Elizabeth Warren on The Rachel Maddow Show: Anyone watching?

[Auggie]

Warren is on fire.

[Xipe Totec]

1. Go Elizabeth! nt

[cilla4progress]

2. Just tuned in to DVR.

Warren is like that! Hot damn!

[teach1st]

3. 5he's impressive

And totally likeable.

[GP6971]

4. Yep

very impressive.

[superpatriotman]

5. Yup

I am quite fond of her

[Cha]

6. Good to see!

[tulipsandroses]

7. I'm watching

Refreshing

[Auggie]

8. She's so authentic ... it's very powerful

[Raven123]

9. Yes. Spontaneous, authentic, powerful personal story.

[Greywing]

10. No question, I still love her ...

She is a fighter!

[Cousin Dupree]

11. Yes. She's so passionate about her causes

[Auggie]

12. Warren has gotten the full attention of the 1%

[fleabiscuit]

80. Yes. May all their precious body parts dry up and drop off.

[BigmanPigman]

13. If the election were tonight she'd have my vote.

Nail it to the uber corrupt who are raping our govt and country!

[Auggie]

14. Mine too!

[nolabear]

15. I'm in the car (parked) so listening. She is utterly prepared.

She hasn’t gone into this without enough prep (and a world of experience) on every subject to be able to speak intelligently and succinctly on them.

Just compare her to that rambling clown this morning.

[we can do it]

16. I think she'd be a great candidate.

[Clash City Rocker]

17. She sounds very presidential

I love the passion and the intelligence.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

22. Bullshit.

[Auggie]

24. +1

"We don't elect Librarians"

I'd expect a statement like that from Trump

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

25. Well, you never know who's who anymore...

[Guppy]

30. She is less likable than Hilary

and I liked Hilary. One thing you have to understand is how one comes across to the general population and not the DU faithful. It is two entirely different universes.

[uponit7771]

46. Yeah, the racist and asshole don't like her of course buts that another KGOP framing. We're not

... going after the racist and assholes we want the non voters and dem turnout.

[hedda_foil]

54. Did you ever think, tiny fishy, that you might not know that much about the American people?

[pnwmom]

55. If you think she isn't likable, then you don't like successful, warm, caring, smart women. n/t

[betsuni]

60. "I liked Hilary" (sic) "the DU faithful"

[Cha]

76. Rofl

[PatSeg]

88. I remember seeing Warren on TV

long before she went into politics. Besides being very informative, I found her to be exceptionally likable. She was such a popular guest on shows like Real Time, that she was brought back numerous times.

Likability was never her problem. If she has a problem in a presidential race, it will be because she is a smart woman, which can be a hard sell to many in this country.

[whathehell]

95. I think she's more likeable than Hillary

and I like Hilary too, but EW comes across as far more passionate and caring, in my opinion.

[luvtheGWN]

97. Here's a view from the north:

You have to ask yourself: Did Reagan get elected because of his policies or because he was glib and well-practiced in front of the camera?

Did GHW Bush NOT get elected because he was, maybe, too bland?

Did Bill Clinton get elected because he too was extremely good in front of the cameras, despite his sexual proclivities? (I thought he was the best candidate, but was still amazed that all those good CINOS didn't put up more of a stink)

Did W get elected because...? Oh wait, he actually didn't, the first time. The second time he had Dirty Tricks Rove working all out for him.

Did Obama get elected because of his experience? No, he was new, young, with great policies and even greater sex appeal.

The second time he was running against a stodgy, dull Mormon.

Did Trump get elected because he was experienced and knowledgeable? No, he was a TV star and knew how to appeal to the deplorables. And he ran against Hillary (for whom I have the utmost respect) who had no sex appeal and seemed to turn off too many of those who would otherwise have voted for her.

So my conclusion is that, even though I agree with 95% of what Elizabeth Warren stands for, and I admire her passion and her commitment, she is yesterday's news, and will never bring in the votes. Her appeal to the deplorables and the independents is basically non-existent.

Don't hate me, I'm Canadian!

[Moebym]

98. Yeah, sure...

Let's pick someone that the other side hates the least. THAT will help us win.

eyeroll

[lunatica]

99. Hillary is spelled with two "l"s

Which is common knowledge, even outside of the DU faithful.

[k8conant]

112. She is more likable than Hillary and she's a fighter for the right causes

and she really knows what she's talking about.

[demmiblue]

123. Umm, no. n/t

[elleng]

61. It's pretty clear you're in the wrong place,

uninformed on many levels.

[Hekate]

34. Oh, how terribly "unfortunate" that we "hired" Barack Obama then? Say what?

Your several posts aren't hanging together very well. Librarians as a group aren't "intellectuals" -- although they do have to have a Masters degree in their field. And who is the librarian to whom you refer? If you mean Elizabeth Warren, she is running as a twice-elected US Senator.

What are you on about?

[Fiendish Thingy]

35. So which "rock star" are you excited about for 2020? Nt

[George II]

75. Somebody got lost on his way to Freeperville.

[uponit7771]

40. LOFL !!! Yaw here early no?

[Hekate]

49. Somebody is seriously dumping all over this thread with some astonishing talking points...

Ew. Ew. Ew.

[uponit7771]

50. +1, some old gnarled up stank talking points too

[betsuni]

53. I've seen Warren described as an "annoyed librarian" and "schoolmarm": talking point.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

59. By Republicans. QED.

[betsuni]

66. Well, saw those comments at JPR and SplinterNews, self-described progressives/independents.

But of course who knows.

[pnwmom]

119. That's a way sexists and misogynists of any party seek to diminish women.

And we know, unfortunately, there are some sexists and misogynists among so-called "progressives." We were just reminded of that recently, with a letter written by a couple dozen concerned people.

[pnwmom]

52. What a sexist comment.

And don't pretend it isn't.

83% of librarians are WOMEN.

[Blue_true]

62. Yes, it was sexist and wrong.

I prefer a person that clearly like reading and learning over an idiot like Trump.

[Hekate]

64. No kidding

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

65. Oh ow. Whoa.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

19. How in the world are we going to pick one candidate

So many good ones to choose from. I saw Washington Gov. Jay Inslee earlier on Chris Hayes and I thought he was very impressive also. And I am a big Beto fan. Also Impressed with Kamala Harris.

Does everyone look so good just because what we have now is so bad?

[fleabiscuit]

86. Answering the last line; No we have a lot of awesome people in our party.

[MFM008]

118. Inslee is my Gov.

Been watching him for a long time.
I hope he runs.

[bullwinkle428]

20. I'm guessing Shitler is probably watching intently as well. Expect a Tweet first

thing in the morning, if not sooner, regarding "Pocahantas".

[jcgoldie]

51. doubtful

He'd have to turn the channel and my guess is he'd much rather watch Hannity kiss his ass.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

67. His Syria policy just developed...

and Afghanistan...he'll be parroting her words come tomorrow.

[bdamomma]

21. yes

She's good very passionate.

[spooky3]

23. She's a genuine populist. Nt

[Guppy]

28. just like William Jennings Bryan n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. She's a progressive, not a populist. Big difference.

[torius]

27. She's awesome

go Liz! you can win it!

[oasis]

31. She was impressive. Would make a fine president. nt

[leanforward]

32. I'll vote for her

I like her message. Thought it should have been used more last time.

Populism equals middle class. I learned a long time ago, that successful programs are the ones that benefit more citizens. We need to get to the rural areas.

[oberliner]

37. Who are they voting for?

[Guppy]

38. Donald Trump

I know these voters. I actually did very well in rural Georgia. First thing is you better not be an egghead. Secondly you better be able to hang with them. Elizabeth Warren can not hang with them As much as Trump detests them they like him.

[oberliner]

42. I meant what Democrat would they vote for over Trump?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

45. And they'll vote for Trump no matter who the Dems nominate.

[uponit7771]

48. You mean the racist enabler and assholes? There are more dems and non voters than Obama switch voter

... switch voters right?

you know we've gone over this before ?

Fuck the racist and asshole, we don't need them

[jcgoldie]

57. well no shit

So your solution is to find an idiot?

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

71. I see...so...rural GA speaks for the rest of America?

Fuck it then...GA is voting for trump....Shit. Nevermind everyone. Nevermind. GA says no.

[defacto7]

84. People like that are brain dead. Forget them.

They will evolve or they will die out. I wouldn't try to appease them, it just feeds the stupid and puts off the inevitable.

[spooky3]

92. With all due respect to our GA DUers, the next Dem

candidate will likely be far more focused on keeping excitement high among our base and winning back the parts of the Midwest lost or stolen in 2016. Rural voters are welcome but if they refuse to vote in their best interests, that is going to be their problem, not that of the Dem candidates.

[pnwmom]

111. Why are you hung up on rural voters in a red state? n/t

[Hekate]

43. ???

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

69. Hey, if GA isnt on board...I know about 20 States that will be by then.

Gerrymander free zones. GA isnt the world. Thankfully.
GA voters have no credit problems I guess? Or can relate to anything she said?

[AlexSFCA]

83. why not? She is from Oklahoma

IMO, She has more chance to win that Biden.

[lunatica]

101. LOL!

Are you an expert? How many third grade teachers have you known were running for office?

You’re not very subtle.

[pnwmom]

109. We don't expect R votes from rural Georgia, and we don't need them.

Voters in rural Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan won't view her as a 3rd grade teacher who failed them.

First you turned her into a librarian, now a 3rd grade teacher. Your sexism couldn't be more obvious.

[Hekate]

39. I had forgotten how much I really like Senator Warren. Let's all be prepared to have her back...

...for the inevitable attacks and smears -- even if she is not your #1 pick, please do this for all our Dem candidates.

[still_one]

77. Exactly. SHE IS A DEMOCRAT!!!!!!!!!

[fleabiscuit]

90. +1

[LAS14]

41. I agree with Guppy's various replies. I really like her, but I know...

... I'm not typical of the broader electorate. This go around I want someone with charisma. She has the right ideas, and passion, sure, but not charisma.

[Blaukraut]

72. If after 4 years of Trump Democrats can't get excited enough about our candidate to get up and vote

then they deserve Trump for another 4 years.

[OncoRN]

78. I agree,

And I hate myself for thinking this way but I just don't see her as appealing for the young people or those who are the type to not get out and vote unless they are inspired by someone with charisma. I watched her tonight and totally agree with what she said.

[PatSeg]

91. Young people are concerned

about tuition, student loan debt, and a good economy. These are Warren's specialties.

[spooky3]

93. Are you aware that she has gotten stellar teaching evaluations

From her Harvard and other students all her life? How old do you think those students are?

Do you think people in their 20s might be concerned about student loan indebtedness?

[LAS14]

132. Harvard law students are a distinct sub group of the "young people" population. nt

[spooky3]

137. She taught in other places before Harvard and

Other students also thought she was great.

You may not like those imperfect data, but they are more data than simply one person’s opinion about how young people might feel.

[fleabiscuit]

79. You want someone that will "charm" you? My mind tilted on that one. nt

[LAS14]

131. I want someone who will charm voters who might otherwise stay home. nt

[spooky3]

96. Does it concern you that you are dissing two strong women

on the basis of a very vague criticism?

[LAS14]

133. Nope, it doesn't concern me, because I'm not dissing her. Read the post.

I said I LIKED her. I'm just saying that I don't think she has the qualities that will bring typical non-voters to the polls. Most people don't.

[spooky3]

136. Glad you're confident, and obviously I DID read your post.

So I will offer you advice since you offered it to me: consider what evidence you have or do not have about the “ability to bring voters to the polls” of female and male candidates.

[LAS14]

138. You and I are both dealing in opinion. We disagree about what might be the case, but neither of us.

.. has the facts.

[lunatica]

102. I think that's a really shallow quality to demand

I think someone who knows what they’re doing and actually works to make all our lives better is more adequate.

[pnwmom]

120. Watching her, I thought she DID have charisma. I don't see how any progressive,

or left-center person, who didn't start out by hating women, could find her unlikable.

[LAS14]

134. We need more than progressives and left-center people to want to get to the polls and vote. nt

[Quixote1818]

135. Most left of center issues poll extremely well even with a lot of conservatives

So most of the country is left of center whether they know it or not.

[jimlup]

44. Warren is awesome...

Only people who aren't paying attention think she is "old news."

[pecosbob]

47. She handles spit-balls well, better than most

Pro-republican mainstream media constantly frames the narrative in a manner meant to make Democratic candidates look bad. Warren always has the presence of mind to refuse the bait and reframe the narrative in neutral language and invariably shows her support for the working class. There will be a full-court press from the one percent and their mouthpieces in the next few months and I hope that DUers refrain from spreading any of the tripe written by The Hill or Politico or the Intercept about her here on this site.

[Hekate]

68. Someone in this thread has been a busy boy doing just that with the tripe....

...and is over in the Nancy Pelosi thread too. Wow.

[pecosbob]

73. I guess some people were never taught not to throw food at the table.

[lunatica]

104. He/she won't last long

It’s too obvious.

It feels like we’re getting inundated. We best be vigilant.

[albacore]

56. I have loved her since 2004, when I read her book...

...the Two Income Trap.
I agree with every word she says.
I will gladly vote for her.
IF she can win.
I love any of the Dems who can win.
We cannot let the Repubs divide us, or win, or even make a showing.
Will Rogers said that he didn't belong to an organized political Party... he was a Democrat.
I expect there to be a fight over the nomination. It had BETTER be civil and aimed at the Repubs.
But after that fight, we MUST come together.

[fleabiscuit]

58. The more good Democrats in the running the better, I say.

Such a relief to see her tonight speaking clearly and soundly.

Such a contrast to the monster currently illegitimately occupying the White House.

She'll drive him even more batcrap crazy. Along with a few "progressives."

[elmac]

63. excellent interview, there will be a lot of energy and excitement behind her campaign.nt

[TDale313]

70. She's great.

Been impressed with her for a long time. There are a lot of potential candidates that I could be very happy supporting, but atm she’s the one I’m most excited about. Love her message and priorities. I think she could do a lot to pull various factions in the party together and heal some divisions. I also think anyone who can get under Trump’s skin as much as she clearly has must be doing something right 🙂

[aikoaiko]

74. I'm giving every candidate a chance to make their case

Candidates sometimes become amazing candidates like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

[KPN]

81. Oooh! A lot of Post Removed's in this thread.

What have I missed?

[sweetloukillbot]

100. Just guessing here, but...

Misogyny disguised as "she's not likeable." A lot of concern. Maybe some ageism as well. But definitely misogyny - a lot of it hasn't been taken down.

[ecstatic]

82. I will watch later, and it will determine whether I'll support

her in the primaries or not. I really hope Rachel asked some tough questions!

[Flaleftist]

85. Thank you.

I DVR Maddow, but I don't always watch every show. This interview is definitely worth watching.

[AdamGG]

87. Even if she isn't the nominee, her presence will influence/improve the platform/talking points

Elizabeth Warren's presence in the campaign and the debates, articulating things as well as she does, will strengthen whoever the nominee is.

[PatSeg]

89. We have so many remarkable choices this time

I think they will all contribute a great deal to the campaign and the debates. I have no preference so early on, but I'm sure I will not be disappointed.

[stillspkg]

94. Disappointed in Rachel

Rachel's show tonight was a disappointment for me. 1) Questioning Elizabeth Warren’s commitment, the integrity of her call in a way that came off as dismissive and arrogant. This is lateral sexism plain and simple. 2) Rachel’s use of the term “identity politics.” As long as we let Republican terminology define the narrative, and if we constantly project arrogance that we know better instead of letting our passion lead us (as Elizabeth is), we will continue to lose. Everyone needs checks and balances, including Rachel.

[Auggie]

126. Maddow was tame compared to what Warren will faces from others n/t

[kennetha]

103. Not super impressed so far

lot's of quasi-socialist sounding blather about how the billionaire class has "rigged" economy.

But I will withhold judgment until I dig into her substantive policy proposals.

The real question is does she really and truly have an approach that comes to grips with the real dynamics of the 21st century economy which is being shaped more and more by automation, globalization in an increasingly interconnected world and which is about to be completely upended by the political economy of dealing with climate change.

Tonight she sounded like a Bernie Sanders clone, and Bernie is somebody who is stuck in the mid 20th century. He's been giving the same diagnosis of both our politics and our economy since back when he was the socialist mayor of Burlington.

I hope that Warren has a more complex and nuanced understanding of the massive trends of the 21st Century than Bernie the outdated, broken socialist record. But what she had to say on Rachel's show was not exactly encouraging.

[JCanete]

110. uh...how is that blather? Do you actually have a contention with it? That I'd like to read.

[KPN]

113. Blather? So you disagree that the system is

and has been rigged in favor on big money by big money? So you are okay with the 45 plus years of supply-side economics coupled with hysteria about the “oh-heaven! the sky is falling” federal deficit fear mongering?

That’s what it sounds like.

Do you disagree that vast wealth has been shifted away from the middle class to the wealthy over that period via tax and other economic policy that favors the wealthy and big corporations over everyday Americans? Sounds like it.

What sounds like blather to me is the same old “dynamics of the 21st century economy shaped by automation and globalization” as if these dynamics are something from which the current consequences are and were unavoidable and that people oriented politicians have no ability to manage via policy. Sounds to me like you’ve drunk the kool aid frankly. That’s all smoke screen bullshit that distracts from the basic notion that money and wealth have been systematically stolen permanently from the middle class and lower class as a whole consistently over the past 45 years. They, the .1% already have all the money which means it can’t easily be recovered or reasonable income balance restored via federal income tax policy. Even the most progressive income tax policy can’t restore that. How about what’s your solution as opposed to projecting about Warren blathering. Do you have any? One?

Here’s mine. I don’t see any possible way to restore a reasonable amount of wealth to non-wealthy classes aside from an outright wealth tax. Tax their frigging assets. If we don’t do something like that, we can’t have a sustainable democracy.

Just stop with the phony economic distortions.

[kennetha]

117. And what pray tell do you suppose people oriented politicians can do

Last edited Thu Jan 3, 2019, 04:57 AM - Edit history (1)

to stop globalization and its grinding effect on the American workforce? Maybe you want to go all Trump. Erect Walls, Impose Tariffs? Back out of trade agreements, fight a rearguard action to "rescue" industries that are rapidly being left behind as yesterday's economic relics.

Do you really think that will help stem the tide of the rapidly gathering economic forces of the 21st century? Do you really think that will bring about a more prosperous world at peace with itself?

And automation? You do realize that driverless cars, to take just one example, are going to eliminate about 3 million middle class jobs right here in America in the not too distant future. And that's just the tip of a massive iceberg that we're about to crash up against.


Maybe we could just smash the machines, like the luddites of old? Like they are doing in Arizona even as we speak!

And we haven't even talked about the vast economic challenges and opportunities that coping with climate change is about to bring.

You really think some tired old socialist blather is even close to being adequate to the challenges we face? I don't. Not by a long shot. Not that we don't need public investment and investment in human capital. But the evil billionaire class, whether you like it or not, will have a hugely important role to play. It's not simply a matter of seizing their wealth and pushing them to the sidelines of the economy.

You're stuck in the battles of yesterday. You need to broaden your horizon. You need to get in the fight for today and tomorrow and the day after tomorrow and get beyond the old antagonisms. They are restricting your vision and your imagination.

Hopefully, Warren is smarter than that. Hopefully her archaic socialist blather was just a bit of pandering to a certain part of the democratic base -- which unfortunately, has certain legitimate grievances, but has no real solutions to offer.

[LanternWaste]

129. I'd call it blather too... if my biases compelled me do do so.

But, as I'm using rational thought this morning, what specifically did she say that fits within the parameters of the words 'blather?'

Is yours merely another emotional reponse ("hopefully, you're smarter than that..." ), or is there an objective and valid measure on which you predicate that statement; and if so, what is that measure based on?

(please try to support your statements with evidence as well.. as all you're doing to date is simply slinging together allegations, one after the other)

Blather, indeed. Yet more ironic than you appear to realize.

[KPN]

130. More blather. Stop drinking the koolaid and maybe you'll

realize all is not hopeless and “socialism” isn’t evil nor does it have to mean government controls the means of production.

You criticize but offer zero constructive suggestions or insights.

[GeorgeGist]

140. Long on accusations ...

but no real solutions to offer.

[Roy Rolling]

105. *ring*

"...and, they're off!"

And she's got an impressive start out the gate. Excellent broadcast.

[Gothmog]

106. I really like Senator Warren and would support her if she is the nominee

Senator Warren is amazing but we have several amazing candidates in including Senator Harris, Joe Biden, Beto and Senator Booker

[McKim]

107. Don't Feed the Sexist Attack Trolls

Don’t feed the sexist attack trolls. They are out and they are relentless. Don’t let them make choices for our party!

[Gothmog]

108. Thank you Senator Warren

Link to tweet

[betsuni]

114. Transparency!

[pecosbob]

115. And so of course The Hill turned the entire interview

into a call for party purity like the spin doctors they are...

[wiley]

116. First time I ever changed channels on Maddow

Zero interest at this point in anything other than attacking Republican Senators, what anyone in the Democratic Party with any brains should be doing now. Instead, we allow the media to play us with this horse race nonsense.

[malaise]

121. She was excellent

Rec

[Vinca]

124. She was fine and I could support her as the nominee. I want to see everyone first though.

If there's a better chance of beating the Orange Fuhrer with a Midwesterner, I might prefer to support her . . . or him. It's way too early to lock in a preference.

[Kahuna7]

125. I'm not a Warren fan (do not ask me why), but i have to say she

did come across well. Probably because Rachel led up to the interview with her prior interviews going back 20 years. IOW, she's no Johnny-come-lately.

[Auggie]

128. +1

[sellitman]

139. She was magnificent.

Harris - Warren would be an amazing ticket. Historic. I don't care who is the top of the ticket.