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
In reply to the discussion: Why are some people so eager to kill the idea Warren might run? [View all]BootinUp
(51,281 posts)103. "Peace, progress, and prosperity"
JG: What is your organizing principle, then?
HRC: Peace, progress, and prosperity. This worked for a very long time. Take prosperity. Thats a huge domestic challenge for us. If we dont restore the American dream for Americans, then you can forget about any kind of continuing leadership in the world. Americans deserve to feel secure in their own lives, in their own middle-class aspirations, before you go to them and say, Were going to have to enforce navigable sea lanes in the South China Sea. Youve got to take care of your home first. Thats another part of the political messaging that you have to engage in right now. People are not only turned off about being engaged in the world, theyre pretty discouraged about whats happening here at home.
I think people wantand this is a generalization I will go ahead and makepeople want to make sure our economic situation improves and that our political decision-making improves. Whether they articulate it this way or not, I think people feel like were facing really important challenges here at home: The economy is not growing, the middle class is not feeling like they are secure, and we are living in a time of gridlock and dysfunction that is just frustrating and outraging.
People assume that were going to have to do what we do so long as its not stupid, but what people want us to focus on are problems here at home. If you were to scratch below the surface on thatand I havent looked at the research or the pollingbut I think people would say, first things first. Lets make sure we are taking care of our people and were doing it in a way that will bring rewards to those of us who work hard, play by the rules, and yeah, we dont want to see the world go to hell in a handbasket, and they dont want to see a resurgence of aggression by anybody.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/?single_page=true
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
108 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Uh wrong...I happen to know for a fact WOMEN who normally vote Republican are considering
VanillaRhapsody
Dec 2014
#68
Semantics - most Democrats do support her - but I suspect many Democrats would prefer
NRaleighLiberal
Dec 2014
#5
You clearly can't read. I was referring to my friends and family. Keep trying, though.
NRaleighLiberal
Dec 2014
#82
You'll see. I guarantee you that come Jan. 2016 her lead will be nowhere near that.
morningfog
Dec 2014
#77
That article does not contradict what I said. Nor was it written by Nate Silver.
morningfog
Dec 2014
#80
You are the one suggesting that Clinton will waltz into the primary with a 55 point lead.
morningfog
Dec 2014
#83
One could also ask why some people are so eager to claim she will run.
TreasonousBastard
Dec 2014
#2
There has to be more than 20+ years of name-recognition, which is why she's popular now
arcane1
Dec 2014
#29
And that is a big deal. Governing means convincing the legislative branch to pass your agenda
stevenleser
Dec 2014
#26
i don't support Hillary, i lean more Biden or Sanders, but i think because it's just not backed up
JI7
Dec 2014
#16
Show me where Hillary supporters are trying to kill the idea of her running.
William769
Dec 2014
#23
It's not about Hillary or Liz the way I see it. It is a stifling of an uncomfortable discussion.
Autumn
Dec 2014
#24
Opposites? They are both rated the same on the chart, this opposite of the same would not be
Thinkingabout
Dec 2014
#28
Um, yeah, about that talking point? They have less in common than you think
Electric Monk
Dec 2014
#40
Here is a link to Hillary and Elizabeth on the issues, go to the end of the links and you
Thinkingabout
Dec 2014
#46
Warren has never been cagey. Everytime she has been asked she has firmly stated she is not running.
Agnosticsherbet
Dec 2014
#27
Hillary is ready for the primary, any candidate who wants to throw their hat in the ring
Thinkingabout
Dec 2014
#30
Few are more eager to kill the idea that Warren might run, than Warren herself.
misterhighwasted
Dec 2014
#32
I'm not trying to kill anything!! I actually believe Elizabeth Warren on the subject. nt
msanthrope
Dec 2014
#38
Because Hillary Clinton has never won a seriously contested race and is unlikely to pull it off
TheKentuckian
Dec 2014
#53
That doesn't mean it was brutal or even a serious contest. In fact two is often easier than one.
TheKentuckian
Dec 2014
#99
It would be "cathartic" for a segment of America's left. It would be "grating and alienating"
Recursion
Dec 2014
#79
The short answer is "1984". The longer answer is "1988, 1984, 1980, 1972, 1968."
Recursion
Dec 2014
#72
Ms Warren offered to "put an exclamation point" on her denial. Why don't you believer her?
mulsh
Dec 2014
#86
She "offered" to put an exclamation point on her denial, BUT SHE DIDN'T DO IT, see?
brooklynite
Dec 2014
#90