2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Elizabeth Warren [View all]cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... countless times when asked that same question on Thom Hartmann's show when he's a guest on friday shows of his.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024039611
Many politicians INCLUDING your Hillary have said "no" to this question in the past when they aren't ready to make such commitments. Why should Warren be any different? You are just making this claim as part of this partisan effort to stop any possible campaign in its tracks. Understand that many of us are NOT going to accept that the game is over when it hasn't started yet. This pointless rattling of sabres on whether she's running or not (party divisiveness) doesn't help but contribute to animosity that many in the Hillary camp are also claiming as reasons we should not have a Warren candidacy when they are the ones that are spurring this discussion point that is making for this animosity more than anything else at this point. We should be focusing on issues that many of us supporting Warren (and we feel Warren as well feels personally) are being avoided by the corporate press and the current political establishment. That is where we should be talking, not on the nonsense of whether someone is running for office in 2016, when it is now still 2013. Even if Warren doesn't get the nomination in the end, if we have succeeded in putting these avoided issues on the table and hopefully influencing the party and the eventual candidate to support good positions on them, we'll have won.
We might start talking about Warren a lot and how she addresses issues we want to get a campaign effort started, but I see no reason to dismiss Hillary Clinton and her supporters from starting a campaign on the issues they believe she should speak for them for as well. That is the political process that should be celebrated. These other games are not and should be avoided.