General Discussion

cascadiance

(19,537 posts)

137. Ask Rahm Emmanuel that when he funded conservative dems in primary battles when heading the DCCC

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 02:01 PM

Feb 2015

... and it was many of those conservative Democrats that were pushed in to office by the DCCC that lost in 2010 and in 2014.

When you keep progressive Dems out of congress even within one's own party, it isn't hard to see why it's been really hard to have many progressive Dems as alternatives. And many who do have progressive viewpoints (I consider my Senator Jeff Merkley one of them) aren't pushed in to the limelight by the corporate media where they can build a following.

Warren had a unique circumstance of being kept out of heading up the CFPB by the Republicans, and then being fortunate that Coakley ran such a brain-dead campaign to lose to Scott Walker when replacing Ted Kennedy to get that opportunity of being in the Senate. Those sequence of circumstances that allowed her in to the Senate do not happen too many times.

That is why those who have great progressive credentials we need to continue to push up the ladder and not just tell them to stay where they are. If Warren steps up and becomes president, I have no doubt that Massachusetts will find another decent senator to replace her with, and perhaps we'll have more progressive options to choose from later. Given that she's not running for her Senate seat in 2016, she doesn't need to choose between running for the Senate and the presidency either.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

154 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hillary Clinton's suffocating presence/The Economist [View all] Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2015 OP

Suffocating? GeorgeGist Feb 2015 #1

It's true. The Wall Street Democrats are trying to suck all the oxygen out of the party Warpy Feb 2015 #4

+1 daleanime Feb 2015 #17

Ansolutely spot on. hifiguy Feb 2015 #25

And if she doesn't win, which I doubt she can, they still win. A Simple Game Feb 2015 #54

She's the Bob Dole of the Democratic party. hifiguy Feb 2015 #61

That is simply not true! juajen Feb 2015 #70

Of whom Andy Stephenson, who was a preogressive, anti-Wall Street Dem, Ken Burch Feb 2015 #150

I don't think they care if they win or not, just so no liberals are allowed in the contest. Scuba Feb 2015 #32

Why do you use the word "allowed"? cheapdate Feb 2015 #34

Certainly. Chemisse Feb 2015 #39

True. cheapdate Feb 2015 #40

They have to have money to finance a campaign INdemo Feb 2015 #111

Thanks to the Robert's court Citizens United decision (5-4), cheapdate Feb 2015 #118

Correct Only corporatists candidates need to apply INdemo Feb 2015 #146

Exactly, keeping libeals out of power is their sole reason for existing Warpy Feb 2015 #35

+1 an entire shit load. Enthusiast Feb 2015 #52

+100000 Party obsession is a scam for proles. woo me with science Feb 2015 #37

Or they want a "liberal" like Edwards was who they know they can out during the primaries... cascadiance Feb 2015 #132

+1,000s (n/t) bread_and_roses Feb 2015 #47

Perfect response! raindaddy Feb 2015 #48

Silly Egnever Feb 2015 #147

Silly to count on her when she hasn't announced yet, you mean. Warpy Feb 2015 #148

I'm open Egnever Feb 2015 #149

READY to come off? The Hillary Express is already sitting up on blocks. InAbLuEsTaTe Feb 2015 #151

Not to me. Sounds spot on. Plus, there's more in the article if you read beyond the headline. n/t cui bono Feb 2015 #7

3rd Way does suck all the O2 out of a room. Katashi_itto Feb 2015 #16

Pissy and Snarky are The Economist's middle names. forest444 Feb 2015 #33

They endorsed Barack Obama for president in both 2008 and 2012 (nt) Nye Bevan Feb 2015 #84

Definition of PISSY demwing Feb 2015 #45

Pfft! Enthusiast Feb 2015 #53

Want proof? RedstDem Feb 2015 #140

I don't think of either Clinton or Warren as being too... Mike Nelson Feb 2015 #2

Nor do I but Deny and Shred Feb 2015 #5

Did you forget? Many thought he was too young and too inexperienced... Phentex Feb 2015 #9

I didn't forget Deny and Shred Feb 2015 #72

You don't think her candidacy would energize the women's vote? George II Feb 2015 #15

Intelligent women don't base their vote on genitalia. Divernan Feb 2015 #43

I doubt voters based their vote/non-vote on Sarah Palin because of her gender..... George II Feb 2015 #49

It's good you refuted your own post's argument. jeff47 Feb 2015 #125

No, I didn't refute my own post's argument, and what was "pointed out" to me was inaccurate... George II Feb 2015 #130

Your claim was women will vote for Clinton primarily because of her gender. jeff47 Feb 2015 #133

"Your claim was women will vote for Clinton primarily because of her gender" Where? George II Feb 2015 #141

Excellent riposte. Yet men will vote erronis Feb 2015 #64

It would, but is that enough? Deny and Shred Feb 2015 #73

I do not. I don't think the majority of women support her hawkish, pro-war stances. rhett o rick Feb 2015 #110

I think a primary though with Warren would help focus an emphasis on issues... cascadiance Feb 2015 #134

All but 1 of the women in my immediate family are strongly anti-Hillary & refuse 2 vote 4 her under any circumstances. InAbLuEsTaTe Feb 2015 #152

warren will be 67 in 2016; clinton will be 69. reagan, the oldest president, was 69 (a few weeks ND-Dem Feb 2015 #30

Do we have any reason to believe they would have been better Presidents winter is coming Feb 2015 #69

well, reagan wouldn't have had alzheimers. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #75

I'm not sure that would have been an improvement, though. n/t winter is coming Feb 2015 #76

you may be right in reagan's case. fact remains, warren and clinton would be significantly older ND-Dem Feb 2015 #78

Jerry Brown is 76 (77 in less than 2 months), and just starting his second term as governor. deurbano Feb 2015 #104

Reagan was already an ass when he was governor of California Art_from_Ark Feb 2015 #144

true. but he didn't have alzheimers. that we know. and i'd guess that the reason whh & zt died ND-Dem Feb 2015 #145

If the Dems can't cough up an alternative to HRC's left, HereSince1628 Feb 2015 #3

If it is the circumstances of the party then we are in a lot of trouble because not only do we have jwirr Feb 2015 #10

I'm not in wandering diaspora mode yet. June to Oct is typically the time for announcing HereSince1628 Feb 2015 #13

If Bernie champions where you think the country should go you should vote for him anyway! Dustlawyer Feb 2015 #108

I will in the primary. But I will not help the Rs win in the general. jwirr Feb 2015 #112

what cannot be said DonCoquixote Feb 2015 #138

However it has come about, the inability of Dems to field a progressive candidate is bad HereSince1628 Feb 2015 #142

IMO we're being set up for a Republican win by both sides. woo me with science Feb 2015 #6

I would agree with you IF I thought that most peope in America even know what an Oligarchy is. jwirr Feb 2015 #11

This nation is learning about "oligarchy" whether people know the word or not. woo me with science Feb 2015 #14

Really? So the 99% does not know who they are up against? What ever. L0oniX Feb 2015 #82

I live in a normal community and I come To DU to talk to people who actually understand what we jwirr Feb 2015 #88

Thanks, Woo. "Not as Bad" is losing its credence by its own acts. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2015 #18

An just listen to the language demwing Feb 2015 #66

Very depressing. Glad I don't keep guns. rgbecker Feb 2015 #41

Sure if the list was accurate but it's not, no big surprise there. Agschmid Feb 2015 #50

Surprise to me. Care to point out the inaccuracies? Deny and Shred Feb 2015 #80

Here we go... Agschmid Feb 2015 #89

Nonsense. Of course individual Democrats speak out in favor of liberal policies. woo me with science Feb 2015 #92

Notice that last one about "Senate Democrats"... Agschmid Feb 2015 #93

Nothing you wrote there, including your failed "gotcha" attempt, changes my point. woo me with science Feb 2015 #94

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Feb 2015 #42

It's hard to see it any other way. Enthusiast Feb 2015 #57

The ugly truth. But there it is. Enthusiast Feb 2015 #55

Nominatimg Hillary guarantees a Repug win. The Dems can't be that stupid; I refuse to believe that. InAbLuEsTaTe Feb 2015 #56

I wouldn't go so far as to say it guarantees a GOP win. The GOP field winter is coming Feb 2015 #96

+1, it's a scam harun Feb 2015 #91

the differences are there to get people to vote for the similarities ... MisterP Feb 2015 #95

! DeSwiss Feb 2015 #103

I fear that's true and that the winner is Jeb - TBF Feb 2015 #106

^^^What. Woo said ^^^ hedda_foil Feb 2015 #116

Award-deserving post, AFAIC pablo_marmol Feb 2015 #129

Elizabeth Warren is emerging as the soul of the Dem Party. AtomicKitten Feb 2015 #8

What's sad is they don't have 10 more like her fbc Feb 2015 #20

Well, if the "Oligarchy meme is correct, juajen Feb 2015 #68

Ask Rahm Emmanuel that when he funded conservative dems in primary battles when heading the DCCC cascadiance Feb 2015 #137

Bernie Sanders 2016. woo me with science Feb 2015 #21

I am with ya, woo. hifiguy Feb 2015 #26

'We stopped the Clinton ruthless ambition in 2008' Maven Feb 2015 #67

There is no irony; it was a clear choice. AtomicKitten Feb 2015 #74

The Right is for rethugs. RiverLover Feb 2015 #12

Another anti-Hillary Clinton (aka Hillary bashing!) article appears! George II Feb 2015 #19

Hooray!!! fbc Feb 2015 #22

Notice that the excerpt (can't be bothered with the rest) doesn't have a scintilla..... George II Feb 2015 #24

I'm younger than Hillary by a few years.. Fumesucker Feb 2015 #31

Physically fragile Clintons are wrapped in protective cocoon of 5 star luxury, 24/7. Divernan Feb 2015 #90

And none of the other candidates will have similar entourages if elected? George II Feb 2015 #122

I don't speak argle bargle. Divernan Feb 2015 #123

Ageism at its best. Agschmid Feb 2015 #51

Age can have a suffocating presence, can't it? George II Feb 2015 #59

Because we think Clinton's too old to be head of state, we have nothing to live for? ND-Dem Feb 2015 #79

It's sarcasm did you see the tag? Agschmid Feb 2015 #87

aka Republican bashing. nt RiverLover Feb 2015 #23

Pile it on!!!! George II Feb 2015 #121

and written by a Cato Institute creep OKNancy Feb 2015 #120

More importantly, a destructive presence for the 99% LittleBlue Feb 2015 #27

Absolutely. woo me with science Feb 2015 #29

Won't begin to be able to turn the trend around until '24 if HRC wins in '16. stillwaiting Feb 2015 #60

I'm still trying to figure out when it became acceptable for two families to monopolize the presidency whatchamacallit Feb 2015 #28

Shit is truly fundamentally broken. Enthusiast Feb 2015 #58

Very true davidpdx Feb 2015 #101

see my signature line Man from Pickens Feb 2015 #109

So some nameless guy from Tennessee writes a letter to the editor trying to scare Dems off pnwmom Feb 2015 #36

Just thinking about Rose Siding Feb 2015 #44

I know! Such AUDACITY from those proles woo me with science Feb 2015 #71

The "prole" in question is a reader of a business magazine -- not your typical prole. n/t pnwmom Feb 2015 #81

Really? How does that work, exactly? woo me with science Feb 2015 #85

Conservative and libertarian magazines. Since the magazine openly promotes deregulation and privatization, pnwmom Feb 2015 #136

What a bizarre and disturbing argument woo me with science Feb 2015 #143

It appears to me that perhaps no Democratic candidate would satisfy many Democrats olegramps Feb 2015 #114

Thanks for the very thoughtful post. pnwmom Feb 2015 #135

Hillary will run to Obama's right. And lose. blkmusclmachine Feb 2015 #38

Warren is not remarkably younger and does not seem it. hrmjustin Feb 2015 #46

Suffocating? AKA Overly Maternal? Sounds sexist to me. No man would be called "suffocating". libdem4life Feb 2015 #62

Suffocating as in quickly and painfully extinguishing life. F4lconF16 Feb 2015 #99

Thanks, but I know the definition. It's a commonly used phrase to refer to a "smother mother" and libdem4life Feb 2015 #115

Point taken F4lconF16 Feb 2015 #128

Oh, pleeeeeze. None of us are assured of waking up in the morning. Thinkingabout Feb 2015 #63

I am trying to imagine for a second that such a thing would be written about a male candidate dsc Feb 2015 #65

"insufficiently voted for" wyldwolf Feb 2015 #77

She lost to Obama. So she gets to run now? Dem's settle for a 2nd place looser as the front runner? L0oniX Feb 2015 #83

LOL. She's INEVITABLE!!!!!! woo me with science Feb 2015 #86

she's more inevitabler than ever AtomicKitten Feb 2015 #98

Of course she gets to run now. winter is coming Feb 2015 #97

Anyone can run. joshcryer Feb 2015 #100

While yer reading into what I said here's something that could help you... L0oniX Feb 2015 #107

There's also the issue of ascension. DeSwiss Feb 2015 #102

*Petitions For 2016 Progressive Candidate For President* TYT RiverLover Feb 2015 #105

Bush and Clinton - the rich and corrupt have nothing to fear from either one. whereisjustice Feb 2015 #113

yet another Republican from the Cato Institute being posted at DU OKNancy Feb 2015 #117

I'm Concerned About Her Viability to Win ProfessorGAC Feb 2015 #119

. stonecutter357 Feb 2015 #124

Must throw the Economist Under the Bus, to join in all those other dubious sources! 2banon Feb 2015 #126

"dubious sources" are those that aren't "Ready for Hillary". Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2015 #127

For the record, the author who wrote this is not a Republican dissentient Feb 2015 #131

Was the writer of this article as concerned when Reagan ran? Beacool Feb 2015 #139

Why not jump over Hillary JEB Feb 2015 #153

kick woo me with science Feb 2015 #154