartisan cooperation under Clinton? Agnosticsherbet Feb 2014 #43

What about the gender? treestar Feb 2014 #71

Yes cprise Feb 2014 #29

No. Same Congress same result. Agnosticsherbet Feb 2014 #40

Until this gang of dumb hammers are removed, Warren's presidency would be wasted. Kablooie Feb 2014 #41

Not if she had to fight the party of NO and donheld Feb 2014 #51

The Bully Pulpit would be far "bullier" under a President Warren villager Feb 2014 #52

Not even for a minute, given GOP, SCOTUS, Congress and all the rest Hekate Feb 2014 #54

"Different"? Absolutely Scootaloo Feb 2014 #59

You and a lot of posters in this thread make an excellent case for not giving a fuck Fumesucker Feb 2014 #61

That was not my intent. BlueStreak Feb 2014 #82

It may be impossible to say just one thing, communication is difficult Fumesucker Feb 2014 #98

Oh my, you've done it now. K&R Egalitarian Thug Feb 2014 #64

Considering she's not a man, rich, an asshole or republicon madokie Feb 2014 #65

Warren.. sendero Feb 2014 #66

What is wrong with "Angry black man" indeed BlueStreak Feb 2014 #84

The right wing.. sendero Feb 2014 #100

Now it is down to "President Obama is just not emotional enough"? VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #125

Few in this thread get it. RC Feb 2014 #104

HRC... sendero Feb 2014 #110

Here's what I think would have happened ... JoePhilly Feb 2014 #67

+1 treestar Feb 2014 #73

Thread win! greatauntoftriplets Feb 2014 #89

In response to your sarcasm....Progressives weren't expecting miracles or "ponies" after 2008 Armstead Feb 2014 #97

Some of them were. JoePhilly Feb 2014 #157

Awesome. I really like Warren but I think we should realize that she has a lot of momentum and okaawhatever Feb 2014 #144

I'd agree with most of that. I think she's doing a great job. JoePhilly Feb 2014 #154

Governing is about compromise lumberjack_jeff Feb 2014 #159

Sure. JoePhilly Feb 2014 #161

NO, in fact, she would do a lot of damage treestar Feb 2014 #68

If we can get rid of capitalism TBF Feb 2014 #72

No. HappyMe Feb 2014 #74

No single official can do miracles. riqster Feb 2014 #75

The White House is the weakest of the branches of government. randome Feb 2014 #81

2014 is hugely important for just that reason. riqster Feb 2014 #141

No JustAnotherGen Feb 2014 #76

Of course she would Vattel Feb 2014 #77

lol. so what YOU are claiming is that dems are all interchangeable when it comes to White House cali Feb 2014 #78

The OP isn't claiming any such thing. It asks the question. BlueStreak Feb 2014 #87

of course that's what you're claiming- it's somewhat disingenuous to claim it's not cali Feb 2014 #94

+1 That one's not even debatable. Marr Feb 2014 #136

Would she appoint Rahm Emmanuell? vi5 Feb 2014 #79

Congress does most of the appointing. The President does nominations. randome Feb 2014 #83

OK then would she "nominate" them. vi5 Feb 2014 #86

I agree, some of the appointees have been disappointing. randome Feb 2014 #92

I'd like someone who doesn't give up without trying. vi5 Feb 2014 #105

say what? no it does not. that's just bullshit. cali Feb 2014 #96

Actually the president appoints/nominates, the Senate holds a hearing and a conformation vote. n/t Tx4obama Feb 2014 #188

Would she appoint the CEO of GE, one of the greatest off-shoring corporations BlueStreak Feb 2014 #90

Would she say Nixon is more Liberal than she is? Autumn Feb 2014 #111

I think she would be more willing to take them on publicly Autumn Feb 2014 #93

Even if a firebrand didn't accomplish much of substance, it might inspire the people more. randome Feb 2014 #95

We? I don't know about you, but I have always done my part Autumn Feb 2014 #99

I meant 'we' as in the DU Collective. randome Feb 2014 #101

It's a discussion board of all things political. Autumn Feb 2014 #107

With 2009's congress? Almost certainly. PeteSelman Feb 2014 #103

Absolutely, of course! reddread Feb 2014 #108

It's doubtful that anyone would get a different result MineralMan Feb 2014 #109

when the DNC wont run candidates in all districts? reddread Feb 2014 #112

Anyone can file and run in a Congressional District. MineralMan Feb 2014 #115

right. stuck in kentucky and it aint where i live reddread Feb 2014 #119

OK. If there is no Democrat in a Congressional Race, MineralMan Feb 2014 #122

loosely worded post reddread Feb 2014 #132

"And Obama can't be trusted to stand up for anything." Well, ProSense Feb 2014 #113

He didn't want to ... Putin made him do it. JoePhilly Feb 2014 #158

If Warren had been president six years ago, the GOP would have had to Marr Feb 2014 #128

Yes, his whole approach seems to be, "How can I keep the Republicans from hating me?" Lydia Leftcoast Feb 2014 #166

I don't know, though thinking about it, I may have to say yes. Xyzse Feb 2014 #134

Yes. nt ladjf Feb 2014 #148

I've noticed that a lot of the public likes leaders who fight for what they believe in Lydia Leftcoast Feb 2014 #165

There is nothing likeable about Chris Christie EXCEPT for that BlueStreak Feb 2014 #169

It would be nice to find out in 2017. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2014 #170

The President can't overcome some things, fadedrose Feb 2014 #176

Some of the MSM is corrupt. But many are just regular people and that means BlueStreak Feb 2014 #180

Maybe a little different... thesquanderer Feb 2014 #181

No. No liberal will if we still have dingbat House nt Laura PourMeADrink Feb 2014 #185