Elizabeth Warren may be our only hope for

[INdemo]

our Democracy's survival..Great article here in the WP previewing her book:

A Fighting Chance

She would be a great candidate and a Great President. A real Democrat


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-fighting-chance-by-elizabeth-warren/2014/04/21/fb894b68-be9b-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_story.html

[WhiteTara]

1. Give Elizabeth a working Senate

and let's see what she can do there as the Senate Leader. Nancy as Speaker of the House, Elizabeth leading the Senate and Hillary as our President in the White House? Gives me goose bumps for the changing of the world.

[MoonRiver]

24. Dream come true!

[WhiteTara]

26. Let's give Nancy a House this year!

Then we'll see Harry do the right thing and give up his position. Then Hillary will have a great foundation so we can build the burned bridges to the 21st century.

[MoonRiver]

27. Yes!

We must think big! "I have a dream!"

Edit: Do you really think Harry would give up his leadership?

[WhiteTara]

31. Yes, I do. I think that Harry

is enough of a team player and Democrat to move the party and country on a better path. But then, he is a white male used to lots of power and maybe he will clutch in the end and do the petty thing.

[MoonRiver]

38. My guess is your second choice.

But if he were to do the correct thing, who do you think would succeed him?

[WhiteTara]

43. Elizabeth Warren!

Who else? Can you see the "most powerful" nation on earth with a woman running the House, the Senate and the White House? It could be a new day.

[MoonRiver]

48. That would be incredible, but

she's a junior Senator. Do you really think the elders would let her jump over them to take the top position? Hope so!

[99Forever]

2. But.. but ... but...

Hillary is entitled!

[chrisstopher]

3. I'd rather see her in another position for a while. Senate Leader would be great for her.

It would give her a chance to show the American people what she's made of.

[treestar]

4. What?

That's pretty extravagant language. Too big a burden for one human. I think we'll struggle along no matter who we elect as POTUS.

[TwilightGardener]

5. I'm a bit depressed that she isn't running--so is my husband, who really admires her.

We feel left out of 2016, so far. I hope O'Malley or someone else is going to run, and makes a real, credible effort at it.

[MineralMan]

6. Overstatement Is a Mistake

Elizabeth Warren is a very competent person, now sitting in the Senate. Even though she now says she won't run for the presidency, that might change. But, to call her "our only hope" is wrong. What is our hope is a progressive President, combined with a Congress that has a majority of members who will support progressive legislation.

Elizabeth Warren is just one of the people who could be a great president with a Congress like that.

In 2014, we have a chance to move Congress in the correct direction. Let's do that, and let 2016 pick its candidates for President after the November 2014 election.

Elizabeth Warren would, no doubt, be a good president, but she is not the only hope we have. Not by a long shot.

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

[nashville_brook]

14. when it's said that EW "is our only hope," it's understood by most

that it's her policies and not her personality that matter. yes, she could run and that would be great -- but that's not what most people really care about. they care about her approach to policy carried on.

so, who are the other hopefuls carrying this message?

[INdemo]

15. none

[nashville_brook]

17. :)

yep.

Although, that might change between now and 2015, when the race heats up.

myself, i'm already tired of the inevitability of Hillary. with state and local politicos lining up to be the Clinton's new bestest friends, rank and file party folks could easily feel left out (depressing 2016 GOTV). "oh, so if she's so inevitable then I don't really need to vote."

[MineralMan]

39. The reality is that we don't really know all of Warren's

policies. Those who are focusing only on her economic policies may well be missing things. I don't know. Until candidates begin announcing that they are running, they get pretty much a free pass, unless they are very well known. Elizabeth Warren is still not well enough known nor has enough historical background to make judgments about her policies particularly valid across the whole spectrum. I suspect that there will be things she believes that will not be appreciated by some, but I don't know what those are.

The bottom line is that nobody has announced yet, at least nobody prominent. Once they do, much more scrutiny will be applied. Still, Hillary Clinton has enough history recorded for people to already be making judgments, and she's unpopular with some. If she decides to run, she will be very difficult to defeat in the primaries. That is a fact.

I hope as many people run in the Democratic primaries who want to run. The people will vote for the one they want to run in the general election. I will support whomever gets the nomination. My own personal political emphasis is on legislative races, frankly, since it is Congress that passes laws. Presidents have limited power in that regard.

[onecaliberal]

7. We

Are the people we've all been waiting for. There is no one person who can emerge to "save" us. We need to stop voting for corporate candidates. Put our walking shoes on and get to work.

[lonestarnot]

8. Her book and Capital.

[lunasun]

9. I did not know this til today

Political affiliation

Warren voted as a Republican for many years saying, "I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets".[14] She states that in 1995 she began to vote Democratic because she no longer believed that to be true, but she says that she has voted for both parties because she believed that neither party should dominate.[22]

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

took her 'til 1996 ?

[FailureToCommunicate]

35. I know, right? EW's arriving so late to the 'correct' side is unsettling. I know it's been

Last edited Sun Apr 27, 2014, 04:47 PM - Edit history (1)

hashed out here many times before, but it still leaves gnawing questions.

AND, I know she is revered here, her politics are (now) quite spot on, however, IMO:

1)she is where she can do the most good right now, in the Senate, and

2) like it or not she does NOT have the charisma- in person - to run successfully to win the White House.

Sad to repeat, but it's true.

We like her in Congress, though, let's see what she can do there.

Edit to add: I've no axe to grind. I wish her well in whatever endevor she follows. The fact that her tirades against the entrenched fat -cats get aired can only be good for keeping income inequality in the national discussion.

[JustAnotherGen]

42. +1

If she voted for Reagan - I will always hold back a little.

[iandhr]

10. People should consider she has a different ambition.

Maybe she wants to stay in the Senate and end up as chair of the Senate Banking Committee.

She would have direct oversight over the industry in away that she would not have as President.

Perhaps she thinks that would be a better use of her talent.

[nashville_brook]

18. people might consider that if she actually said that were the case.

[iandhr]

20. Politicians are often vague about their goals.

You now that.

[nashville_brook]

22. cuts both ways.

[earthside]

11. Democrats need to be bold.

The Obama years have been pretty, well, under-expectiations.

I am more convinced everyday that Hillary Clinton cannot take the Party nor the nation in the reformist direction it so desperately needs. We need bold, new leadership and whether it is Warren or someone else, Democrats ought to seriously think about giving the voters the choice they want ... and seriously evaluate the negatives of a Clinton nomination.

As much as the Repuglicans are in chaos, I think H. Clinton's election chances are much overrated.

HillaryClinton's tacking to the right recently is yet an indication, I think, of where she would end-up in October 2016 if she is the nominee. Most indicators from her political and governing history is that she is middle-right and will be accommodating to financial, energy and military interests.

Additionally, my feeling is that there is still Bush-family fatigue and the country is just not going to be interested in dynastic politics, be it Bush or Clinton.

Indeed, I am kind of surprised that there is such an assumption among a lot of mainstream Democrats that the country is just waiting for a Hillary Clinton candidacy and presidency -- because among non-political folks I talk to that is absolutely not the case at all.

[cantbeserious]

13. Agree - Hillary Would Be A Disaster - Just A Replay Of Her Husband - Left Speaking - Right Working

eom

[nashville_brook]

16. said another way, Dems will only be successful by going bold.

we're not going to win unless working families see themselves as winning in the election.

[INdemo]

21. That is the media assumptions

they want Hillary. I don't think she is the candidate to get the less than enthusiastic Democrats to the polls. I really think a Warren/Sanders or Sanders/Warren would be great but if a Republican slips in there than we are in for one hell of fight to keep our democracy because the like of the Koch Bros class will put the final touches on their destruction.
Hillary is more of a Republican lite and yes the banking industry would not scream if she would be elected,there are billionaires waiting in line for her to make up her mind..Another possibly sad fact if a Republican should win, well a National Right to Work law would be inevitable.
Maybe more would agree that we need a more progressive candidate but what we don't need is another Republican-lite

[nashville_brook]

23. depressed turnout from a case of the "been there done that" blahs.

we know what a clinton white house looks like. it oversaw the deregulation of banking, setting the stage for what's ailing us right now.

[randome]

12. She is not Jesus or Mohammed or Zeus.

Don't pin your hopes on any one individual. You want 2016 to be a success? Help with 2014.

Or, as I like to put it:
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[elzenmahn]

29. Exactly...

...any Democrat you elect in 2016 will be ineffective without cooperation from the Congress. Look no further than Obama's Administration.

Though I should clarify - it's not all on Obama. When you have a set of Congressman and Senators meeting the day of Obama's first inauguration, swearing a blood-oath to derail everything he pushes and be against anything he is for (even if they're for it themselves), you can't expect much to be done.

And a do-nothing Congress is just what the Repubs like and want.

[pintobean]

30. Or, Obi-Wan Kenobi /nt

[randome]

41. Or Jed Clampett.

Wait. Never mind.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

52. Exactly

our only hope?

[smallcat88]

19. Need to get Repugs out

No one person can change everything but too many of the wrong people in office IS a problem. Hillary is the best chance to keep the WH out of Repug hands. Personally I'd like to see Warren as her running mate. She'd be ready to run for pres in 8 yrs.

[nashville_brook]

25. really though? Hillary is our "best" chance?

wondering how that's assessed at this point in 2014.

[DirkGently]

28. Warren's point of view is our best chance.

I'm so tired of hearing how Republicans are completely wrong, but we need to be more like them to succeed. Apparently that's a really popular view on the D.C. cocktail circuit or whatever.

Gussied up trickle-down is still trickle-down. Social Security "reform" is still SS cuts. Hawkishness when it's politically convenient is still hawkishness.

Which is it? Do we stand for the people, or for the money? The ruts in the "middle of the road" all run off into the weeds on the right.

People worried about voter turnout need to think about where things are going now, not where they were in then 90's. Republican lite sensibilities are a non-starter and will not sell going forward.

[elzenmahn]

32. It's way to early in the game to be coronating anyone...

...and remember, 2008 was Hillary's to lose - and she lost it.

If Hillary is the nominee, then yes, I'll vote for her - with a gas mask and hazmat suit in tow to the voting booth. Any type of enthusiasm she generates will have to come from the "cult of personality" angle (like Bill and Barack before her), and not policy - as it would with Warren. She's too hawkish for me in terms of foreign policy, and she's too corporatist and friendly with the Big Banks for my tastes. If she's elected, she'll have to be pushed - HARD - from the left to get anything resembling progressive legislation signed and passed.

[truedelphi]

53. However those of us who insisted we should band together and get some real action from

The WH circa 2009, we know how meaningless the notion of "pushing" happens to be.

First you are told you are a racist (With Hillary we will be told we are sexists), and then we are told to give the poor beleagured person some time to adjust to the office, and then finally we are told to wait it out till after they secure their second term, on and on ad nauseum.

[L0oniX]

45. Hillary will help reduce the amount of registered Dems.

That will make more room for corporate centrist dino lovers.

[Nye Bevan]

33. "The only hope for our democracy's survival"?

Really?

I think she would be a perfectly good president, but don't you think that statement ever so slightly overstates things?

[elias49]

34. Hyperbolic, IMO. nt

[elzenmahn]

36. I like Elizabeth Warren, too...

...but the only hope for our Democracy's survival stares at us in the mirror every morning.

Us.

This means that we need to think long-term, and not get distressed or demoralized at defeats, which have and will continue to occur. Here's what I suggest:

1. Build the power base back up - state and local elections (even school boards are important now!), and the re-establishment of labor and academia as leftward sources of intellect and political power. The more substantial our power base is at the local level, the more progressive candidates we can run and expect to win;
2. Expect that this process will possibly take years, possibly generations, to come to fruition. We may not see some of the changes we seek in our lifetimes - remember that this isn't just about us - it's about our kids and future generations. The Republicans were willing (and able) to take this long view - look where they are at now. Can we make the same investment?
3. SUPPORT PROGRESSIVE MEDIA! This means opening up the wallet a bit for many of these outlets, which are now almost entirely listener-and-reader supported since Corporate America won't support them with advertising dollars. Get a podcast subscription or two from those that offer them: Mike Malloy, Peter B. Collins, Sam Seder's Majority Report, and others come to mind as suggestions - there are others. Time is of the essence on this, as well - look at the number of progressive radio stations that have either changed formats or closed. And I'll bet dollars-to-donuts that if there were more support for progressive radio, then Randi Rhodes would not be ending her show on May 16th.
Also, things might get tougher for progressive web sites, too - look what the FCC is doing to Net Neutrality. Fight them like hell, but just in case, get ready to fork over some $$ for access to progressive sites.
4. Finally, SHOW UP at the polls - especially at the crucial mid-terms when the balance of power in Congress is at stake.

End of rant.

[blkmusclmachine]

37. Huh, I thought HRC was "democracy's last stand"

[flamin lib]

40. While I love Warren and would like to see her as President

right now there is enough unrest in the world; new cold war, Syria, Libya, N. Korea etc. that Hillary's time as Sec of State would give her a huge advantage over Liz. Right or wrong that's the reality of today's political situation.

[longship]

46. I would like to see her as Senate Majority Leader.

Or to be the senior senator from Massachusetts who has great credibility and power where the Democrats need it the most, in Congress.

That's where she is needed the most.

[L0oniX]

47. Help me Obi Wan Kanobi you're my only hope.

Warren against the republican guard and its Death Star.

[MFM008]

49. but didn't she say?

Twice, she will not run? Now if HRC asks her to run with her is another matter, but I don't know because they are similar east coast education/backgrounds. We need some one who will fight and I mean furiously against the gop.
When she ran against Brown she agreed to not run a campaign of "dirty tricks", pure issue related.
Do you think this will work against Karl Rove or the Koch brothers?
no.

[MisterP]

50. we've done nothing but content-free lambasting of the Koch types since 1994

that's precisely this country and party's PROBLEM

[Donald Ian Rankin]

51. This level of hyperbole is regrettable. N.T.