Elizabeth Warren

[cascadiance]

87. I'm sorry but many tech workers like myself will NOT support those that want to TAKE AWAY their jobs

... and lower their salaries. I'm sorry, but many in the Democratic Party are not that stupid. And there are many independent voters in the high tech sector that feel the same way, if the Dems allow "leaders" like Schumer and Clinton to get their way and outsource away their jobs.

People are taking away my choice if they intimidate anyone who might challenge the "anointed" ones by the DLC parts of the party to even run in the primaries, which is PRECISELY what many that support Clinton are trying to do here on DU now to intimidate candidates like Warren from entering the race. The DLC has done this constantly over the years with many other progressive candidates in downstream races too, and through their control of the DCCC has kept other candidates from getting funding, etc., limiting our choices of who represents us. The Seattle City Council race shows an example of what eventually happens when the party keeps newer voices from representing newer concerns that affect their constituency from being part of the race. In this case, a socialist instead of a Republican got elected. The Dems down the road could become a Whig party too, if they continue this policy of trying to intimidate both the public and other potential candidates from contesting those selected by the corporatists who have gamed the system to control the party. Koch is laughing on the way to the bank that he used to fund the DLC with earlier.

It is not just the Democratic Party that needs to win in 2016. It is the American public (the 99%!) that needs to win then! And if we allow the 1% to control what the two major parties run as candidates, nobody wins, and everyone will lose more if enough people break out to vote for a third party, and without instant runoff voting, that gives the presidency to someone like Cruz of the Republicans without a majority of voter support. We need to MAKE SURE that the Democratic Party has a good primary then to help allow for ALL voices to be heard and hopefully the best representative of a majority of its members to be nominated. That isn't helped by trying to say only one candidate should be paid attention to now.

I actually like Granholm as well, but that doesn't take away that she has the Koch funded DLC in her roots, which likely affects the political circles she pushes too.

I would submit you do NOT KNOW what Elizabeth Warren thinks any more than the rest of us do or don't. She may not want to run. She may feel a lot of intimidation to have her say the things she does, even if she does entertain the possibility of running personally. The most we as the public can do is to show our sentiments and collectively get others to show that we agree with the battles she's been fighting and that we feel we need someone like her to have that sort of leadership at a national level.

You just cite experience, fund raising capability, organization, and a desire to have "worked for a lifetime" to be president. How many Republicans can cite the EXACT SAME REASONS for their running. That is just describing politicians in general. What are your PERSONAL reasons why you feel that she is best qualified? What issue stances and personal accomplishments do you think separates HRC from other candidates like Elizabeth Warren why those who have in the past called themselves Democrats and present Democrats or those who might consider being one if they moved away from their current corporatist and bankster serving agendda would support. If you want to make the case that she's the candidate we should all jump on board with and ignore others, then it is THAT case you need to make to the rest of us. Because on issues like H-1B visas, war in Iran, free trade agreements such as NAFTA and the TPP, many of us simply aren't buying it!