BREAKING: Elizabeth Warren supports Hillary for President

[brooklynite]

ABC News:

All of the female Democratic senators signed a secret letter to Hillary Rodham Clinton early this year encouraging her to run for president in 2016 – a letter that includes the signature of Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other senators who are mentioned as potential candidates, two high-ranking Democratic Senate aides told ABC News.

The letter, organized at the urging of Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., was meant to be a private show of support from a group of 16 high-profile former colleagues and fans who are now senators, urging Clinton to do what much of the Democratic Party assumes she will, the aides said.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

1. and 1000 DU heads explode

[Beacool]

14. My same thoughts..........

[BainsBane]

111. Here's my take on how that is playing out

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3951015

[Beacool]

234. Funny!!!

[cali]

36. hardly I doubt there's so much as one, pretzy.

I've been predicting this since before warren was elected.

Love to disappoint you!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

39. :) not disappointed. just smiling.

I'm glad you predicted it. Then again, that may be why you didn't have a Warren 2016 image in your signature.

[NuclearDem]

50. I've got no problem making up my own mind on these things.

I don't prefer to follow any politician into the depths of hell just because of who they are and some policies I might agree with them on.

[Walk away]

74. At least a dozen of them will show up on this thread and a few...

will tell us that they will never vote for Hillary. Subtract that from the hundreds of thousand or even millions of women who will cross parties to vote for her and that's a win.

[MynameisBlarney]

99. I will vote for Clinton if she's nominated

But I'd prefer someone a bit more progressive.

[Fawke Em]

206. Me, too.

Of course, it won't matter who I vote for where I live. The Republican will, unfortunately, carry my state.

[Voice for Peace]

207. I like that the women are all in on it. That tickles me.

This will be the administration for WOMEN both
nationally and internationally.

Keep the ship turning saneward..

[lostincalifornia]

104. lol

[TheKentuckian]

158. She is a Senator, not an Oracle. I feel zero obligation to follow suite.

I want Brown but if he isn't interested and can't be drafted then I'll move down my list.

I like Warren but I have no clue about her positions in many areas and so my interest was only moderate pending a clearer picture.

I favor senator Brown because he has a hell off a track record and can win a large swing State. We know what we are getting there and if has been a pretty consistent product rather than a gimmick over a lot of years.

I oppose Hillary for similar reasons, very consistent product over many years that I don't favor.

[LuvNewcastle]

193. Same here. It doesn't matter to me one whit who Elizabeth Warren supports.

I was sort of leaning toward Warren if she ran, but I've said before that I thought she was too green. I'll see who else is running and decide then. There are lots of people who I agree with more and who I'd rather see in office. The election is 3 years away!

[brooklynite]

197. Pick again....

I know someone extremely close to Sherrod. He's not running.

[TheKentuckian]

221. Well, I don't so I'll keep on keeping on

[gcomeau]

2. Not an unexpected position for her to take...

...at least to anyone who isn't living in "Warren for President '16!!!" fantasy world and prefers residing in reality.

I wish her luck in '20 or '24.

[Scuba]

18. What was she going to do? Be the lone holdout?

Guess we'll have to draft her.

I cannot in good faith support Hillary over EW.

[brooklynite]

24. Fortunately, you won't have to...

(not that she was going to run anyway)

[Octafish]

31. Fortunately for whom?

Wall Street? Walmart? TPP? The Banksters?

[cascadiance]

183. + ∞

?

[antigop]

249. +10000 nt

[gcomeau]

32. Umm... yes?

If she had the intention of running herself then obviously the response would be "sorry, I'm planning on running myself." The media chatter and other asociated fallout woulfd be... "Warren planning on running herself", the level of public exposure that generates being bad HOW for a campaign exactly?

How is that complicated or difficult?

The bottom line is of course that she knows now is not the time for her to run, and that Clinton is far and away the best candidate if your interests are "prevent GOP from taking back white House and breaking everything we spent the last 8 years painstakingly trying to gradually piece back together" rather than "rally behind dream candidate that can't actually win".

[Laelth]

37. Same here, Scuba. n/t

-Laelth

[MADem]

202. She will be too old in seven or eleven years. She won't be President.

She looks younger than her actual age. She's 64 now.

[MADem]

208. She will be too old in 20 or 24. She's 64 now.

Assuming Clinton wins, she's not going to challenge the incumbent in '20, even if she were motivated to run for office in her seventies.

[Fumesucker]

3. I find new reasons not to give a damn about politics nearly every day

It's a bad habit that's brought a lot of grief in my life and no reward, in the words of Jackson Browne I should be a happy idiot and struggle for the legal tender.

[Laelth]

41. Hate to hear you say that.

It might help to remember that many people have benefited from your efforts, even if you have not done so personally.

-Laelth

[Fumesucker]

64. That will be a horrendous campaign

I know exactly what most of the people I interact with on a daily basis will say if Hillary is the nominee and I'm not interested in arguing about everything from Vince Foster to Whitewater to Socksgate to Stained Blue Dresses again, and they ~will~ pick a fight if I express the slightest demurral of any conspiracy hypothesis they might wax poetic about.

Last time around it was fairly good natured joshing around a lot, these days the conservatives are far more nasty than they used to be and they are out for blood.

Thanks for your kind words, I appreciate it.

[bluestate10]

68. Yeah, the position flattened me also. With the crazy republican threats around,

how can anyone that calls them Progressive, or Liberal, or even a Democrat say they will tune out if Hillary wins the Democratic primary.

[Demo_Chris]

119. Some people vote for those who represent their positions...

Others put the party first. Both positions have something to be said for them.

People on the left, the actual left rather than the GOP left, have watched the country and party march steadily away from them. They are not only not represented, they are openly insulted by the same party that demands (and expects) their votes. So if some of them are tired of it one can hardly blame them.

That said, Hillary doesn't need their support to win. That's what we are told. So really it doesn't matter. They might as well vote for whoever they like and be done with it.

[treestar]

169. This is an unproductive way of looking at it

I'll never understand it. You have to consider that there are Republicans and that they will take the country much farther away from the direction you want it to go. It makes no sense to risk all that because the Democrats aren't pure enough. At least they will go in a good direction. It's not a matter of putting the party first. No one is doing that.

[Demo_Chris]

173. Of course. As I said, there are arguments for both positions...

It all depends on one's priorities, right? Sometimes it's better to go along and hope things get better, and sometimes you have to plant your feet if you want anyone to pay any attention. However, this is not a game for State level elections. There, if you aren't voting Democratic Party you are our of your freaking mind.

[quakerboy]

189. Over a cliff is over a cliff

It doesn't really make a lot of difference if you go fast and catch a little air over the edge, or if you go slow, and kinda teeter at the edge a little before you tumble over. Either way, the end is bad.

There's an op on the front page about the "insane thing" going on in the congress, an apparently Bipartisan bill to deregulate our financial industry. How is that a good direction?

[treestar]

199. The House is held by Republicans

This is the source of all problems right now. The direction will be rightward until there is a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President. There were only two years with that. Before that, there had been a Republican President. Now we've had two years and face two more with a Republican Congress.

So you have no ability to go in the direction you want until you have Democrats in office. If they don't go as far left as you wish, still they will do a better job of it than that stalling you have now or the actual moves rightward you will have with a Republican President and Congress.

[quakerboy]

242. Will they?

I am less certain. When I see Democrats pushing oil pipelines and deregulation and charter schools, etc, It starts to look like its going rightward no matter which major party is in charge. The difference starts looking like one of speed, not direction.

[randome]

52. Did Captain America give up? No!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Fumesucker]

69. ~snort~

Where's his walker?

[reddread]

165. In the MOMA

quite a disturbing work of art.
As to that Buscema/Wiacek piece,
thats a sad thing in itself.
Not nearly as sad as what Marvel did to Jack Kirby.
they screwed the creator of Captain America and "their" entire universe,
even while coughing up to Joe Simon.
VERY ugly story.
Thats the American way, these days.
By the way, when did primary contests become unDemocratic?

[L0oniX]

121. +1 So basically you're saying that she would be rejected on Jerry Springer's "Bagage" show.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. I don't.

[Puzzledtraveller]

15. add me

[NuclearDem]

27. And neither do I.

[leftstreet]

34. Ditto n/t

[HappyMe]

5. It isn't as if Warren has a choice in the matter.

[leftynyc]

7. Huh?

She didn't have to comment on it at all. Not all Democrats have the hard on hatred for Hillary that many DUers seem to have. I'll gladly vote for her.

[HappyMe]

9. Come on, how would it have looked if they came to her

and asked Warren to comment and she refused.

I don't hate Clinton, I'm just not all super excited about her. I didn't vote for her in the last primary.

[leftynyc]

10. Easy

"I will support whoever our nominee is". Period.

[eggplant]

112. I've been saying that since, well, since I was 18. n/t

[leftynyc]

116. Same here

A family of lawyers were very convincing in the argument that the only real, lasting power a President has is the seating of justices (all federal justices) due to their lifetime appointments. Anything else could get undone by a subsequent President. I never forget that.

[eggplant]

147. lol, me too!

I fondly remember my dad teaching me about the difference between "right" and "power" when I was 16. "The police don't have the right to search your car, but they do have the power. Politely decline and then let them do it anyway."

[leftynyc]

191. My father was a bit of a shitkicker

He always told me to tell me that without a warrant, don't let them do anything. If they're going to screw you over, make them work for it.

[brooklynite]

13. Of course, it wasn't a hard decision to make since SHE WASN'T RUNNING to begin with

[HappyMe]

16. I KNOW THAT.

I apologize for not being wet my pants excited about Clinton, but that's the way it is right now.

[gcomeau]

17. it would have looked like she was backing a different candidate?

Explain the "she didn't have a choice" aspect of that.

[HappyMe]

25. I think people would have torn her to bits

if asked about Clinton and she said something to the effect that she wasn't backing Hillary.

[Laelth]

42. She didn't say she was "backing" Hillary, per se.

She said she supported Hillary's running. Nothing says EW can't run against her.



-Laelth

[HappyMe]

44. EW isn't going to run.

I'm hoping somebody will step up to primary Clinton.

[Laelth]

49. Your crystal ball is likely to be far more clear than mine is on this issue.

I will defer to you, here.

-Laelth

[HappyMe]

58. I don't have any chrystal ball.

I just don't think she will run this go round.

[Laelth]

67. Cool. n/t

-Laelth

[Whisp]

180. yes. bits and pieces.

Warren can't have said anything else.

At this point in time.

[pnwmom]

148. When has Warren ever come across as someone

who would sign a letter of support she didn't believe in?

What a crock. The whole reason most people here love her is because she's so forthright.

[MADem]

209. This isn't about "comment," though. This is a letter, a private letter, signed by

the Democratic women of the Senate, asking HRC to run.

She could have just not signed the thing. But she DID sign the thing, because she's not stupid--she's just not running, because she's too old, she's got an ex-husband out there, and she has not been vetted on a national level (plus, most Americans do not know who she is--they have a vague idea and nothing more) and most importantly ..... she might want to be Treasury Secretary or FED Chairwoman some day.

[HappyMe]

211. Well, ABC News had it, so it's not

such a 'private letter'.

She's 'too old' with an 'ex-husband'? Wtf?

[MADem]

213. She is too old. And no one knows her past.

So don't "WTF" me--or did you completely miss the Swift Boating of JFK, and is the Kenyan Birth Certificate/What did he do in Indonesia? crap that BHO went through news to you, as well?

Hillary has been VETTED, any question that comes up about her is already "Asked and answered; don't you have anything salient to talk about? Gee, anything to try to distract from the issues..."

You apparently don't understand that oppo research can get nasty, despite those two examples. Old news doesn't matter, but NEW news does.

Warren had to WORK to get elected in MA, even against an incompetent like Scott Brown. Why? Oppo research. It was only Brown's ham-handedness when he got the oppo material that enabled Warren's team to flip the script.

When they tried to paint her as a "liar" about her declarations of Native American heritage (she's not on any list), it was working, until Brown's campaign numbnutz crew decided to rally out in the streets singing "Pow Wow The Indian Boy." The racism just stunk up the campaign.

But hey, we're progressive Massachusetts and we don't go for that kind of crap--that Pow Wow shit would go over just fine in some of our lest tolerant states.

[HappyMe]

216. I'm too young to remember the swift boating of JFK.

As far as the birthers, the Republicans will/would do anything to smear a Dem candidate. Don't doubt for a minute that they won't drag Clinton (currently 66 yrs old) through the mud again. Pooh-poohing any questions with a 'asked and answered' thing isn't going to cut it. There isn't a person on earth that is above reproach - not even Hillary. She has yet to announce anything, so we shall see.

[MADem]

217. How old are you--12? It wasn't that long ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating

Hillary Clinton, absent a health scare or some personal tragedy, is running. Everyone knows it except a small cadre of people here on DU. Even Joe Biden knows it, and he won't stand in the path of history. He and Obama will no doubt campaign on her behalf.

The only question is who the GOP candidate will be, and it's looking like Christie is a strong contender, though the "fringe loony" wing might be able to push forward their own favored nutjob.

[HappyMe]

220. Kerry I remember.

I was confused when you said JFK.

Yes, I suppose everyone knows it. It would be nice to hear it from her though, along with some actual policy statements. What do you mean 'Biden won't stand in the path of history'?

I resent this bum's rush, here's your candidate stfu attitude. It has pretty much sucked any enthusiasm I had right out of me. I would have preferred to have a choice.

[MADem]

224. Some time ago, I put up an article here where EW said she wasn't going to run.

She was asked in conjunction with a constituent visit to Bedford and Western MA. More recently, she told the NYT "No" not once, but twice. And now she's signed this letter along with every other "D" woman in the Senate --do people think she's stupid and doesn't know her own mind? Or that she's a conniving liar?

How many times must she say NO before people believe her?

In the interview, Ms. Warren, 64, said twice that she had no interest in running for president, a point her aides amplify privately. But she said she would continue to focus on economic fairness, saying it is the signal issue of the day.

...The senator is careful, however, about how her activities are perceived. Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, said in an interview that Ms. Warren had declined his invitation to be the marquee speaker at his annual steak fry fund-raiser.

The steak fry is among the most closely watched events in early presidential primary states, and Ms. Warren’s aides recognized what an appearance would signify; Mr. Obama effectively declared his interest in the presidency when he agreed to be the keynote speaker in 2006.

Ms. Warren’s reluctance to attend suggests that at least for now, her impact will be felt mainly from her perch in the Senate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/us/politics/warren-is-now-the-hot-ticket-on-the-far-left.html?_r=0

When, do you suppose, people will start giving a shit about what the woman says, and what the woman wants? She's not in public office to please a small cadre of people who falsely believe she's more progressive than she actually is, after all. She's doing what interests her, and that's fixing economic inequality in this country. She has a lot of work to do--taking her out of the Senate will ensure that no one in the legislative branch has that portfolio in earnest.

"Biden won't stand in the path of history" means this: Biden will not interfere, in any way, with the nation electing, after all these many years and a long uphill battle, the first female president of the United States. And he KNOWS this. He also knows that any shot of being POTUS, even without HRC in the mix, is a long shot indeed. People like him in a Number 2 slot--they don't see him as "lead dog."

I don't mean to be rude, but this isn't a "bum's rush." This is YEARS of groundwork, this is networking, this is outreach, and this is the culmination of a very long career in public service, starting out as a schmuck on the House Investigations Committee for Watergate, and ending--up to now--as SecState. And that's with a detour to play "First Lady" of AR and USA.

HRC is ready to roll, and she's tested. If she wants to run, she gets pride of place, because she -- and others who want her in office -- have prepared the way.

[libdem4life]

253. Without this, one doesn't raise a billion dollars, and other "incidentals". A true, electable

Progressive candidate won't just emerge out of thin air...it will take doing all what was described above. And I'll vote for that candidate when they have earned a shot at it.

[Renew Deal]

21. So much for her being so tough

[Jamiletto]

55. Before today, did you ever express your belief that Warren would support Hillary this early?

Or is it because this news just came out? How obvious was it to you?

[HappyMe]

81. No, I hadn't even thought about it before now.

Because Clinton didn't announce anything earlier, and actually still hasn't.

I think it's kind of obvious that any prominent Dem might say they will get behind Clinton.

[Walk away]

57. If Warren is so weak willed that she can't even be truthful in a secrect...

letter then I doubt if she would make much of a president.

[HappyMe]

60. Weak willed?

That's precious.

[bluestate10]

71. How can you at once call Warren an independent thinker then turn around and say that

she didn't have a choice? Really conditional reasoning that seems to fit your point of view.

[HappyMe]

86. I kind of think she didn't have a choice.

People would have torn her to bits if she was asked to say something about Hillary and she refused. She does have her own career to think about. EW does fight hard for things, but she has to keep her job in order to fight another day.

[MADem]

225. Keep her job? She was just elected to a nice long Senate term.

People like me--Massachusetts voters--decide if she keeps her job. And we won't be reviewing her performance until 2018, when, if she wants to, she'll stand for re-election.

She had all the choice in the world. She knows what she wants to do. It's just that some of her fans don't want her to pursue HER goals, for whatever reason.

[winter is coming]

82. Of course she has/had a choice in the matter.

But signing one's name to a group's private letter saying, "Please consider running," is a far cry from, "Yours until death."

[HappyMe]

90. Well, then the headline would have been-

BREAKING: Warren refuses to sign private letter encouraging Hillary!

[winter is coming]

92. That would have actually been newsworthy.

What actually happened could be anything from a meaningless courtesy to a declaration of firm support.

[HappyMe]

96. Yeah, that would have been newsworthy.

I wonder if there is a secret hand shake too.

[Beacool]

139. Yes, she had a choice in the matter and she chose to support Hillary.

She has already said more than once that she's not interested in a presidential run. Not every politician wants to be president.

[MADem]

210. She wants to be Fed Chair someday, perhaps--and HRC could make that happen. nt

[joshcryer]

188. Warren wouldn't give in to pressure.

Her signature is her own.

[woo me with science]

6. No more corporatists and warmongers. nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

19. They just want a star QB is all, they could care less

who they are, what they have done, or what they believe.

[polichick]

100. Yep - there should be a major party in opposition to that.

[Cali_Democrat]

8. Corporate shill!!!!

[LaydeeBug]

11. I will support whoever the nominee is, and I kick and rec anyone who will support ANYONE

who aspires to be OUR nominee. I will not put up with mess attacking her needlessly.

[William769]

12. Kick & recommended.

[Renew Deal]

20. Let me back up a little

I don't want to get hit with brain matter

[randome]

22. Encouraging someone to run is not the same as supporting her for President.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Beacool]

23. Warren has said more than once that she's not interested in running for president.

She's an economist, her Senate run was the first time she ran for elected office. Maybe she likes the Senate and thinks that she can make a difference from that perch, not everybody wants to be president.

[NYC Liberal]

40. Don't get why everyone always wants to take our best leaders

out of Congress so they can run for president. We need great Senators and Reps too!

[Beacool]

46. That's my feeling too.

We need good people in Congress. If there's a lesson to be learned from the shutdown is that we need more Democrats in Congress. It's evident that while the Tea Party has such a stronghold of the Republican party that no one can govern effectively.

Also, not everyone is cut-out to be president, nor has the interest in being one.

[Jamaal510]

132. True dat.

"Also, not everyone is cut-out to be president, nor has the interest in being one."

Considering how much of a mixed bag the U.S. is politically, I'm not so sure that she could win in a GE, anyway. It's an interesting pattern how most of our Presidents tend to be moderate, while those who get elected to Congress are further away from the center.

[Beacool]

141. Actually, it makes sense.

Congress critters are elected at the local and state level. Therefore, they tend to represent the political vent of their constituents. Presidents are elected by the entire country, that's why someone who is too far to the Left or Right has a slim chance of getting elected. That's also why I am amused by people here who propose candidates who could never in a million years get elected president. The Freepers do the same thing, they think that Paul, Cruz and Palin are highly electable. Both sides are delusional.

[MADem]

226. Especially ones with her specific skillset.

She should only leave the Senate to become Chair of the Fed, IMO.

[NYC Liberal]

230. Ted Kennedy is another example

Would he have made a great president? Sure. Definitely. But I think he did far more overall in the Senate for 50 years than he could've done in 4 or 8 as president.

[MADem]

231. And he made sure he'd never be President because he ran at a time when he was

hitting the booze and the toot a little too heavily (as were many people in those days). As a consequence, his good judgment was failing him. And then, of course, there was Chappaquiddick... and his divorce from Joan and her woes...Part of his success has to be credited to his 2nd wife--she put him back on the straight and narrow and got his priorities in order.

AND, most importantly, that the time he chose to run, he was challenging the incumbent, the Party leader. That was a real dumb move on his part--it put a few fractures down the party lines. He recovered though, and went on to have a wonderful career as the Senate's Lion.

HRC isn't the incumbent, since we don't have one this time round, but she's the closest thing to one--she came in 2nd in the primary, after all.

[NYC Liberal]

239. Yep. I think in the end things ended up working out for the best.

We needed him in the Senate. A liberal's liberal who could also work with others; who knew how to compromise without "caving" to get things done.

Barring another Obama popping up within the next year or so, the nomination really is hers to lose. She is the most vetted candidate out there, bar none. Any dirt on her already came out a long time ago; between the primaries with Obama in 2008 and 20 years of being in the right-wing's crosshairs, there's nothing left hidden. Anything remotely scandalous would have been uncovered by now.

Her tenure as Secretary of State has all but cemented the nomination for her, if she runs. It's an essentially non-political office (compared to, say, senator or VP), where she did a great job. Republicans will scream Benghazi but, again, that's already been played out. Romney spent the entire last 2 months of the campaign last year trying to make it an issue, with no success. The RWNJs in Congress tried to make hay with their hearings and what came of it? Nothing.

Nothing in politics is certain. At all. But if she runs, HRC will be a formidable candidate. And if she gets the nomination she will have the support of two popular presidents, Obama and Bill. Republicans have no "elder statesmen" to back whatever nutjob they pick. Poppy is the closest, I suppose, but he isn't doing any campaigning at his age with his health. And Shrub...well, the GOP would drug him and lock him in the janitor's closet before they'd let him show his face at a campaign event with their candidate.

[MADem]

240. +1 ... and what a superb summary of the situation, too!!!! nt

[juajen]

254. Very well said! Of course, me thinks he was drugged the whole

length of his presidency; so, not much change.

[BlueCaliDem]

133. Yep. And Congress, not the WH, is where the *real* power lies.

And we need more Liberals in both chambers. We can't afford to lose Senator Warren in the Senate.

She already has an impressive position and reputation on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs where she's making it HOT for banksters in such a short period of time.

Hillary would be perfect as president because she has the gravitas, the experience, and the support. As the Democratic candidate, she appeals to the majority of Americans from center-left, center, and center-right - the area where women and Independents are found.

Hillary will be unbeatable now one of the PACs, Ready for Hillary, has two ex-Obama campaign strategists, join them.

Ready for Hillary, the group encouraging Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2016, is hiring a new team of old rivals: a pair of President Obama’s top strategists who helped defeat her and put him in the White House.

The daily operations of a campaign-in-waiting for Clinton, ABC News has learned, will be overseen by Jeremy Bird, the national field director for the Obama campaign who was pivotal in building an army of grassroots supporters. Joining him is Mitch Stewart, who was one of Obama’s earliest campaign aides and led his effort in battleground states during the 2012 re-election campaign.

It is the latest sign that Ready for Hillary, the super PAC seeking to pave the way for a possible candidacy, is serious.
“It’s her decision to make,” Bird told ABC News. “This is about putting the infrastructure in place on the grassroots side, should she decide to run.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/07/rivals-no-more-obama-veterans-to-lead-clinton-group/

[TheKentuckian]

159. That wasn't the Turd Way line when we had to move to "center" to win the White House but enjoyed

a multi - generation hold on Congress. I think the story will always be about how green the other yard is and moving right for something.

[mike_c]

26. that's disappointing....

I'd vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat, but I'll never vote for Clinton.

[MineralMan]

35. Thanks for letting us know. I'd never have guessed.

[mike_c]

43. yeah, it's pretty obvious....

I've never made any secret about my disdain for the corporate wing of the democratic party.

Party on, comrade.

[MineralMan]

28. Another one under the bus.

Eww...she's gonna sit by you!

[stevenleser]

29. Now you've done it.

[whatchamacallit]

30. Disappointing

but an endorsement from JC wouldn't influence me.

[kentuck]

33. Sounds rather under-handed and conniving to me...

It's not secret anymore.

[winter is coming]

65. "The actual letter has still not emerged publicly. But its existence adds momentum

to the growing sense of inevitability around a Clinton candidacy in 2016."

Uh huh. And this letter slipped out by accident. Oopsie.

The relentless pushing of the inevitability meme is like a neon sign reading, "Hillary afraid of failing in 2016".

[FiveGoodMen]

222. I think it's a neon sign reading, "Hillary: The PTB's Choice!"

[fredamae]

38. Those "high profile" supporters

aren't nearly enuf to over-ride the fact we Need (want) a change. No more bushes, no more Clintons and no more of their "closest friends"...sorry had enuf-in the past 25 years-look where we are, it's where they all took us-we trusted them and it didn't happen without mutual cooperation. Period.

[brooklynite]

54. Well, if "We" want a change, then "We" had better get started...

...finding an acceptable candidate and convincing him/her to run, rather than just sitting around hoping someone else comes along.

[Tarheel_Dem]

66. Hey, we could try these two. They're ideologically pure, and they've got experience......

And of course there's always this nutbag:

[fredamae]

72. Lol n/t

[fredamae]

70. You are correct-but first

we need to get the Powers at the top of the Dem Party to allow Us to have a seat at the table....Both major parties pick/groom candidates then we get to choose from that short list.
I've tried for 5 years to get that point across and they don't want to hear it.
If there's a way to be included in their conversation? Please share it with me.

[brooklynite]

94. It's easy...

As much as you'd like to blame "them" for keeping your candiates from running, I need to tell you, as one of the deep-pockets supporters who gets invited to the table that the Party doesn't play favorites. BUT.....

You'll need to convince someone to commit 3+ years of their life to fundraising, organizing and campaigning. That means reaching out personally, alone or with other, to convince them, not just posting your wishes on a political blog (I've already done a personal meeting - which I set up - with Brian Schweitzer in case Hillary doesn't run).

You'll need to convince people like me (or millions of people like you) to cough up the $$$ that a Presidential campaign will cost in our political system. Yes it would be great if we had publicly financed campaigns, but we don't.

Finally, you'll need to find thousands of volunteers to work with you and the candidate to get millions of peoplke to vote for you. Last year you had 7 candidates running, all the way from Obama and Clinton to Kucinich and Gravel. They each succeeded or failed on their own merits.

[fredamae]

113. Folks like me don't have

deep enough pockets to be invited-I've attended local Dem Meets, tried to get an email/phone response from my states party hq's---no such response.

It's not that I have a particular candidate/person in mind-I don't. But rather, I'd like the powers at be to include the rest of us with-out Deep Pockets, a bit more.....I want to have a strong candidate that isn't a recycled politician.

Do I know what the answers are? Hell, no-I surly wouldn't be here if I did..but I represent a deeper and growing problem of discontent with-in the base... Even those who stayed home in 2010 wasn't a wake up call for the Dem party.
I have a fear that the numbers of voters who stayed home in 2010 will be eclipsed in 2014 and maybe 2016 if things don't change soon.

Gotta find a creative way to break that cycle of having no choice but settling for the least worse....

[stevenleser]

56. I actually empathize with you even though I don't agree. You're in for a disappointment.

I would not like to be in a position where over 60% of the country is going to vote for someone for President that I don't want to be President, but that is the position in which you find yourself.

It's got to be a bad place to be. The only advice I can give you is to make a deadline date beyond which you are going to try to accept the inevitable. I'm guessing that January 1, 2015 is probably the last possible date that any Democrat could emerge on the national scene and have even the slimmest margins of hope against her.

I already think it is too late, as Barack Obama had national name recognition from his convention speech for over a year already by this time if we go back to the lead-up to 2008 and he barely won. Obama also has/had a huge charisma that few other politicians have.

[fredamae]

87. It does "suck".

And I agree-it is possible it's already too late-however, 60% of the country? Really? It's a loooong time before the Primaries and anything/anybody can happen...I'm just hoping the Dem alternatives, If there are alternatives aren't Worse than HRC (3rd way/status quo etc)

I like her-I believe she Believes in her positions, I believe HRC was a great SoS and I was fully behind her in 2007/2008, then went with the masses and shared great hope for change with PBO.
A lot can be learned since then-about ourselves and our blind trust.
I've never missed an election...I've nearly always felt like I had "to settle" for the Least bad...so yes, it sucks. Voted a straight Dem Ticket since I was old enuf to vote.
I don't know what I'll do in 2016...I just know I'm Finished "settling".
We deserve the opportunity to have a say in our who our candidates are and we don't.

[stevenleser]

103. She outpolls top Republican prospects in their own states. I think she wins 42 states in the gen.

She loses Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, the Dakotas, Mississippi and Alabama.

Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Kansas and Arkansas become swing states with her at the top of the ticket and I think she takes at least half of them.

[Beacool]

143. Who is this "we", because it sure as heck is not the majority of the country?

Hillary still out-polls every candidate of either party.

[Baitball Blogger]

45. And as long as we don't see a resurgence of neo-liberalism,

I'll back her 100%

[TheKentuckian]

150. She is who she is. There is virtually no reason to expect anything but.

[Baitball Blogger]

160. If she thinks we can go through another round of spreading the wealth to the cronies,

we're in big trouble.

[TheKentuckian]

219. That we are

[hrmjustin]

47. I support Hillary and hope she wins.

[BumRushDaShow]

48. ...

[Chan790]

51. That's a disappointment. n/t

[bahrbearian]

53. Elizabeth has Class, I wonder if Hillary would support Elizabeth?

[Jamiletto]

59. It would depend on whether Hillary is running or whether other candidates are better

in Hillary's eyes.

No one is forced to support anyone else in the party.

[stevenleser]

61. That is not even something to be wondered about. Hillary has a ton of grace and class where that

is concerned.

[hrmjustin]

63. Clinton showed plenty of grace when She stepped aside for President Obama in the nomination

fight.

[bahrbearian]

75. She showed how classy she was then.

[hrmjustin]

79. I don't think Warren would run against her but if she did and warren won then I would expect the

same grace from Hillary. Just as I would expect the same grace from Senator Warren.

[bluestate10]

76. I am sure Hillary would support any Democratic woman that chose to run. Clinton

seems to have a burning desire to have a woman become President, if not Clinton, then certainly a person like Warren.

[Beacool]

138. In case you missed it, after the primaries were over Hillary fully supported Obama.

She headed over 75 events in the summer and fall of 2008 for Obama. Hillary is a class act. If Warren was the nominee, she would do the same for her.

[MADem]

212. I'll bet HRC will support EW when it comes time for her to run for reelection, or if EW wants to

be the Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration, or if she wanted to be the Chairwoman of the Federal Reserve.

Look downstream; it's obvious what EW wants. Why did she go to DC in the first place? To make a difference re: Wall Street, banking, the whole money game.

[DinahMoeHum]

62. Until the hats are actually and formally tossed into the ring. . .

. . .everything over who is and who isn't running for POTUS ain't nothin' but speculation.

[gopiscrap]

80. what?

[winter is coming]

83. Bwah! Welcome to DU! n/t

[Autumn]

85. Welcome to DU.

Interesting theory there.

[In_The_Wind]

95. Hello ~ dyana

[img][/img]

[winter is coming]

98. ?? Is there some minimum length of time someone has to be a member

before they're allowed to compliment another DUer on their first post?

[gopiscrap]

77. wow at this rate she'll have the nomination locked up by the end of the year.

[davidpdx]

157. She pretty much has been nominated

Cancel the primaries. Now they can start in with the "anyone who runs against Clinton is a traitor and a misogynist".

[Vashta Nerada]

78. It still doesn't mean I'll support Hillary just because Warren does.

[Mike Nelson]

84. CLINTON / WARREN 2016!!! President and First Woman!!!

CLINTON / WARREN 2020
WARREN / ...

[winter is coming]

89. First Woman?? Clinton and Warren are going to marry??!? n/t

[Beacool]

144. Now THAT would blow some RW minds!!!

[Mike Nelson]

179. I was thinking of First Woman President, but...

...it came out wrong... but I'm for marriage freedom. Hope we have a Female President and First Woman someday!

[MADem]

218. Warren would do better as Treasury Secretary or Fed Chair. nt

[SunSeeker]

258. +1

[arthritisR_US]

88. She has a free voice and has the right to support whom she wants. nt

[DFW]

91. Barack Obama was inaugurated for his second term less than ten months ago.

Does anyone still care what happens during the three plus years he has left in office, or is that old news now?

[totodeinhere]

247. Of course we care. But lets face it. President Obama is not going to be able to solve all of

our nation's pressing problems in his remaining years. Even if the Democrats retake control of the House that won't happen. So we need to look to future presidents to continue the fight. Thus the interest in the 2016 campaign.

[antigop]

251. no, the "inevitability" meme has to be spread on DU, as well as the "no one else is electable" meme.

nt

[DFW]

255. I remember that line from 2008.

There are few inevitable things in this world, and the nomination of any particular candidate for President three years hence certainly is not one of them, no matter what meme spreads anywhere.

[antigop]

256. tell that to those spreading the meme(s). nt

[DFW]

257. Thanks but no thanks

Arguing with people who are unwilling to consider that they might not be 100% right all of the time takes up way more time than it's worth.

[tiredtoo]

93. Personally i would prefer

Either Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders as our candidate but, feeling Elizabeth is not ready for the job and Bernie is too far left for the general public, I intend to strongly support the Democratic candidate for president in 2016 whoever she may be.

[brooklynite]

106. Perhaps you don't understand how this Politics thing works...

Those of us who support Hillary running are encouraging her to run (FWIW I've also personally encourage Brian Schweitzer to run in case Hillary doesn't) by indicating the amount of support she'll have if she runs.

Those of you who don't support Hillary running are....sitting at a computer grumbling?

[ieoeja]

129. Your understanding seems to work only in one direction.

Those of us who oppose Hillary running are encouraging her not to run by indicating the amount of opposition she'll have in our Party if she runs.

Those of you who don't oppose Hillary running are....sitting at a computer claiming the opposition is "naive". Just like they did in 2008.

[brooklynite]

161. ...and how are you indicating the amount of opposition?

You're posting a complaint on a political blog? Yep, that'll do it.

[ieoeja]

203. ...and how are you indicating the amount of support?

You're posting on a political blog? Yep, that'll do it.

[brooklynite]

235. Clever, but.....

I've posted (on a political blog) what I've done in the real world. Met with Brian Schweitzer, met the folks from "Ready for Hillary", and have indicated the support I'm prepared to offer either.

[Zorra]

97. Well of course she does, we will all support the nominee that has been chosen for us.

She hasn't even said she's running, but she's already ostensibly nominated.

[nolabear]

101. And so do I. Elizabeth is smart and pragmatic and knows Hillary will pave the way.

I'm probably a poor representative of DU, because I believe in doing what has a large chance of working, and making change by the way it can, short of revolution, be made. Hillary may be a moderate Democrat but she's in favor of desperately needed social change and has what the GOP fears most, power and credibility with people on both sides of the political divide.

I think Warren will eventually run, and she'll have a better chance of winning if Hillary has been there before her.

I'm all for it, and I pity them both for having to deal with the extremists on all sides.

[LordGlenconner]

102. Wait. What?

Gasps for breath....

[Rex]

105. Sounds great! Maybe Ms. Warren will think about the VP position!

That would be awesome!

[longship]

136. Or maybe she'll remain in the position where she can do more good.

As a US Senator.

I really love EW. But I would be very disappointed with her if she abandoned her Senate seat to run for federal office during her first term. Just as I was disappointed by Barack Obama doing the same.

Anyway, Senator Warren has already made it clear that she is not interested. I am happy about that. We need her in the Senate.

[stillcool]

107. that's nice...

Kind of hard to support anyone else....when nobody is running. I hope Elizabeth Warren serves many terms as a Senator from Massachusetts.

[bowens43]

108. So?

[JDPriestly]

109. Nevertheless. I do not support Hillary Clinton. I support Elizabeth Warren.

And nothing will change my mind. I am an Elizabeth Warren backer. A lot could happen between now and the 2016 election. A lot.

Everything could check. I'm sticking with Elizabeth Warren.

Hillary Clinton is a corporate front.

She served on the board of Walmart, a company that has repeatedly discriminated against women. The Waltons -- all five of them are near the top of the Forbes 400 list. And those are Hillary's old buddies. No thanks.

We know how Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them have to rely on government benefits just to survive. Contrast that with the wealth and power of the Walton family and the Walmart corporation.

And Hillary was a part of that. It's disgusting.

But Hillary's ties to Wall Street are the worst.

Do we really want to encourage Americans to vote for still more corruption?

[BainsBane]

118. I support Salvador Allende

so there.

Who you would ideally like is irrelevant if the person isn't going to run for President.

You're still in the first stage of grief: Denial. You'll work through it in time.

[DURHAM D]

149. While she was on the Board of Walmart her main focus was

pushing for more hiring and promotion of minorities and women and other general employment issues.

Your drivel is just that... drivel.

[MADem]

229. She also forced them to build the first "green" store, as "green" went in those days.

It used outside lighting through skylights to reduce electricity costs, and had some other sustainable features, and was involved in recycling before it was chic. She pretty much dug in till she got that, and she was supposed to just be the "token" on that board. She wasn't treated like an equal at those meetings--she had to push and shove and fight for everything she was able to achieve on that board. It was a bunch of entrenched old white guys:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html?pagewanted=all

In Mrs. Clinton’s complex relationship with Wal-Mart, there are echoes of the familiar themes that have defined much of her career: the trailblazing woman unafraid of challenging the men around her; the idealist pushing for complicated, at times expensive, reforms; and the political pragmatist, willing to accept policies she did not agree with to achieve her ends.

“Did Hillary like all of Wal-Mart practices? No,” said Garry Mauro, a longtime friend and supporter of the Clintons who sat on the Wal-Mart Environmental Advisory Board with Mrs. Clinton in the late 1980s and worked with her on George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign.

“But,” Mr. Mauro added, “was Wal-Mart a better company, with better practices, because Hillary was on the board? Yes.”....

“She was not an outspoken person on labor, because I think she was smart enough to know that if she favored labor, she was the only one,” Mr. Tate said. “It would only lessen her own position on the board if she took that position.” ..... A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton said, “Wal-Mart workers should be able to unionize and bargain collectively.”

I don't understand why people on this board are so quick to punish pragmatism. Hillary understands the art of what is possible, and she goes for it and gets her way. She knows that change is incremental.

[Beacool]

236. This............

They don't want to hear about it. They have made up their minds that Hillary is evil and that Warren would save the world. The fact that Warren is an economist, not really a politician, and that she has zero interest in running for president seems not to matter to them.

[antigop]

252. as SOS, HRC played a leading part in drafting the TPP, according to Business Week

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=67554

[BainsBane]

110. On this day the heavens opened up, Satan ascended to the earth

and the Hillary haters cried, Elizabeth, why hast thou forsaken us?

[Cali_Democrat]

115. LMAO. n/t

[Lil Missy]

177. .....

[Beacool]

237. How DARE Saint Elizabeth of Arc, the anti Wall Street Warrior, choose not to run for president?

How dare she support evil Hillary? Never mind that no one knows whether she will even run in 2016.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

114. Doesn't sound so secret to me. I'll wait for confirmation from Warren. n/t

[Swede Atlanta]

117. I am not ruling out supporting Hillary for a run but....

She does come with a mixture of baggage (Iraq war vote, being viewed as the "last generation", pro-war posture, etc.) and positives - great work as SoS, supportive of many progressive causes.

I want to see what else the party can offer. She would be a lightning bolt similar to BO were she to be nominated. I think the reich-wing hates her almost as much as they hate the black man sitting in the Oval Office.

I like the young Castro brothers of Texas that give us insight into the Hispanic community and more connection to younger voters.

Let's see. I don't want to place all my bets that Hillary will run and that she would win.

[Warren DeMontague]

120. A Warren endorsement is very powerful. Very powerful, indeed.

However, I'm going to wait until the field takes shape before committing to a candidate.

[MissDeeds]

134. I agree

It would have been nice for Sen. Warren to wait and see who all the candidates are before deciding who to support, as a matter of courtesy if nothing else.

[Warren DeMontague]

145. My post was intended to have dual meanings.

One of which was a really dumb joke, the sort at which I excel.

But agreed with all you say.

[BainsBane]

162. and no love for my joke

I'm clearly far more pleased with myself than others are.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3951015

[Warren DeMontague]

163. I didn't see it.

What a cool picture, too.

Anyway, I give better than even odds she'll be the nominee, and I'm completely fine with that. My main objection to her is 11 years stale, anyway, (it has the initials IWR) ... I think she'll be a formidable candidate, a powerhouse, and that in and of itself is a good thing.

[BainsBane]

174. My objection was the same

which is why I didn't support her in 2008. I have, however, noticed that many here hold that vote against her while never mentioning it in regard to Biden or Kerry. Some seem to hate her more than Republicans.

[Warren DeMontague]

175. I supported Kerry in 2004 because I thought he was the smart choice.

After much soul-searching I came to the conclusion we would likely have been better off had we nominated someone who could speak to that particular war from a place of specific moral authority.

FWIW, I'd much prefer HRC to Biden. I like Biden for a lot of reasons, but I still haven't totally forgiven him for his ill-advised RAVE act.

The ghost of Uncle Bobo won't let me.

[Mass]

122. Not much support if the letter is secret.

[Mass]

123. There is a huge difference between people encouraging a credible candidate to run and supporting

him/her.

Yes, she should run if she wants. It does not mean I would vote for her. I hope we have other choices.

[BainsBane]

124. Clinton hasn't announced she's running

You're acting like you expect a formal endorsement. It seems pretty clear that regardless of who runs for the nomination in 2016, Warren won't be among them.

[Mass]

125. No, just pointing the obvious. Obviously, these senators did not intend to publish

their support for Hillary. Many others have been public with it.

It is amazing how much Hillary's supporters want to make sure nobody challenges her.

And I am not for Warren to run. I know she will not run. This is not the point. My point is that I oppose anybody that comes to us as unavoidable (I had the same problem with Warren in the primary. People need to be able to choose).

[BainsBane]

126. The idea that anyone is inevitable is bogus

as 2008 revealed. I don't believe anyone thinks that anymore. However, the hatred for Clinton on this site is matched only by the animosity toward the Tea Party. In fact, it appears to me that a number of DUers hate her more than the Republicans.
Hence, my amusing dig upthread that I'm pretty pleased with.

[Whisp]

182. There is far more hate here for the President than for Hillary.

Far more for him than the Pugs and Partiers too.
Very noticeable.

[4dsc]

127. While acceptable I'm still bummed

because I don't want Hillary at the top of the ticket in 2016 for the simple reason we don't need another centralist as president.

[BumRushDaShow]

128. ABC Youtube Video

[closeupready]

130. Well if a broken clock is correct twice per day, a working one is wrong

twice per day; this is Clock Warren's first time today being wrong.

Oops, wait, lol - I guess that analogy isn't correct. Oh well, Warren is wrong to support her candidacy, but I still like both of them; I just don't want Hillary to be the one.

[BumRushDaShow]

131. She ran as a Democrat under the banner of the Democratic Party

vs Bernie Sanders and Angus King, both of whom ran as Independents.

This should be clear to her avid supporters regarding where she stands. I expect she could have won if she ran as an Independent but there may have been too many "low information" Democrats who might not have understood what doing so meant.

And as an FYI, I am not a fan of any of the Clintons but am realistic with respect to the trade-offs when it comes to national party politics.

[Warren DeMontague]

146. Yeah, a working clock is right all the time, and depending on how the clock is broken

it can be constantly wrong.

Plus a working clock that is just set wrong....

Yeah, I'm probably over-thinking this.

[AtomicKitten]

135. And? That doesn't make Clinton any less a crap candidate.

[1-Old-Man]

151. Nope, a turd in a bowl is still a turd, no matter how you decorate the bowl.

Of course if you are looking for a wholly owned corporate candidate, then she's your person. As for myself, I intend to do everything in my power to see that she is not our Party's candidate.

[freshwest]

137. That settles it, then!

[Blue_In_AK]

140. Well, of course she does.

Is anyone else even being discussed at this point?

[fadedrose]

142. No comment at this time...

[ecstatic]

152. Any shock or hurt feelings could be avoided if some here

would accept that there is no such thing as the perfect, pure progressive politician.

Senator Warren wasn't forced or tricked into endorsing Clinton, and anyone who suggests otherwise is insulting her intelligence. Both women would make great Presidents, but Clinton has a much higher chance of winning a national election. Even if Warren ran for President and won, it wouldn't be long before a bunch of purists turned on her too.

[djean111]

155. Kind of weird to see disappointment - or really, failure to shout HURRAY!!!!!!

being immediately labeled as haters, shock, hurt feelings, heads exploding. Such drama!
I am not a hater, although I understand that for some at DU, if ya don't worship everything Obama does, you are a racist hater - guess that juvenile overreaction just carries on the Hillary. Except now one would be a woman-hater, not a racist.
I can't get excited about another corporate shill, that's really a lot to ask. And as a woman myself, I couldn't care less that Hillary is a woman. Not a good reason to support her for prez.
My head did not explode, I just feel a sort of "blargh" reaction.
And I don't know why Warren endorsing Hillary would make any difference to how I feel about it.

"Any shock or hurt feelings could be avoided if some here would accept that there is no such thing as the perfect, pure progressive politician. "
Oh, I am still hoping for at least a Democrat! :-O

[ecstatic]

176. fyi

By the end of the 2008 primaries, Clinton was on my shitlist, but time heals. I will support whoever the nominee is. The "corporate shill" label is pure hyperbole and not in touch with how 90% of Americans, who support well regulated capitalism (combined with a little "socialism&quot , feel.

[BainsBane]

185. Anyone who has paid any attention to these boards

is aware that some here hate Hillary Clinton more than the Republicans. The comments about haters aren't out of thin air. They are in response to the dozens of threads each week about how awful she is.

I find amazing how people have no concept of the country they live in. A "corporate shill." What modern-day US President hasn't been a corporate shill? Who hasn't been a hawk since WWII? Do you suppose you're going to transform America into a socialist utopia just because you post stuff on a message board? This isn't some 1960s commune. The US is a military empire that exists to promote corporate capitalism, and it will remain so. Who you vote for will have absolutely no impact on that.

The fact is, what anyone here thinks about Clinton right now matters little. When the campaign begins, people will choose from the available candidates. You all can vote for the male corporate shill you like best, and others will likewise make their choices.

[treestar]

170. Totally agree with that last sentence

If she were actually President, they would be disappointed within the first two months.

[DURHAM D]

153. If Senator Warren had any interest in running for President

she would stay in DC and do weekend press every single weekend. Plus she would do press 2 -3 nights a week on the networks and CNN and MSNBC. Obviously she is not interested.

jftr - I am a big fan and made calls for her during her Senate campaign.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

154. Is this the same Hillary who is negotiating the terms of the TPP?

[djean111]

156. Why yes, yes she is.....and the TPP will be declared as Just and Good - merely because

Hillary and Obama are behind it. Content will not matter.

[DURHAM D]

164. "is" ?

[NuclearDem]

167. Yeah, the agreement that'll end up being the biggest corporate coup since CU

And will screw labor, environmental regulations, and further exacerbate inequality.

And people wonder why we don't want Hillary.

[madrchsod]

168. bill,hillary,and barack ....the leadership of neo conservative democratic party

[Beacool]

238. Nope, this Hillary is a private citizen.

Got a problem with the TPP? Talk to the president or the current SOS.

[DonCoquixote]

248. as opposed to a certain former sos

that worked on it, and the transcanada piplepine, and made Libya a mess, and who did not SHUT her husband up when he tried to goad Obama into a war with Syria, lest he be called a "wuss"

You cannot give Hillary laurels for everything, and deny things she has her handprints on.

[antigop]

250. as SOS, she played a leading part in drafting the TPP, according to Business Week

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=67554

[madrchsod]

166. going to save a lot of money in the primaries.

she`ll be the only democratic candidate so hopefully money can be directed to federal and state democrats.

[riversedge]

227. that is a silver lining. Lots of dark money going into Repug coffers

[BootinUp]

171. Awesome

Because we need to win the general election. That is all...over n out.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

172. "BREAKING"... LOL.

My goodness, such drama.

[Lil Missy]

178. No surprise in the real world n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

181. And what did the letter say?

Enquiring Liberals want to know.

[joshcryer]

187. It's secret, but unanimous among women Senators.

It's a petition by Boxer to encourage Hillary Clinton to run.

[cascadiance]

184. Sigh... Koch Brothers must be happy their money is buying the Dem's "choices" again...

... like it did earlier when their money helped the Clinton's DLC take over the Democratic Party...

Don't you just love our "democracy" where our "choices" are made by others ahead of time?

Why do some here feel now "is not the right time for Warren to run? If she waits eight years to run, then many of the corporatist lovers who are saying this now will claim she's too old then! Now, when the middle class needs better representation more than it has needed it for almost a century is precisely the time this party needs a populist voice like Warren's. I was convinced that she was that needed voice even before she was picked to put together the Consumer Protection Board when I saw this video many years ago that she is far more qualified to represent our middle class than most of those "more experienced" in Washington!

It's alienating our base in taking away choices like this that is precisely why so many stayed home in 2010 and gave us such gerrymandered districts in the congress and at the state level we'll have to put up with for this coming decade!

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

186. and 2000 DU heads explode...

[brooklynite]

198. Who the hell is "taking away your choice"?

This is our political system. Nobody is obliged to provide you with a choice. Either you get out from behind your keyboard and do the hard work of convincing an acceptable candidate to run, or you accept the choice of the people who choose to run. Elizabeth Warren never wanted to run. You're welcome to keep dreaming that she would be perfect, but its just fantasy.

[cascadiance]

200. Why was this letter necessary then if we were confident in the system giving us a good choice later?

This letter was designed to try and push the media and everyone else in to thinking that "Hillary is inevitable" instead of allowing our system the ability to have other people enter the fray and provide the constituency of our party to hear them all and then choose who they want representing them.

When the wheels of this party try to put pressure on all of its members to get behind one person and not provide others with a choice, it is harder for those who might have a constituency to stand up and say "Wait, I think we need to hear how others might look to me (or someone else in the party) as a candidate." This letter served no purpose other than to let the PTB push others out of the mix. And that in my book works against the system of Democracy.

And if you think that any one of us has the ability by ourselves to make this happen, when many like me are fighting other battles in this economy just to keep a job and a house over our head, let alone try to be a part of the political process. The choice of WHO is saying that Hillary and no one else should run? I would argue that you DO NOT KNOW what Elizabeth Warren wants to do, and what she feels the pressure to do and not to do by the PTB...

Those who want to the right choice to lead our party and our country in 2016 should step back and say IT'S TOO EARLY TO DECIDE WHO IS OUR NOMINEE, and let the process work so that we give many the chance to build that support between now and then. If we had done what some are suggesting now back in 2008, we might not have had Obama in charge. Now some of us would argue that we still didn't make the right choice, but the system even then I would argue probably knew that John Edwards was tainted when the process started, and sought to push those who wanted a better choice than Obama or Hillary to go to him and get it taken away later.

At this point, Hillary in charge is also a dream and a fantasy as much as anyone is. Let's not try and dismiss or demean anyone that wants to work for a candidate, whether it be Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, or someone else. Let the system play out the way our founders wanted it to. That Barbara Boxer pushed for this action disappoints me. I've always liked her as my former senator in the past, but starting with her being one of the holdouts in fixing the filibuster rules, I'm beginning to wonder who she really represents more so than I'd felt before.

[brooklynite]

223. Because unlike people whose political actitvity is limited to blog posts...

...those of us who are engaged try to encourage the candidates we want by 1) asking them to run, 2) showing them how much support they'll have WHEN they run, and 3) promoting them to other supporters and voters.

Last time round, Hillary Clinton got 17 Million Primary votes. I believe many of those voters would vote for her again. I believe many Party officials and financiers want to to run and are telling her that through various means. By comparison, I believe a small number of progressive are upset about her running, but are apparently unwilling to actually find an alternative candidate to step in.

Now, you're welcome to say "it's too early", but I have to tell you, bluntly, the Election started a year ago. I was at the Charlotte Convention, and I had a private meeting with Brian Schweitzer about his 2016 plans (after he'd finished a visit to the NH delegation) and saw Biden, O'Malley and others reaching out for support for their potential future run. Yes it would be nice if we had six week campaigns, and yes it would be nice if we had publicly funded campaigns but we don't. You can either play by the rules everyone else is playing by, or you can sit on your hands and be prepared to complain again come early 2015.

[MADem]

232. No it isn't--it's a way of telling HRC that these women will make their PAC money available to her.

All the Senate women are HUGE fundraisers, and they're rallying behind her and letting her know that they'll go out and grab some cash for media buys and other campaign expenditures.

Running is expensive--you need supporters who can throw cash your way. And this is not a "sudden" thing--the groundwork has been laid over the course of the last ten years (in case you hadn't noticed). Most Democrats--indeed, most of the country--think it's time.

Elizabeth Warren is NOT running, so give up that idea--you really shouldn't be the last to know this...

[cascadiance]

245. This letter could be interpreted in different ways...

It looks like it is saying to Hillary Clinton. Jump in to the race and let America have your voice to judge against others when coming time for primary season, etc.

I could see someone like Elizabeth Warren saying that as a part of her belief system that America gets all of its choices put on the table to choose from, including those like Clinton's who many have expressed support for as well, who like Elizabeth Warren has not yet formally announced her candidacy, and at times has shown on occasion hints that she might not run either.

I could see Warren entering the race later, saying that enough people have sent her letters as well encouraging her to run, that she felt a need to be not just representing the interests of those from Massachusetts, but all Americans as well, and say this letter she sent in support of Hillary running was her way of expressing that we all should be a part of the Democratic process. It is like members and fans of one sports team expressing support for an opposing team's star player to return back from an injury and play them. That spirit of sportsmanship doesn't want to just "win" by having the opposing team be more limited in its options and capabilities. But having an honest contest where both sides are fully represented and a part of the game. Similarly I'd rather have more choices (including Hillary's) to be a part of the primary process so that Democrats have a decent choice that's not been predetermined on who should represent them later.

I don't think the "war is over" for Elizabeth Warren, no matter how much there is an effort to "predetermine" our "choice" a couple of years before primary season even starts officially. There will likely be similar letters later asking Warren to run. Don't know if Hillary would sign any such letters, but it might be wise for her to do so in that instance as well, as it might be interpreted as her wanting the field to be limited for people to choose from too.

[MADem]

215. Well served!

[DonCoquixote]

190. And Warren takes the dive

because the powers that be will NOT be surprised again.

That's ok Liz, there is one silver lining to this. If Hillary turns out not to be inevitable come November 2016, then it will be the final and complete call to throw the Clinton "GOP LITE" center out, which means 2020 is yours for the taking. Hillary would do well to remember that her friends like McCain will backstab her, and that Bill is always good for that one run of the mouth that sours moods. If she runs and fails in 2016, the left can finally say "see, we need to run real democrats dammit, the clinton speel is over!"

Not that I would want that, because even a so called "moderate" GOP will make sure to follow the marhcing orders of Alec, as well as folks like Dick Cheney. If the tea party gets in, then well, there might not be much of a country worth running anyway.

[joshcryer]

195. Hold up, we don't know the letter exclusively singled out Hillary.

We just know Hillary was one of the potential candidates in the letter.

[DonCoquixote]

192. a secret letter

"All of the female Democratic senators signed a secret letter to Hillary Rodham Clinton early this year encouraging her to run for president in 2016 – a letter that includes the signature of Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other senators who are mentioned as potential candidates"

Geez, did Hillary's supporters even bother finishing the cake from Election Night before they started the bloody fix?

[joshcryer]

194. Boxer wrote the letter.

Given that all women Senators meet for dinner once every 6 weeks I think this was a Senate Ladies Dinner type of thing. I don't see any controversy in Senate ladies signing a petition encouraging their own to run (mind you Hillary Clinton isn't a Senator now but she was at one point and attended those very same dinners).

I want to know who else is mentioned as a "potential candidate" myself.

[brooklynite]

196. Amy Klobuchar

She's been mentioned in some circles, and apparently has been doing some travel to Iowa.

[MADem]

205. No, that's not what the letter said--it said "Please run, Hillary."

There are no other "potential candidates" in the letter. It is an endorsement, signed by all the D women, of HRC.

Click on the link; there's a video piece that breaks it down as well.

[MADem]

201. Why is anyone surprised? EW and HRC have MUCH in common, and EW has said she

did not want to run for President. HRC and EW are more alike than not.

[Jester Messiah]

204. Veep slot for EW?

To be followed up by a prez run after 8 years of Hil? Just speculation.

[MADem]

214. No. Fed Chair and then retirement. EW is 64, she's in the last

decade or two of her working life. Maybe she'll teach a bit in her dotage.

[Divine Discontent]

228. well, OF COURSE she asked her to run!

she's gotta have a good sparring partner in debates for when she goes against the Republican in the general election!



http://www.zazzle.com/shutdown_the_gop_by_voting_in_2014_government-128195183613839642?rf=238107662556833486

[MADem]

233. You're joking, I trust.

EW is my Senator, but debates are NOT her strong suit.

She only succeeded because her IDEAS were better than Scott Brown's, and Scott Brown is an even shittier debater.

[bvar22]

259. Hillary is not good in the debates either.

This guy disposed of Hillary easily.

[MADem]

261. Gee, she was so "not good" that our POTUS said, more than once,

"I agree with Hillary" after the moderators made Hillary answer the questions FIRST....over and over again.

But hey, drag out old, edited hit pieces that are more suited to wingnut sites, and feel good about yourself. It won't do you a lick of good at the end of the day.

Bottom line: Warren isn't running. Clinton is.

Get used to it.

[c588415]

241. Elizabeth Warren supports Hillary for Pres, and so do I

Hell, Sen. John McCrap is damn near 80 yrs old and you hear the GOP bitchin. Hillary is the Dem Party's best bet to take the White House in 2016.



Pres. Hillary Clinton 2016 !!!!

[cascadiance]

246. YAY! I would love more H-1B expansion to have my job given away to.

Sounds like that will be what happens no matter who gets elected, a Democrat (Clinton), or a Republican!

Then more like me will have nothing more to lose by joining the Occupy movement then!

[upi402]

243. I think it's worth saying...

WTF????

stick a fork in it was right a long time ago

[Fearless]

244. Damn those democrats for showing support for democrats!

[Scurrilous]

260. Kick