Caroline Kennedy Says She Will Back Hillary Clinton, Warren camp says NY Post article...

[wyldwolf]

... is 'completely made up,' DU right wing rumor mongering not withstanding.

Right Wing rumors aside, Caroline Kennedy, whose endorsement of Barack Obama in 2008 was a major setback for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign, as well as a personal blow, said Thursday that she would “absolutely” support Mrs. Clinton should she decide to run for president again.

Ms. Kennedy, whom President Obama recently named ambassador to Japan, is the latest high-profile Obama supporter from 2008 to endorse a potential 2016 run by Mrs. Clinton, who has yet to make her intentions clear.

Ms. Kennedy’s comments on Thursday are another sign that the Democratic Party is coalescing around Mrs. Clinton. Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who also endorsed Mr. Obama in 2008, has declared her support for Ready for Hillary, a “super PAC” designed to foster grass-roots enthusiasm for a Clinton candidacy. David Geffen, a major Democratic donor and former Clinton supporter who had a break with the Clintons in 2008, has also said he would support Mrs. Clinton in 2016.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/us/politics/caroline-kennedy-says-she-would-back-hillary-clinton-in-2016.html?_r=1

..........

Caroline Kennedy has already expressed in great detail her allegiance to Team Hillary.

The NY Post goes on to report that both women were recently invited separately to the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port for an “audition” of sorts.

Sen. Warren’s camp responded swiftly and unequivocally denied the claims made in the New York Post article. “This story is completely made up,” Lacey J. Rose, Sen. Warren’s press secretary, told Boston.com.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2014/08/04/kennedys-unsure-whom-support-for-president-hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren/bzyHQAZLMGoWLjopAHD10L/story.html

[Laelth]

1. The Klein article is silent on Caroline Kennedy's preference. n/t

-Laelth

[pnwmom]

2. Warren says the story is completely made up. That should be the end of it. n/t

[snooper2]

4. That can't be the end! We want her to run even though see said she won't! She used the wrong word!

It's like people have this awesome vision in their head of Warren kicking some repuke ass....almost like a love affair. She says, no, and they can't let go of the dream.


Don't crush my dreams!

[JDPriestly]

21. I will not vote for Hillary whether Elizabeth Warren runs or not.

Hillary would not be good for the country. She voted for the Iraq War without doing the research and in spite of a heated discussion with members of Code Pink who had been to Iraq and seen the suffering there. The Code Pink women warned Hillary that she should vote no. But Hillary voted yes although a little research on the "evidence" the Bush government presented to support the war would have shown that it was bogus.

Hillary is not qualified to be the president of the US.

She takes great stances on issues regarding women and children, but she is sold out to Wall Street.

I hope that if Caroline Kennedy has decided to support Hillary, she will rethink her decision. It would be a mistake for the country.

[George II]

23. Okay, I'll bite - what makes Elizabeth Warren more qualified than Hillary Clinton?

[NanceGreggs]

51. I hope you're not holding your breath ...

... waiting for an answer.

[George II]

57. Nah...it basically was a rhetorical question since there really is no answer.

[JDPriestly]

89. Actually, I'm having trouble writing an answer short enough to fit on DU. Taking a little

break.

There are so many reasons. First, have you read Elizabeth Warren's book? Because she answers a lot of questions in it herself.

Here are a few points:

I happen to think that America's economic issues are our gravest threat.

Americans owe too much personal debt. Our economy is shifting to a service economy -- meaning a low wage economy. We import too much. We export too many weapons. The increasing income disparity is slowing our economic growth and our ability to respond to challenges like global warming, a failing infrastructure and the social change that immigration is bringing.

Meanwhile, Hillary hob-nobs with bankers. She doesn't know what is going on on Main Street, America. She does not understand the harm the banks and megacorporations are inflicting on most Americans, and she will never be able to regulate them as they need to be regulated. They are her closest friends.

Bill Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Elizabeth Warren is proposing a 21st century version of Glass-Steagall. We need Elizabeth Warren's bill in Congress and her determination to enforce it in the White House.

Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, and Hillary Clinton oversaw the State Department during the early negotiations of the TPP and the negotiation of the proposed Keystone Pipeline. These agreements will result in still more devastating transfers of American technology and jobs to the third world and the endangerment of some of our best farmland. Elizabeth Warren opposes the secrecy with which the TPP is being negotiated. We need to rebuild industry in America. We need those good jobs. Cheap foreign imports have hurt the American middle class. Elizabeth Warren understands that. Hillary does not.

Bill Clinton signed "welfare reform." Hillary Clinton advocates for women and children, but Clinton's welfare reform has contributed to the increase in income disparity and slow economic growth in the US especially during the recent economic downturn. It enlarged the numbers of women looking for low-wage jobs thus decreasing pressure on employers to raise wages. Meanwhile, the children of the poor are left in sub-standard day care. And then we wonder why our schools are failing. It isn't our schools. It is our children who are unprepared for school Elizabeth Warren studied why individuals file bankruptcy and advocates for specific policies that will help increase economic opportunity and help families -- policies like lower interest rates on student loans, banking facilities in post offices and other things.

Bill and Hillary Clinton hob-nob with the Wall Street oligarchy. Gets them lots of donations and high pay for speeches. Elizabeth Warren strongly advocates for stricter regulation of the Wall Street oligarchy. And since bankruptcy law is her field, she understands just how Wall Street should be regulated and how to implement those regulations.

Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren both speak to labor unions. Watch the crowds. Who do American working people trust more? Elizabeth Warren. That's who. Hillary and Bill Clinton sold out to Wall Street long ago.

When it comes to foreign policy, Hillary Clinton has more experience. But is that a good thing?

Her vote on the Iraq War was not just a mistake. She failed to do her homework. That vote reveals a lot about Hillary. She is not the contrarian that Elizabeth Warren is. Hillary did not stand up and ask for more information about Iraq. Even when the women of Code Pink met with Hillary, said they had been to Iraq and that the War Resolution was wrong, Hillary voted to please the powerful, not for what was right. Hillary did not make a mistake on Iraq. She was sloppy.

The differences between Hillary and Elizabeth Warren are so numerous that I could go on and on. And on every point, Elizabeth Warren is the best. That is why I am supporting Elizabeth Warren for 2016. We really need her.

Obama promised change, but couldn't deliver. He just did not have the hunger for change that we need in a president. I think that Elizabeth Warren does. She has shown it in her life.

I suggest that you read Elizabeth Warren's book, A Fighting Chance.

Hillary is the easy way out. We tried that with George W. Bush. It did not work well. We need a candidate and a president who has the commitment to do a really great job. Elizabeth Warren is the one.

And besides, Elizabeth Warren has a better, more humble, more human, warmer personality than Hillary Clinton. It shows in their voices. Voters vote based on what they see but also on what they hear. One of Obama's advantages is that he has a warm, sonorous voice.

The Republicans have so tarnished Hillary Clinton's reputation amongst their followers that she doesn't have a chance with Republican voters.

Finally, Elizabeth Warren bakes. Elizabeth Warren's approach to economic issues, her common sense, her feminine form of feminism and her personality will earn the trust and votes of a lot of swing voters as well as Republicans -- especially Republican women.

I think Elizabeth Warren would have a very, very good chance of winning the election not just the nomination. America cannot afford another Republican president in 2016.

Don't be fooled by the current polls. Hillary has name recognition and some money, but those very "assets" could backfire badly on her in 2016.

[wyldwolf]

91. In other words

She TALKS a good game.

[JDPriestly]

93. Have you read Elizabeth Warren's book.

She has quite an astounding record.

Hillary Clinton does not even TALK a good game.

Hillary was in charge of the State Department during the negtiations for the Keystone Pipeline and the beginning of the negotiations of the TPP. If she is relying on those policies as proof that she can act and not just talk, I'll take my chances on someone who at least says the right things. Actually, Elizabeth Warren has taken the initiative and acted on issues, especially economic issues, in ways that are more impressive than the things Hillary has done.

If we don't deal with the issue of income disparity and providing opportunities to the poor and middle class Americans, we will fail as a country.

Elizabeth Warren's life has destined her to deal with our economic issues. Hillary's has destined her to cozy up to the rich and famous.

Which one do we need? Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren is very real. Read her book. Check it out.

[wyldwolf]

95. Quote the relevant parts

First of all try not to regurgitate the same old left-wing Clinton criticisms. We've heard them all. They are nothing new. Further, the Democratic electorate has heard them all and have not been swayed.

Second the United States will never be the socialist paradise that you envision. No matter how much we may wish it to be so. Under an Elizabeth Warren presidency she will eventually have to negotiate with Congress on economic matters and you will not like the outcome. Call it progressive fantasy meets reality.

Now tell us what bills Elizabeth Warren has introduced and which ones have become law? How many foreign leaders has she met with and negotiated with and worked with? What relevant things has she done to be the United States President?

[JDPriestly]

96. Elizabeth Warren is not a socialist. Read her book.

The entire book is a "relevant part."

I think a person should be informed before judging this issue. Part of being informed about Elizabeth Warren is reading her book. The first part is a delight. It gets a little slow in the middle and is inspiring in the latter part.

I belong to a book club. We read it and every one of us loved it. It is a pleasure to read. Goes fairly fast.

[wyldwolf]

98. In other words you really can't answer those questions

You like what she says. She has won you over. I understand that. But she doesn't have the practical experience to back up those words. If she did you would easily be able to explain them just as you can easily tell what you don't like about Clinton.

[JDPriestly]

99. You should read the book.

Hillary, in my opinion, has far too much of the wrong kind of experience. I do not like some of the things that Hillary has been a part of doing.

It also troubles me that when Hillary was hired by a law firm, she admits she did not do that well in litigation. I don't think she has the personality or the ability to think on her feet to win the White House. She doesn't relate to people the way Elizabeth Warren does.

Hillary has all the wrong experience. Voting for the Iraq War is one example.

She was unable to get health care reform through Congress.

And as I pointed out the TPP and Keystone Pipeline were negotiated in part under her time in the State Department. She served in Congress. But most of her political reputation is due to hanging onto Bill Clinton's coat-tails, and she is no Bill Clinton. She does not have his personality.

Elizabeth Warren taught law for years. She can explain complex ideas in simple language so that people understand. She has written books that took more intellect and judgment than Hillary's.

Elizabeth Warren understands the numbers. She is the person to reform our economy. And that is what we need. What good does it do if you have done a lot, but you are not prepared, willing or able to do what really needs to be done. Hillary's problem is that a lot of her experience is not relevant to solving our very fundamental economic problem.

And this is what I see our economic problem as being: We were founded as a nation of mostly farmers. We were mostly small farmers who were very independent. That's what we were in 1776-1813 and beyond. Then came the industrial revolution. We became a country of farmers and factory workers and miners. Workers organized. Farmers organized. Our economy was reformed -- somewhat but by no means enough for what came next.

In the 1930s, many farmers were driven from their farms. To survive, a farmer needed large expanses of land. People who left their farms began to move to the cities. This was part of what moved African-Americans from the South to the North. The sharecropping of small plots of land did not produce even a very basic living.

So, in the 1940s, 1950s and through to the 1980s and even the present, Americans moved from rural America into the cities or from farms into towns. People continued to work in factories until in the Reagan era and beyond. Increased international trade, i.e., cheap labor and the cheap imports that cheap labor produced resulted in the closing of those factories.

Now and since the 1990s the age of technology has changed our economy. People still live in cities. But the tax base that industry provided is gone. The service economy does not result so much in products that can be sold. The production of consumer products is done outside of the US. Incomes are falling in terms of buying power. We are in a crisis. It's getting hard for ordinary Americans to live well, to maintain a decent living standard in this service economy. It is not working. And it will get worse.

If we don't change things, sooner or later basic infrastructure like the supplying of clean water and providing working sewage systems could fail in cities. I don't need to tell you what disasters that would mean for Americans.

An example: I wanted to buy a pair of sandals. I knew what brand, what color, what size I wanted. I went to a department store in my area. They had my brand and size but not the color I wanted. So I ordered it online. Theoretically, the company I bought them from paid taxes to my state. But it did not pay them to my city. And it did not hire anyone to sell me the shoes here where I live. Jobs and taxes lost to my area.

Gradually we are all changing our lives to do more and more on the internet. But our economy, and especially our tax system, is still based on the old, industrial economy.

I do not think that Hillary (or any of the kinds of advisers that she is likely to pick if Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, etc. is any indication), is prepared to deal with this new economy, with the challenges it will bring.

We will have to change the fundamental concepts behind our tax code. We will no longer be able to rely primarily on personal income taxes. We are going to have to find something drastically different. The personal income taxes that can be easily collected, those on hourly wage earners and salaried employees are dwindling as the job market is changing and the incomes of ordinary people decreasing. We are going to have to make the 1% pay most of the taxes because they are enjoying most of the benefit, most of the increases in income from this new economy.

Hillary Clinton's social, political and personal ties, her ideas are bound to that old economy. Elizabeth Warren's too to some extent. But Elizabeth Warren is not as beholden to those who still see our country as it was 25 years ago. She has close relationships with a lot of young people -- her former students, her daughter and her grandchildren. Hillary -- not so much. It isn't a matter of having photo ops with young people. It is a matter of living in the economic reality that young people live with. Elizabeth Warren as a law professor has done that over the years. Hillary not so much.

On edit, I need to add here that Elizabeth Warren with a team did extensive research on why individuals file for bankruptcy. She understands why people get into debt and how they deal with it. She understands how families earn their income and how they spend it. She was instrumental in doing and writing about important economic research. That is why I think she is uniquely qualified to select people to make proposals on changing our economy. She is a leader in that area, the most important issue for America right now.

It's the economic challenges of our time and of the future that I think Elizabeth Warren will respond to better than Hillary. That's why I favor Elizabeth Warren.

If you read her book, you will learn many, many facts about her early life and her work. I cannot summarize them for you. You have to read it yourself. When you have read it, then I would like to know what you think.

Again, on edit. I could write a book on why I think that Elizabeth Warren will make a better candidate than Hillary Clinton. I won't do it here on DU. No. I'm not paid by Elizabeth Warren. She has never heard of me I am sure.

[wyldwolf]

100. How many words did you just write?

All those words and still no explanation of why warren is qualified. Oh, you can spout some really irrelevant stuff that I'm sure is right from your perspective.
You can repeat in great detail the left wing standard anti-Clinton talking points but you can't explain what makes Warren qualified. All you can say is read the book.

[JDPriestly]

103. Why is Hillary qualified, because I dont' think Hillary is qualified.

Qualified is a term that presupposes the application of subjective criteria.

That is to say that there is no examination that determines whether a candidate for the presidency has learned all the facts and concepts that a president needs to know.

I think that Hillary is not at all qualified to be president at this time. She is stuck in an old reality. Her ideas will not improve the reality of today for most Americans. Hillary managed the State Department. I think that she did a less than stellar ob there. It isn't that her foreign policy was wrong. It's easy to get that right. And she did a good job with foreign relationships. But her views on economics are stuck back somewhere in the pre-computer age. She does not understand why H1-B visas are not right for America. She does not understand that Americans need to keep American jobs in America and that we need to bring back industry and move even more quickly toward alternative energy.

The job of president is to lead the country. One of the most important qualifications is charisma. Elizabeth Warren has it. It's hard to define. But her meteoric rise in popularity especially among those of us who are I have to say pretty well educated and intelligent and very, very interested in politics is quite amazing. I really liked John Kerry. I was brokenhearted when he lost in 2004 (if he lost).

But even he does not have the charisma of Elizabeth Warren. Obama has charisma. So did Bill Clinton. Hillary is well known, but as we saw in 2008, she does not have enough charisma to win in an election that everyone thought she should win.

A president is a leader. She must be able to make good decisions. As I pointed out, Hillary Clinton has not proven that she makes good decisions. Clearly, in 2008, she did not choose a staff or choose to take positions and state them in a way that could win against a relative rookie in politics. Further, as I have pointed out, her decision to vote for the Iraq War Resolution betrays carelessness and a need to please others when she makes decisions. She did not listen to those who were trying to inform her about what was really going on in Iraq and what needed to be done and not done there. We are now reaping the whirlwind that resulted from her careless vote and the thoughtless, blind votes of so many members of Congress. Horrible as he was, Saddam Hussein in power would have meant fewer lives lost and less upheaval in the Middle East I believe. It was a sign of very poor judgment in making decisions to vote for that war.

A president must take responsibility. I understand that Iowa is changing its rules for the primaries. That is not a bad idea. They need to be more inclusive. But I also understand that these changes are in response to a complaint by Hillary that people who could not participate during certain hours of the day were excluded. Apparently she thought that she would have done better if the rules had been changed. I doubt that she would have. Hillary blames others for her failings. What can I say. This is not a very nice topic. But I have the impression that Hillary is not great at taking responsibility for her own mistakes. She has admitted that her vote on the Iraq War was wrong. But I have not heard her admit that the reason was that she really did not question the bogus evidence that was presented to her. She has not really taken responsibility for her vote on that. Of all people, having recently left the White House, she was in a position to vote wisely. And she has not really taken responsibility for what she did wrong.

A president must choose good advisers. Bill Clinton did not. Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Alan Greenspan, etc. were not good advisers. Clinton did choose a pretty good attorney general. That is probably because he knew more about law than about economics. We had a lot of Clinton advisers on the Obama staff when Obama took office. Some of them, like Larry Summers, are not what America wanted or deserved. Clinton's advisers gave him a lot of bad advice -- as on handling Al Qaeda, signing the Telecommunications Act and the repeal of Glass-Steagall to mention a few mistakes. The reappointment of Alan Greenspan indicated an inability to choose good aides. I expect that Hillary will choose her favorites from among the same crew.

Mind you, when Bill Clinton ran for president, I walked up and down the hills of my entire precinct to help get out the votes and urge people to vote for him. I have done a lot of work campaigning for candidates including Barack Obama. My choice for 2008 would have been John Edwards because he was the only one who recognized very early that economy was tanking and why that was happening. I knew it in 1997 when in the back of a courtroom, all the lawyers could talk about before the hearings was their stock market investments. That's a boom. A bust is bound to follow. (I hard read books on 1929, lots of them.) Edwards' personal problems of course were a huge disappointment to me.

I think that like John Edwards, Elizabeth Warren understands our economic crisis. I think she will be a good leader in that in her life and her career, her positions in government (read her book to find out what she has done there) and in Congress, she has consistently made good decisions. Not often does a little girl from a low-income family in Oklahoma manage to become a law professor at Harvard. That indicates how much natural ability she has, what drive she has, what good people-skills she has.

Elizabeth Warren takes responsibility for her mistakes and learns from them. Read her book and you will see that is her pattern.

And as I said, Elizabeth Warren can bake. That tells me that she is able to think through concrete processes and do the small things that make life good for those around her. Her baking is, you will learn if you read the book, one of the ways that she gives to others. Her books are another way that she shares with others.

I think that Elizabeth Warren has the humility, the patience, the kindness, the understanding of the world, the ability to listen and to empathize, to understand and explain difficult concepts to people without seeming condescending. She does not have an arrogant giggle or laugh. She does not ridicule people who do not understand what she understands. She doesn't scoff at others. Hillary???? Hillary has empathy, sympathy for the unfortunate, but she does not handle those who disagree with her well. Both Hillary and Elizabeth Warren are very competitive women, but Elizabeth Warren is competitive on behalf of ordinary people. That is something unique and wonderful about her. She is competitive to a normal extent about herself, but it isn't exaggerated. She mostly wants to fight for others. I do think based on my own impression of Hillary Clinton that she is not as generous with her respect for others as is Elizabeth Warren.

Elizabeth Warren is a better communicator than Hillary and that is very, very important in a president. There's more but I have said enough for now. I have to fix supper. I'm in California.

Edited to correct typos that changed my meaning. Thanks. good question.

[wyldwolf]

104. and then you divert from the question again and write another anti-clinton diatribe

[JDPriestly]

106. You need to read Elizabeth Warren's book.

I think I make a good case for Elizabeth Warren.

She has expertise on the economy while Hillary has expertise in foreign policy. Expertise on the economy is probably more important now.

Elizabeth Warren will make a good leader. She has proved that she knows how to make good decisions. She asks the right questions. Watch her questions in Senate hearings. She does not make decisions without knowing the facts. Asking the right questions and investigating carefully before you make a decision are what makes a good decision-maker.

She is an excellent communicator. She knows how to explain complex ideas to people who have not background in what she is talking about. People respond to her speeches because she speaks clearly, with great enthusiasm. She is a teacher. A president needs to be a teacher among other things.

Elizabeth Warren is patient. She has overcome enormous obstacles in her life. Her rise from a childhood in a relatively poor family to teach at Harvard law school is amazing. She is diligent, persistent (watch her cut bankers and administrators down to size in Senate hearings, very persistent) and extremely intelligent.

Elizabeth Warren has courage. She has proved that in her life. You have to read her book to understand how persistent and courageous she was in playing her role in trying to oversee the bail-out of the banks. She got very little respect from the likes of people like Timothy Geithner or Larry Summers. But she fought for what she thought was right anyway. Her struggle to get the Consumer protection bureau going was downright brave.

Elizabeth Warren is not corrupt, not corruptible. She is not sold out like Hillary. She makes that very clear. That is probably why you are asking him why I think she is qualified to be president. We assume that a president has accumulated brownie points with the American oligarchy. Elizabeth Warren has not done that. She has risen based on her ability and her personal merit. She did not grasp the coat-tails of her husband to get into the Senate.

Elizabeth Warren is a good manager from what I can tell. She ran her campaign pretty well for a first-timer. As a manager she can be effective because she is so charming and gets along with people well. She has a ready smile that betrays her love of others. I have talked about her baking. Another small gift she readily gives to others. The students she hires to help her on her campaigns are loyal to her from what I can tell. She certainly chooses competent staff.

Elizabeth Warren is not the only qualified potential candidate for the presidency, but she is, I think the most qualified. She is an academic success. She will have no problem finding excellent people, experts and talented people as aides in the White House.

Elizabeth Warren seems to be very honest. She is embarrassed, deeply embarrassed if caught in a very small lie or contradiction. That is a trait that people value and love.

It think Elizabeth Warren has a good chance to be elected, better than does Hillary, if Elizabeth Warren runs.

What qualifications do you think a president should have?

[wyldwolf]

107. back to that again?

You'll never make the case for Warren by tearing down Clinton. And most voters aren't going to read her book.

[JDPriestly]

109. What qualifications do you want president to have.

I have answered your question. As a courtesy, please answer mine.

What qualifications do you think a president should have?

Or do you think I am so inconsequential that you don't need to answer my question?

[wyldwolf]

110. I want you to stop diverting and tell me what Warren's are.

Or do you think I am so inconsequential that you don't need to answer my question?

-

[JDPriestly]

111. Rather a one-sided conversation. I have written three posts answering your question.

And you don't deign to answer mine even once.

I think that perhaps this conversation is too one-sided for my tastes.

[wyldwolf]

112. you've written three long diatribes about Clinton, then some touchy feely fanboy Warren stuff

But what are her qualifications?

[JDPriestly]

113. Define "qualifications," please.

What are Hillary's qualifications?

Why do you think she is qualified?

[wyldwolf]

114. those things that make someone suitable for the presidency

Post 95 - the post you conveniently ignored.

[davidpdx]

135. Fanboy seriously?

Are we reverting back to the cool-aid type behavior? Christ must you be so childish.

[wyldwolf]

136. Fanboy seriously

Blind allegiance. Can only say someone is awesome 'because.' Christ must you be so naive?

[davidpdx]

138. Look in the mirror

You may actually be talking about yourself.

[wyldwolf]

139. I have and I'm not

[davidpdx]

140. Says the person who goes around calling people "fanboy"

[wyldwolf]

141. If your only reason for supporting someone is they make you warm and tingly inside

Then you're a fanboy or is that some type of teenybopper infatuation?

[JDPriestly]

115. What relevant things did Barack Obama do before becoming president?

Not much.

Same for Hillary. If you look at her record, she didn't introduce many bills. She voted for bills, sometimes on the wrong side.

Elizabeth Warren came up with the idea for the Consumer protection bureau. She is fighting for reduced interest rates on student loans. She is proposing a 21st century Glass-Steagall bill and more regulation for banks.

I don't think Hillary or Barack Obama did that much before running for president.

In fact, Bill Clinton was a governor, but on the national level, he did not have the experience that Elizabeth Warren has in working in Congress with other members of Congress.

Do you have any link to evidence showing that Elizabeth Warren does not work well with others in Congress?

Hillary is the one who has trouble getting along with Republicans. They just hate her.

They don't hate Elizabeth Warren.

Besides, I don't think that it is possible for any member of Congress to get important legislation passed right now. Congress is pretty much at a stalemate when it comes to any innovative legislation. So the question is irrelevant.

Elizabeth Warren has probably met with more foreign leaders at this point in her career than Barack Obama had. Elizabeth Warren's expertise is economics and law -- bankruptcy law. Obama's was foreign policy and law. Bush's? An MBA doesn't make a person much of an expert at anything. Maybe he was an expert on managing a football team. Rah! Rah!

Hillary has met a lot of foreign leaders but I don't trust her at all when it comes to economics. She probably thinks she knows a lot because she talks to a lot of important people about the topic. But she doesn't begin to know what Elizabeth Warren knows.

You can't have everything. I think it is time finally for the United States to have a president who will manage the economy. Foreign policy is not our biggest problem right now even though if you are in D.C. you probably think it is.

[wyldwolf]

116. You're STILL avoiding the question! LOL! And now you're dragging Obama into it.

Elizabeth Warren has probably met with more foreign leaders at this point in her career than Barack Obama had.

Who?

Elizabeth Warren's expertise is economics and law

So? What has she done legislatively. Be specific. I swear, you're arguing your point like a fanboy argues Batman vs. Spiderman.

[JDPriestly]

120. What did Obama or Clinton or Hillary or George W. Bush do legislatively before

being elected to the White House?

Reagan is the Republicans' favorite president. What did he do?

Since when is getting bills passed in Congress a criteria for being preisdnet?

Many of our presidents never served in Congress. Each president brings her own qualifications.

Elizabeth Warren's qualifications make her the best candidate for president in our time. .

[wyldwolf]

123. This is not about Reagan or Obama

You're avoiding the question.

[NanceGreggs]

122. You've replied to the wrong person.

I didn't ask the question.

But allow me to play Devil's Advocate in respect of a Warren presidential run, if I may?

Everything we love about is Warren is everything the Republicans hate. We see her as passionate; the Republicans see her as crazed. We see her as an aggressive advocate; the Republicans see her as an over-bearing nag. We see her as a shining example of the accomplished woman; the Republicans see her as a woman who doesn't know her place.

"Elizabeth Warren's approach to economic issues, her common sense, her feminine form of feminism and her personality will earn the trust and votes of a lot of swing voters as well as Republicans -- especially Republican women."

We see her approach, her common sense, her form of feminism. The Republicans don't. They see something else entirely, and it ain't anything good.

If Republican women were interested in supporting someone who would speak to them and for them, they would have left their own party years ago. While I am sure many GOP women have toyed with the idea of aligning themselves with the Democrats on issues like equal pay and access to BC, etc., in the end they always find things like abortion or same-sex marriage to be the greater evil when choosing between the two parties' platforms. For some women, a dead fetus or a two-daddy kid attending the same daycare as their godly Christian child is enough to keep them in the GOP camp.

Warren was a Republican who became a Democrat. She would be cast as a turncoat, a woman who found it easy to shed her principles and adopt those of her previous adversaries (a) because she is fickle and doesn't know her own mind, (b) because she is willing to abandon her principles for the sake of political expediency, (c) because she has no sense of loyalty - and that endless list goes on and on and on.

When I read posts about how Warren would find broad acceptance and support if she ran for POTUS, I am reminded of an FR thread about Sarah Palin running for prez. Her RW supporters were confident that once the country "really got to know her", even a lot of liberal Democrats would see all of her great qualities and support her.

I am not by any means comparing Warren to Palin. All I'm saying is that all of us, on both sides of the aisle, project all kinds of "obvious" political virtues onto those we admire - and naively believe that our opponents will come to see exactly what we see.

All of that being said, here's my problem with the Warren-for-POTUS promotion: We know her stand on a fair number of domestic issues - but not all. As far as where she would stand on foreign policy, she is a virtual unknown. I suspect that once all of her positions became known, many of her current supporters would begin expressing buyer's remorse rather quickly. In other words, there are too many here who want the Warren they see in the Oval Office, without considering that what they see is not necessarily who she is.

[JDPriestly]

128. Here is why I think Elizabeth Warren would have broad appeal.

Regardless of the Republican propaganda, many of the homeowners and small business owners who lost their homes and businesses or who are having a hard time would listen to Elizabeth Warren's message about reining in the banks, about bank regulation and financial reform, giving little guys, the middle-class people a chance. They like the Tea Party because it pretends to be the in-your-face anti-establishment voice that Elizabeth Warren really is. I think Elizabeth Warren's fresh message could cut through the lies.

That message rises above partisan affiliation. A lot of swing and conservative voters would like to see the Fed taken down a notch. Hillary cannot do that because she is too closely dependent upon and tied to the big corporate, Wall Street crowd and their banks. She served on Walmart's board back when. Good Heavens! And Walmart supports her candidacy. Double Good Heavens.

Elizabeth Warren represents in some respects just common sense aside from party affiliation. Her approach to the economic crisis that we are still in. in spite of good job numbers, is what Americans are looking for, I believe.

Hillary is the bete noire of the Republicans. The Republican hierarchy has tried to damage Elizabeth Warren's reputation, but once she is heard, allowed to speak for herself, they will not get far with that. Warren's message is clearly aimed at the middle class. And those are the voters who could be persuaded in numbers large enough to win an election, to vote Democratic for a change, if they hear Warren's optimistic, strong ideas about financial reform. Elizabeth Warren is the ideal candidate to attract small business owners. Hillary, nor at all. Hillary is indelibly linked to the Bill Clinton/Al Gore Democratic Party.

I hear where you are coming from. The Republican smear machine is a force to be reckoned with. But Elizabeth Warren, I think would hold her own. She is from Oklahoma and lived in Texas. She can deal with the conservative mentality. That's what she was raised with. Her ideas are based on her research on why people file for bankruptcy. She doesn't just feel the pain of ordinary Americans. She has analyzed it, charted it on a spread sheet and knows how to fix it.

Hillary doesn't. Sorry. But Hillary's life has been devoted to politics. And right now, the last thing we need, maybe the last person Americans will get excited enough about to vote for, is a political hack. I'm afraid that is what Hillary has become.

Besides, Hillary's delivery in her speeches is dry and her tone is too controlled. She does not make a good candidate. She does too much of what is expected and not enough of what she really is. Elizabeth Warren comes across as sincere. Hillary does not.

We've been here before: George W. Bush came across as sincere to a lot of voters. (He wasn't.) Al Gore came across as stiff and not himself. (He was just maybe a little shy.)

Hillary has a way of laughing and acting condescending. It comes across as arrogant. She strikes me as the girl who was first in class and never wanted anyone to forget that. As one who was never the first in my class, I know how much the rest of us disliked that girl. Teacher's pet. That isn't fair, and it isn't kind on my part, but that is how most everyone else in the class feels.

Elizabeth Warren was the first in class, but she went to the local college and never got a big head about it. She won debates because she fought harder than anyone else because she knew she didn't have a new dress or expensive shoes and needed to prove herself. Elizabeth Warren is very much on the same wavelength as Americans who are trying to climb up and out of debt, pay off student loans, car loans, house loans and can't seem to ever get anywhere. I don't think Hillary can really understand that at all.

If you read Elizabeth Warren's book, you may agree with me that her life is a fight for her mother and father. She didn't feel they got a fair deal and she has tried to make that right for the rest of her life. She sees her mother and father in all the ordinary Americans who are not getting a fair deal. That is what I see as her story, and that is why I think she would make such a good president. She would fight for and put first the interests of ordinary Americans.

It isn't a matter of whether Elizabeth Warren is poor or rich. It is a matter of the fact that Elizabeth Warren understands that the playing field in the American economy is very much rigged for the rich. Because of her expertise on that issue, Warren knows what to do to even that field out a bit. Hillary doesn't. And Hillary would not dare do anything to hurt her big donors. Hillary has a lot of money for her campaign, don't ask where it comes from.

I remember traveling in Hungary during the 1960s. We stopped in what we thought would be a good place to eat. There hall was lined with long tables. I don't remember how we got our plates filled, but you just sat where there was a free chair at one of these long tables. We took a few bites and didn't know what we were eating. So my husband asked in German what the meat was. The man across from us, an older man, laughed and said,, "Better not ask." Better not ask is a good rule to follow when it comes to Hillary's donors. Better not ask. If you belong to a labor union or prefer to bank at a credit union or think the tuition is to high in your state university or would prefer single payer or at least public option insurance, want bank regulations to be better enforced, want more scrutiny on Wall Street, want some research done on the effects of charter schools or whatever, better not ask who Hillary's donors are.

[NanceGreggs]

132. You are obviously a very devoted Warren advocate ...

... and you make a great case for her qualifications as a potential POTUS.

But you are still ignoring the reality that not everyone sees her as you do. Nor will they ever.

[JDPriestly]

90. See my post #89. I give some of my reasons.

I started to answer you, but my answer was too, too long. So I answered Nance Greggs. Hope you won't be offended.

[demigoddess]

81. can you name a democrat

who didn't support the war
stands a chance of being elected president
and is no fan of wall street?

[JDPriestly]

92. Elizabeth Warren.

[PassingFair]

105. Jan Schakowsky

Barbara Boxer

and Howard Dean, of course.

[mylye2222]

86. Everyone bowing his head to HRC.....

I really wonder if a primary will really occur. (Or with "puppet" opponents "picked" by the Clintons' entourage?) The darkest side of Ambition, in all its grandor.

[BainsBane]

38. It's gone from love affair

to creepy-stalkerish behavior at this point.

[Union Scribe]

46. Yeah. it's stupid of people to dream

of getting anything but another crappy center-right candidate. Take what you're given and be happy peasants, amiright?

[brooklynite]

72. Yes it IS stupid to dream...

when what you should be doing is making an actual effort to find an acceptable candidate who WILL run. But that would be hard work, and it's a lot easier to write another blog post.

[Laelth]

15. That's certainly what her press secretary, Ms. Rose, said.

I wonder, though, how Ms. Rose could possibly know that every detail in Klein's story was fabricated. I don't trust Klein, to be sure, but I think Ms. Rose's assertion that the entire story was fabricated may have been a bit hyperbolic.

-Laelth

[BainsBane]

16. She certainly knows the main point of the story is false

which is what this OP deals with, but if you want to keep waiting for the tooth fairy, no one can stop you.

[Laelth]

41. I think she can safely speak for Elizabeth Warren.

That much I'll give you.

-Laelth

[pnwmom]

17. Elizabeth Warren knows that it was fabricated, and she told her press secretary.

I can't believe you're questioning Warren's veracity about this.

[Laelth]

42. I think Ms. Rose can safely speak for Elizabeth Warren.

I don't dispute that, but I don't think she is authorized to speak for the Kennedys.



-Laelth

[pnwmom]

48. She must know then that Warren didn't go up there to sail in their boat

and be vetted by the Kennedy's.

The whole story is a steaming pile of crap.

[MineralMan]

3. But Elizabeth Warren is not silent on the NY Post's article.

She says the article is a pack of lies. Do you discount her words? Why?

The NY Post and Klein are not reliable sources for any information about political matters. They're just astroturfing.

Don't you agree?

[Laelth]

6. I have no reason to doubt her Press Secretary, Ms. Rose.

Although the "completely made up" part may be hyperbole. I don't trust Klein, to be certain, but I am not sure how Ms. Rose could know that every detail contained in Klein's article was fabricated.



-Laelth

[pnwmom]

18. She knows because her boss, Warren, told her it was completely made up.

And Warren is in the position to know that.

[msanthrope]

26. Maybe because her boss, Elizabeth Warren, told her so? nt

[DURHAM D]

30. LOL Bill Clinton has been known to say that DC is a fact-free zone.

Can only imagine what he would think about DU.

[Gman]

8. Warren also signed a letter to Hillary from female US Senators asking her to run

Who you gonna believe?

[BainsBane]

37. Yeah, cause when someone talks about Kennedys

They aren't talking about Caroline. They mean the Kennedys who appear on soap operas.





Those are the political endorsements that really matter.

[Laelth]

44. I don't think Caroline is authorized to speak for her entire family.

When the Kennedys named in the Klein article (Ethel, Joe, Bobby Jr., and Max) make statements denying the thrust of Klein's rumors, I will believe them.

-Laelth

[BainsBane]

45. Yet you don't believe Warren?

[Laelth]

47. I believe her press secretary, Ms. Rose.

To my knowledge, Senator Warren has made no public statement on this subject. Ms. Rose, on the other hand, said that the story was "completely fabricated," but I fail to see how Ms. Rose could possibly know that every detail of the recent Klein essay was fabricated.

I don't trust Klein, but I can readily believe that the Kennedy family is interested in whom the Democratic Party nominates in 2016. As I said above, when the people mentioned in the Klein essay (Ethel, Joe, Bobby Jr., and Max) make statements denying the thrust of Klein's rumors, I will believe them.



-Laelth

[JI7]

5. i wish people would stop smearing Elizabeth Warren by associating her with racist scum like Klein

[joeybee12]

7. Wow...The NY Compost made something up completely!

Now who woulda thunk a Murdoch-owned rag would do that???

[davidpdx]

137. I know

It's amazing what people will try to pass as newsworthy around here.

[joeybee12]

142. Next it'll be Fox Noise if the article fits their preconceived ideas

[PAProgressive28]

9. I'm a Warren fan and said this article was BS

So don't paint us all as having bought into this. Not that you are wolf, just people in general.

[wyldwolf]

11. I'm a Warren supporter, too, and would be proud to have her as my President

... so if it ever appears I'm posting something negative about her, I'm not. What I will do is spotlight hypocrisy from Clinton detractors.

[William769]

10. It really sucks that we have to debunk this shit on DU.

That pretty much sums it up in a nutshell.

[NuclearDem]

12. Ed Klein making stuff up?

Color me shocked.

[SidDithers]

13. DU rec...

sad to see that article from right-wing nutbag Klein get 20 recs from allegedly progressive DUers.

Sid

[msanthrope]

27. The true progressives, Sid. The true progressives. nt

[zappaman]

61. Those are REAL DEMOCRATS, Sid Dithers of DU...

Why are you using right wing talking points?

[SidDithers]

70. I guess Only REAL DEMOCRATS...

are able to appreciate the nuance that a racist, birther, right-wing shitbag like Ed Klein brings to the table.

The rest of us unenlightened dumbfucks only see him as a shitbag.



Sid

[leftynyc]

14. That we even had to see that

piece of crap article from that piece of crap author in that piece of crap newspaper on DU shows the problems we have here - right here on this site.

[frazzled]

19. But 90% of DUers believe it!

According to a poll (to be) taken by the original poster of that story. So it must be true!

Let's be clear: there are agent provocateurs on DU who are willing to post any disreputable article, by any disreputable author, just to stir up shit here. And when they explicitly decline to amend or delete the debunked post, the motives are clear. A lot was learned from the American Spectator school of journalism back in the 90s: throw any piece of crap lie up against the wall, and no matter how many times it is discredited and shown to be false, the fact that it was at one time up against the wall will mean many will continue to believe it as gospel truth.

[billhicks76]

20. Warren 2016

Hillary = Jeb

[wyldwolf]

28. Clinton 2016

Warren = McGovern

[billhicks76]

49. No Thanks

But I can see why you would think that. But think again. There was a culture war then and McGovern got labeled a hippie. And there was lots of internal turmoil and the country was Whiter than ever. Also remember Democrats got us into Vietnam and people bought into the idea of Nixon getting us out. Warren is nothing like McGovern.

[wyldwolf]

53. Yes thank you

Clinton 16

[billhicks76]

58. I'd Rather Eat My Own Vomit

No war mongers 2016. Let Hillary run as a Republican if her hubris and ego need to be fed so bad for personal gain. I vote on policy not gender or race. Otherwise I'd like Condeleeza Rice.

[wyldwolf]

59. I'd Rather you eat your own vomit, too, but we can't all get what we want.

[billhicks76]

62. Haha But C'mon

Try to look at my hyperbole as a barometer. To many people are offended by her with good reason. She should have EASILY won the primary in 2008. She lost for a REASON. The more she talked the more people disliked her. This isn't a game of trading off power and secret deals. This country as I did thirsted for a female president for years. But she told too many lies, distorted to many recollections and never challenged power or the war machine. Nominating her is a mistake.i want a Democrat to win...if she won I would still feel like a Republican won but even worse I think she would lose. Step outside your bubble if you dare...she ain't all that. Hopefully an actual liberal candidate will emerge. People will vote on who they TRUST and that is why a liberal like Warren can still win.

[wyldwolf]

63. haha but C'mon. You live in an echo chamber, in the overwhelming minority on the left

Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a problem with liberals. Not hardly.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has said repeatedly that she won't run for president in 2016, and yet the idea persists: That Hillary Clinton could find herself vulnerable to a more liberal primary opponent.

The problem? Almost all of the most recent data suggests that Clinton doesn't have any real problems on her left flank. Indeed, she's actually stronger with liberals than she is with more moderate Democrats. And very, very few liberals have anything but nice things to say about her.

To wit:

* A new CNN/Opinion Research poll shows that when voters are asked whether they would prefer Clinton, a more liberal alternative or a more conservative one, about twice as many non-Clinton voters say they prefer the more conservative one (20 percent) to the more liberal one (11 percent).

* A Washington Post/ABC News poll this month showed Clinton taking a bigger share of the vote in the 2016 primary among self-described liberals (72 percent) than among moderate and conservative Democrats (60 percent).

* The same poll shows 18 percent of moderate Democrats don't want Clinton to run. Just 6 percent of liberal Democrats agree.



* The WaPo-ABC poll also shows liberal Democrats approve of Clinton's tenure at the State Department by a margin of 96-1, while moderate Democrats approve of it 84-12. Sixty-seven percent of liberals strongly approve of Clinton's performance, nearly 9 in 10 say she is a strong leader, and only slightly fewer say she's honest and trustworthy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/16/hillary-clinton-doesnt-have-a-problem-with-liberals-not-hardly/

[billhicks76]

64. You Seem Very Skilled

So even you must know these polls don't mean crap right now. Things aren't static and most voters aren't paying attention to 2016 yet no matter who tries to remind them.

[wyldwolf]

65. I'll bet you don't believe in evolution and climate change, either.

Here's what the polls mean - this is how the vast majority of Democrats feel RIGHT NOW. And since 'prooogresssiivvveess' have been pounding on her record for years now, this Dem electorate is very very very knowledgeable of her record.

[billhicks76]

66. Well I Hope She Loses

Sincerely,
A non-apologetic left winger accused of not believing in climate change or evolution because doesn't support Hillary or believe she can win an election.

[wyldwolf]

68. Of course you do

Sincerely,

A Democrat who believes in science, including scientific polling, and doesn't try to wiggle out of the results.

[billhicks76]

75. Science?

Election polling so far away from the election doesn't mean a lot. I won't quote my scientific credentials because it's meaningless in this vacuous argument due to the ever changing nature of these polls. Democrats will change their minds I believe and if they don't expect more business ad usual and less hope and change. Polls are saying we are probably going to lose the Senate and have no gains in the House. Zogby is a great pollster and one of my favorites of his was 69% of people in New York state believe the Bush government facilitated and then covered-up 911.

[wyldwolf]

87. yeah, dude. Science.

University of Michigan's Dr. Vincent Hutchings explains the science of random sampling that makes it possible to query a few hundred or thousand people and use that data to accurately determine how the general public might vote.

http://science360.gov/obj/video/dc8e0737-ceac-4582-bee9-5f195951a01a/science-behind-news-opinion-polls-random-sampling

Predictive Principles For Polls - Scientific Method in Public Opinion Research

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2745749?uid=3739616&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104039471851

Measuring Public Support for Policy Change

http://www.mc.uky.edu/tobaccopolicy/KCSP/OnePagers/OnePagerScientificPublicOpinionPolling090211.pdf


Oh, but I get it. Like any fundamentalist, you deny the results of science because you don't like the results.

[billhicks76]

94. You're Funny

You assume I'm a dude? And a fundamentalist? Interesting. Look there is a great article out today in the Washington Monthly about Hillary possibly getting replaced by Warren as the leader. The chances are slim but they were for Obama in 2008. The article adroitly points out that while 4 in 10 are solidly behind Hillary (which is much more than any other candidate) a majority have a problem with her and that doesn't translate well. I won't repeat the whole thing. It's just interesting reading. I personally belief the default candidate won't work this time either as people thirst for more. The article points out that polls now only are about name recognition and rarely predict what happens in two years. I do like that you referenced my alma matta though, U of M. And engineering school so that counts as science right? We are still on the same team. I would be kinder about Hillary if I truly thought she was on that team too...on the side of the people. I dont though anymore. Not in a while. I wish I did. I don't like having to believe that's she's not. It would be easier to think otherwise. Hopefully I'm wrong.

[wyldwolf]

97. You're a fundamentalist

I honestly don't care what gender you are. dude is a figure of speech.

So far your replies sound just like a talk radio host. You're providing no sources, you're speaking off the top of your head or and pulling facts out of your ass. You are trying to reason your way out of a losing argument.

[bobduca]

119. seem being the operative word

the voters knew better.

indeed.

[frazzled]

29. This is not about choosing candidates: it's about posting crap

No matter what the subject, lies and right-wing propaganda should not be posted here. I don't have a candidate. I do have a preference for facts and solid discussion based in reality.

[pnwmom]

36. Just like Al Gore = George Bush .

And Ralph Nader = billhicks76 , right?

[billhicks76]

50. Isnt That Your Mantra?

Last edited Wed Aug 6, 2014, 07:32 AM - Edit history (1)

Get in line or you're Ralph Nader? Take some responsibility. Gore= Bush? You pull that out of thin air. You should pull yourself out of your abyss and get up to date. I've met David Boies numerous times and no one thought Bush=Gore as many of us knew how bad Bush was. Too bad many Democrats did not as they still don't realize how bad Jeb is today. If they did they would've cracked GW harder for 911 but it took the Iraq War to get these moderates attention. Some of us knew what Bush Sr was capable of and he was no wimp. And did you think Obama = Nader too? Hillary is a bad candidate. You don't inspire democracy by forcing the same two elitist families down people's throats for 34 years.

[pnwmom]

52. Ralph Nader said Bush and Gore were the same: Tweedledum or Tweedledee.

Just like you're claiming that Jeb and Hillary are the same.

You might have known that Bush and Gore weren't the same. I knew they weren't the same. But Nader helped misinform the 97,000 people who voted for him over Gore or Bush because -- who cares? -- Bush and Gore were the same -- just Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2000

In October 2000, at the largest Super Rally[14] of his campaign, in New York City's Madison Square Garden, 15,000 people paid $20 each to attend the rally at which Nader said that Al Gore and George W. Bush were "Tweedledee and Tweedledum -they look and act the same, so it doesn't matter which you get."[1] He denounced Gore and Bush as "drab and dreary" choices, whose policies primarily reflect the influence of corporate campaign contributions. He further charged that corporate influence has blurred any meaningful distinctions between the Democratic and Republican parties.[15]

SNIP

Harry G. Levine, in his essay Ralph Nader as Mad Bomber states that Tarek Milleron, Ralph Nader's nephew and advisor, when asked why Nader wouldn't agree to avoid swing states where his chances of getting votes were less, answered, "Because we want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nader-assails-major-parties/

"Our two parties are basically one corporate party wearing two heads and different makeup," Nader said. "There is a difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, but not that much."

SNIP

"They are look alike parties," Nader said. And if his campaign causes either party to shrink, "that's exactly what we want them to do."

[billhicks76]

54. I'll Bet

The 97000 knew exactly what they were doing. They were tired of business as usual and sick of both parties capitulating to corporations. To whine and cry about everything being their fault is sophomoric and incredulous. If it was that close then Democrats should've done something first to oblige these folks and prove they had some progressive politics in them. We should be blaming centrists for defusing our message. And my Mother votes Republican and voted for Nader by the way. Besides Bush lost anyway.

[pnwmom]

56. Nader was the only progressive who drew votes from Gore.

And he drew more from Gore than he did from Bush, despite your mother's vote. In Florida, if Gore had just had a small fraction of Nader's progressive votes, he would have had too large a margin over Bush for the election to be thrown to SCOTUS.

Nader got exactly what he wanted. He wounded the Democratic party and he was a kingmaker for the Rethugs. He proved what a big shot he was -- and threw the country to the dogs.

[billhicks76]

60. It's called Karma

I hate Bush but selling out to corporations and pushing the center to the Right like Clinton did is a crime in itself. I don't blame Gore...I blame the Clintons.

[pnwmom]

67. After Presidents Bush and Reagan, you're saying that Clinton pushed the country to the right?

[wyldwolf]

69. anxiously awaiting his reply

[billhicks76]

74. Keep Laughing

We have always been polarized, genius. But the center has been moved...to the Right...by Clinton and his corporate friendly, bank friendly agenda. We didn't stand our ground. And we are paying for it now. Keep laughing.

[pnwmom]

76. You must have loved it when we lost 2 Presidential elections by 49 states to 1.

At least we were standing our ground, tiny as it was.

[billhicks76]

77. Stupid Argument

Carter was sabatoged by Bush October Surprise keeping the hostages until after the election. And guess what? Bush Sr refers publicly to Bill Clinton as his 5th son after the 2000 election was finally sealed. Those two families are very close according to their own admonition. And 1984? Your joking right? You couldn't find a more establishment candidate than Walter Mondale. And it's people aligned more with you than myself that liked Dukakis in '88. Now it's true Clinton would've lost in '92 if Ross Perot wasn't so offended by Bush CIA cocaine smuggling and threats against his family which promoted him to run to spoil thing for Bush who he thought was evil according to close associates. BUT the pendulum was swinging back to the left as the cycle always does so if you want to defend moving the center to the right, which I thought everyone on the site agrees happened according to their comments the last decade, go right ahead. If you think it didn't happen then maybe you should go argue with someone else. And you wonder how Republicans always game us?

[billhicks76]

78. If People Want Republican-Lite

They will vote for an actual republican. Trying to impersonate one doesn't work.

[pnwmom]

79. I guess you never heard of George McGovern. Or maybe he wasn't enough of a progressive

for you, either?

[billhicks76]

82. Hold On Historian

I can see why you would think that. But think again. There was a culture war then and McGovern got labeled a hippie. And there was lots of internal turmoil and the country was Whiter than ever. Also remember Democrats got us into Vietnam and people bought into the idea of Nixon getting us out. This is 2014 and things are not only much more fluid now the country actually is more liberal and progressive. The Anti-Progressive haters are holding us back and the same people who bought into the fake "compassionate conservative" narrative. I would rather have us define ourselves than be defined by others after squandering the biggest opportunity in history after electing Obama. After Bush people would've voted for Kucinich, Feingold, Wellstone had he been alive, Bill Ayers...Anyone but a Republican...even a ham sandwich. We need to stop setting our goals so low because of the imaginary notion that we have to win over the 30% of conservatives who don't ever compromise just because some right wing out of touch pundits tell us so. The fact is most right wing opposition is due to racism and they still lost. Warren could EASILY win and I predict by a landslide.

[billhicks76]

83. You Say McGovern

I say Hubert Humphrey...another self-entitled moderate that didn't win. You know who else was too? Lyndon Johnson, the senate majority leader that was so pissed losing what he thought he deserved to JFK. And there is a lot of evidence his animosity towards JFK boiled over. This is 2014. The 1930s are a better analogy. Warren 2016!!! I hope she runs.

[pnwmom]

84. Other than a few particular issues, like gay rights, the country isn't more liberal and progressive.

Nixon put forth a health care bill that was more liberal and progressive than the ACA. We also had wage and price controls during the Nixon era. And we had a tax structure with higher levels for the wealthy that was much more progressive than today.

It was after the demise of the Soviet Union that our whole country, in response, moved right. Once the threat of communism was removed, the right no longer felt it had to make concessions to unions and other progressive alternatives to communism.

[billhicks76]

85. That Was Old Right

Now Right is extreme, severe far right because politically the center has been moved way after 1990. Our country is more liberal though. The demographics of minorities has ensured that. Minimum wage, pot legalization, climate change etc...you name it we have become more liberal. Those who sit on boards and make decisions in the media are resisting and for obvious reasons...they are the 1% and like it that way. Obama won the popular vote by wide margins and Gore won it before...I believe Kerry was close...even with all the republican electoral fraud and vote theft. They are toast now and know it. Gerrymandering is all they have and God forbid swinging us Right by fomenting another 911. All they have is fear and that's a scary thing. Hopefully they don't realize that if they tackle corruption or reform the drug war along with marijuana legalization they could maybe win. If Hillary supports those two things I will know she's for real.

[pnwmom]

88. Don't underestimate the political right. The Gerrymandering is a huge thing and Nate Silver

also predicts they'll take the Senate.

[billhicks76]

133. You Don't Understand?

Clinton moved the center to the Right politically. People didn't change either way but the appearances and images did guaranteeing that we would only have choices between the right and center. Now this trend has continued and we only have choices now between far right and right of center. The population hadn't gotten more conservative. Quite the opposite given the growth of minorities. There is a disconnect you seem to be missing amidst all your laughing.

[pnwmom]

134. Clinton didn't move the center to the Right. When the Soviet Union collapsed,

so did its leftward pull on the politics of the US. Without the Soviet Union as the bulwark on the left side of the spectrum, the country was pulled to the right. Communism and even socialism appeared to many Americans to be completely discredited, and every progressive force, including unions, lost power.

Our country's politics don't occur in a vacuum. They occur in a worldwide context. The Soviet Union collapsed; and the other remaining communist superpower, China, began taking steps toward capitalism. While those two superpowers were moving rightwards, so was the U.S. This wasn't something Clinton made happen.

[Beacool]

121. Exactly!!!

That's why I barely post here anymore.

[George II]

22. If this was in the NY Post, why are the two references, links, from the NY Times and Boston Globe?

[Capt. Obvious]

24. But the two links calling out another DUer are from the Post

[DURHAM D]

25. This is the OP that started the shit storm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5333469

35 DUers reced it even though it is a complete lie.

[msanthrope]

43. 42 now. nt

[Number23]

71. 43 now. Still less than this OP which officially debunks that other one.

But we all know that the cult of personality that surrounds certain individuals here (and screams soooooo loud about cult of personalities that they perceive surround others) will rec any drivel that they pour forth, no matter how blatantly disruptive, untrue or just plain fucking stupid.

[msanthrope]

73. The plain fucking stupid is strong with this thread. nt

[joshcryer]

118. Any new poster linking that guy would get tombstoned.

And rightly so.

[Cha]

31. Thanks for the official debunk, wyldwolf.

[rsmith6621]

32. Hilary Will Have To Renounce and Explain Her Past Association With.......

....WALMART and Goldman Sachs and denounce these companys as harmful to people and the economy.


Frankly Warren is the only one using common sense in stating she is working on getting democrats elected to office in 2014. What is Hilary doing.... SELLING BOOKS.

[Thinkingabout]

102. So you would like to rebuke the Buy America she stood for while she was on the board of Walmart?

She is not on the board now and they are away from the Buy America. Now this was a way to support American products, are you against American products?

[rsmith6621]

117. And How Many American.....

.....companys were expected to give their product away to the ALL MIGHTY Walmart to get it in the store when Hilary was on the board. Yes people lost their jobs and companys shuttered their doors.There is your history lesson. Rubbermaid is an example of the extortion Walmart practiced.

Hilary is far from supporting alternative energy's because big oil has their cash in her pocket.

[Thinkingabout]

124. So you would rather shutter the doors, I don't see your point, how many Americans did it help for

Walmart not to buy American. When it comes to elections, corporations donates to candidates, on all sides. Do you honestly think a candidate would be able to raise $42 million without donations from corporations, yes, they are in the pockets, on both sides.

[rsmith6621]

126. you dont get the point

during the 80' 90's when WM was on this BUY AMERICA theme. They wanted manufactures to sell them products for the least amount of money, in fact for below cost or else they would take the biz elsewhere. In the process many companys (some small manufactures) had to close the doors because they simply went BROKE.

When CBS 60 Minutes was a more credible show they did a segment on this and even Rubbermaid told WM that they could not supply their stores.

As long as we keep the race to the bottom agenda going we will always have these king of issues. So lets see. SHUTTER a few stores of an employer who terrorizes its employees by paying and doing less for their workers or close a factory. Ill shutter the retailer.

I will only vote Hilary when she is the only option available. Otherwise I will hope for Warren or Sanders. Im tired of bought and paid for politicians. And like Warren I am focused on 2014, cause if the DEMS dont take both houses we as a nation are SCREWED.

2016 is 27 months away, focus on today.

[Thinkingabout]

127. Hillary was a push on Buy America, she is not there any more, Walmart is now getting their products

elsewhere than the US, the products are not made in the US. Jobs lost in the US, how does this help our American workers?

[rsmith6621]

129. Im Sorry

...you either don't understand what I am saying or you would vote for Hiliary regardless because she wears a D in her political title.


So with that I give up making my point.

[Thinkingabout]

130. I would hope the American worker would have someone on their side, guess it is not

Something which is important to others . I don't use one issue to decide which candidate I vote, since I agree with many issues Hillary is for then yes I will probably vote for her.

[rsmith6621]

131. Hilary Cant Say No

to any corporation that wants to put $$$$ in her pocket.

[stevenleser]

108. She will not have to do anything. She is blowing everyone away at this point.

Other people have to try to adjust to deal with her, not the other way around.

[TDale313]

33. While I'm one who would love to see Warren run...

I have no problem accepting the official word that the original article was not accurate.

[El Shaman]

34. sulution:

Clinton Warren 2016 !!!

[DonCoquixote]

35. somebody cracked the whip

probably somebody who realzies that when Obama got the kennedy endorsement, that was the begniing of the end of her Presidential race. It is sad to see that the Clintons will make sure even the K's tow the yoke.

[BainsBane]

39. You can't be serious?

Do you know who wrote that article?

[Warren DeMontague]

40. Aristocratic Power Family SMACKDOWN! Sunday, Sunday, Sunday!

We're turning the Jefferson Memorial into a giant MUDDDDD PITTTT!!!!!!!

Watch Truckasaurus battle Jenna Bush, Tricia Nixon, and several nondescript Eisenhower grandchildren.

It promises to be nepo-tastic... BE THERE!

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. i agree - it is highly unlikely that Sen. Warren will run - it is time to stop paying games and

rally behind Bernie Sanders - to run as a Democrat in 2016

[MADem]

80. Oh, dear. This'll be a problem in some quarters.

I wonder if there's room for Caroline under that bus?

I am astounded that anyone gave the wingnut who wrote that Post piece the time of day. It speaks to an agenda that is rather disturbing in its visceral anger at Clinton for having the nerve to be and perhaps stay married to WJC. Very odd, indeed, the willingness to board the train of a putrid wingnut to arrive at a Hillary-bashing destination.

[gwheezie]

101. I'm going to vote for Hillary again

If she decides not to run, I'll consider others. I do like Warren but I have some questions about her. Since the primary is a tad far off, Warren has time to figure out what she's doing, for now I take her word for it that she's not running.