Tonight made me rethink my position on Elizabeth Warren...

[Agschmid]

Last edited Fri Dec 12, 2014, 12:02 AM - Edit history (1)

I've been a staunch "she has no chance in the general" type... But let me say this I sure hope she runs in the primary.

She stood up for something today...

I'd like to see more from her... And soon!

ETA: Hopefully she rethinks her position.

[hrmjustin]

1. She certainly showed leadership!

I raise a glass to her!

[RiverLover]

4. here, here! clink

She did her best. She may have woken up many Americans to our collective Wall Street problem.

[roguevalley]

18. much more leadership than Mr. Obama. I would work and vote for her.

[bullwinkle428]

2. Lawrence O'Donnell opened his show with this quote just a few minutes ago:

"There's a new Democratic sheriff in town, and her name is Elizabeth"

[Agschmid]

3. Good quote.

She wasn't super successful but it's nice to see someone is paying attention.

[still_one]

5. I agree, but she pretty much said she isn't going to run

[RiverLover]

9. No, she's said "I'm not running" and she isn't.

No one is. yet.

[still_one]

16. She will not run as a candidate period.

[Agschmid]

19. She has already run as a candidate.

If you mean for president (which we all assume you do) than you might be right, but I sure hope she impacts the platform in a substantial way.

[still_one]

48. Of course I am referring to her running for President, that is the context of the thread.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/elizabeth-warren-latest-2016-draft-moves/story?id=27480071

There are a few folks who have actually declared interest such as Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb, and I believe there has also been talk of Jack Reed, along with the probable ones of Hillary, and Joe Biden. None of those name has said they will NOT run, like Elizabeth Warren.

[Scuba]

50. Please link to where Warren is quoted as saying she will not run.

She's said she's not runnning. I'm not aware that she's ever said she will not run.

[still_one]

53. For 2016 she is not interested to run for president. You have every right to believe

Otherwise

[Scuba]

54. Can you cite where she said she is not interested in a 2016 run?

[Raine1967]

72. I hope this comes close to a citation:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/06/29/elizabeth-warren-testing-populist-message-south-bid-help-democrats-hold-senate/RyDRHNg5KP0eovHcOyqYXJ/story.html

Warren has said she has no intention of running for president in 2016, which she reiterated in an interview (“I am not running for president. Do you want to put an exclamation point at the end of that?”). But these events are offering her a chance to test the waters on behalf of her party, in states that have been unfriendly to national Democrats in recent decades.

I would very much like to see her in the primaries and run, but she has said what I bolded a number of time.

Charles Pierce is a weekly guest on the Stephanie Miller Show. He is also good friends with Ms. Warren and he has stated that she will not run in 2016.

he wrote this in November:

Senator Professor Warren doesn't want to run, even though the most compelling conclusion to be drawn from the blasted landscape of the Democratic campaign is that running away from her particular economic message is disastrous, no matter where you happen to be running. Franken showed through his campaign how you embrace the themes on which Warren has based her career in the context of a political campaign.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Why_Not_Al

I don't see it happening in 2016. I think the people of Massachusetts want to keep her all to themselves…

[Scuba]

73. Once again, "I am not running" does not equal "I will not run".

[Plucketeer]

76. I'm betting her adamancy is a pledge to her current constituents

Who wants a "Sarah Palin" for their senator - however noble the reason. But I DO think the rising crescendo of pleas is going to be AWFULLY hard to ignore at some point. If she DOES ignore the call, I'll respect her choice to do so. Of course, Senator Sanders will be my next choice.

[Scuba]

89. The latest smear? If she runs for the highest office in the land it's just like Sarah quitting?

Pathetic.

[Plucketeer]

126. Smear???

LOL! The diversity of smilies isn't broad enough for an adequate response.

[AikidoSoul]

101. Notice that she always uses the present tense, "I am not running."

That doesn't mean that she will not run in the future.

[Raine1967]

129. I don't think I said that she would not.

I thought I made it very clear that she said she is not running in 2016.

Maybe that is the disconnect many people might be having.

[rhett o rick]

102. She can not say she is running now. Therefore she has to say she is not running.

Why is that so hard to understand. Once she said that she will run, bingo-bango her Senate job is toast. Her constituents would be pissed and she would be full into a campaign mode. She is not running until she decides to run.

[Raine1967]

128. There is little to misunderstand.

Sha has stated she is not running in the next presidential election. That is what I quoted.

This might be splitting hairs, but as I said, she has stated it and is quoted as such. As I stated above, I have heard Charlie Pierce say it myself on air. I don't know what else to say.

I am not saying people should not encourage her, I am simply saying what has been reported.

[still_one]

59. Every interview I have seen her give she said no. I understand some believe

It wasn't an definite no, and that is there right

To me when someone says no intention to to run that is no

Believe what you want, I will instead focus on issues of potential candidates like Sanders, Webb, Reed, Hillary, Biden who are definitely considering it

Her interview with Charlie Rose at least told me

She does not play the same political games as many other politicians.

[RiverLover]

21. You need to tell that to DemocracyForAmerica & MoveOn!

They're staking their considerable reputations on her running. Don't think they'd do that if they didn't have a reason to believe she'll run.

She'll announce when the time is right for her.

[Agschmid]

22. The MoveOn thing is a big deal.

I agree it's a big step for a non-candidate.

[RiverLover]

23. Right? Its huge.

I was so happy yesterday after getting that news.

[merrily]

29. sheshe posted that Warren said no to moveon, with a link. I hope lots of "folks" run, though.

[still_one]

47. Yes she did. For some reason, some folks here believe that is secret code which means she is going

to run:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/elizabeth-warren-latest-2016-draft-moves/story?id=27480071

I also agree with you I hope we have a lot of folks running and have a very competitive primary talking about the issues.

[rhett o rick]

103. You see it doesn't matter if she says she is running or not. I am assuming she

will be running when the time comes irregardless of what she says. If she ends up not running, so be it. But as of now, I am supporting her for president in 2016. I will never support H. Clinton-Sachs.

[RiverLover]

105. English language & grammar= "secret code"

Ha! Good one, still one!

[still_one]

49. She has already responded to MoveOn.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/elizabeth-warren-latest-2016-draft-moves/story?id=27480071

[dreamnightwind]

93. No

I read your link, there is nothing there except for a Warren staffer using the same present-tense statement that she "is not running". Got anything more than that?

[still_one]

94. I saw multiple interviews where she said she wasn't running. You want to interpret that differently

be my guest


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/22/you-can-ask-it-a-lot-of-different-ways-but-elizabeth-warren-says-she-isnt-running-for-president/

[dreamnightwind]

104. And none saying she won't

Give it a rest already. We'd all benefit from her running in the primary, hard for me to see why anyone such as yourself would be so eager to convince us all that she will not run.

[still_one]

106. you give it a rest. Bernie Sanders WILL run, so will Jim Webb, and a few others

[dreamnightwind]

131. I'll give it a rest when she says she won't run

Till then I will correct people when they say or imply that she has already done so.

[still_one]

132. ok, I understand your point

[rhett o rick]

40. Does she scare you that badly? nm

[still_one]

46. What kind of illusion are you living in?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/elizabeth-warren-latest-2016-draft-moves/story?id=27480071

"Progressive groups are hoping to change Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s mind and convince her to run for the presidency in 2016, but the Massachusetts senator is still saying no.

The liberal group MoveOn launched an online member poll today to gauge their interest in drafting the liberal favorite for 2016. The result of that vote will be released at 11 a.m. Wednesday.

MoveOn is also hosting a petition in support of the draft campaign. In just over the first three hours 25,000 members signed their petition.

Ready for Warren? Well, Even If You Are, The Democratic Senator Says She’s Not
Why Senate Democrats Created New Position For Elizabeth Warren
Warren Draws Praise, Ire in 1st 2 Years in Senate
Another group, Democracy for America, said they would join forces for the “Draft Warren” movement if a majority of MoveOn’s 8 million members vote yes. Democracy for America said it would hold a similar vote of its members this week.
"

When someone says no, I take them at their word.

If you want to support someone who actually has expressed interest I would suggest Bernie Sanders.

Unless of course you still think Elvis and JFK are still alive and living on an island somewhere in the pacific

[merrily]

67. Senator Obama said he would not run in 2008.

Last edited Fri Dec 12, 2014, 10:08 AM - Edit history (2)

I don't know if Warren will run or not. Only time will tell.

[rhett o rick]

68. I will continue to hold out hope that she runs. I don't understand those here that

think it's necessary to continue to say she isn't running over and over ad nauseum. It's as if they are trying to persuade people to stop supporting her. Why? She is our best hope. Sen Sanders is a hope also, but I'd rather see Sen Warren run.

"When someone says no, I take them at their word." Really? Are you new to politics? No politician is running until they start running. They can honestly say that they aren't running until they decide to run. I think it's entirely possible that she has at this point not decided to run. But I also believe that it's possible for her to change her mind.

I will never support H. Clinton. She has betrayed us once and that's too much.

[LanternWaste]

82. Does that lack of understanding also apply to the good Senator

"I don't understand those here that think it's necessary to continue to say she isn't running over and over ad nauseum..."

Does that lack of understanding also apply to the good Senator, who herself continues to say she isn't running over and over, ad nauseum...?

[rhett o rick]

84. I fully understand why she says it. To say otherwise would mean she would

have to start her run now. It would make her life as a Senator impossible. I don't blame her for saying she isn't running. Even if she wanted to run, now isn't the time to announce.

You avoided my point entirely. What is the motivation of posters to continually say she isn't running when we all know it? I think it's a weak attempt at trying to discourage support for her. Most of the time it's H. Clinton-Sachs fans that say it over and over.

[AikidoSoul]

87. Exactly! She is smart and knows she can't start "running" for president now.

She may or may not run. Conditions and priorities change. So does support, and we can see clearly that she is getting a lot of pressure to run from many, many groups and individuals.

Being "hard to get" is not a bad thing. In many ways the fact that she doesn't seem to want the job suggests she is not greedy for more power. I'd rather have someone like that than someone like Hillary who with her husband has the same type of dynasy complex as the evil Bushes.

[still_one]

108. Not at all. Every other potential candidate has said without a doubt they are looking into the

prospects of running. That includes Sanders, Webb, Biden, Clinton, and Reed.

Strange that Senator Warren has NOT said that.

Can you please show me evidence you come to the conclusions that only "Clinton supporters say this over and over"?

The actual potential candidates that actually represents the closest Democratic ideals to an FDR is Bernie Sanders in that list

[randome]

118. Oh, so she's playing politics. Now I get it.

I'd vote for her in a heartbeat over Clinton but my best guess -and of those who take her at her word- is that she won't run.

No one is trying to dissuade you or anyone else, we're simply calling it like we see it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[still_one]

107. Because in their alternate universe, I have no doubt that when all the nominees announce, and if

Elizabeth Warren isn't on that list, which I will bet she won't be, they will still maintain she is running.

The ones who have not closed the door are Clinton, Sanders, Webb, Reed, and Biden.

[drmeow]

6. I absolutely, fundamentally do not want Elizabeth Warren to run for president

because I think she can do more good by staying in congress.

Don't get me wrong - there are lots and lots of things I LOVE about Warren and, in another environment, I'd love to have her as my President. But what I really want is for her, and people like her, to get into positions of power and stay in those positions for a VERY long time. The reality is that it is going to take a long time to undo the damage the corporatists have wrought on our country - I want someone who is on my side involved in writing the laws to undo that bullshit for the long term. Electing her President would limit her effect to 2020. I don't want her influence to end in 2020.

[merrily]

30. In Congress, she'll get as much done as Sanders has.

Not accusing you of using a Hillary talking point, but as soon as people started posting here hoping the Warren would run for Pres, a bunch of DNC loyalists and Hillary supporters posted the same kind of thing you did.

[drmeow]

43. I don't like Hillary, either - never have, never will

How much did Ted Kennedy accomplish.

[merrily]

63. During which era?

[karynnj]

75. Kennedy had enough seniority to chair an important committee

Warren is too junior (just as HRC was in 2008 - and she then had 8 years.) In kennedy's case, after 1980 (and probably really after 1969), Kennedy did not have the chance to be President.

In fact, Warren's power in the Senate is closer to JFK's before he became President. In not one single biography did anyone write that he could have done more staying in the Senate.

It is interesting that many people arguing that Warren should not run because she can do more in the Senate, argued in 2008 that Hillary's role as a junior Senator (in terms of seniority even more than being junior to Schumer) was too small a role for her. Before Obama appointed her SoS, there were even suggestions made that the HELP committee should form a sub committee to do the healthcare bill - rather than the full committee and appoint HRC to chair that subcommittee. Kennedy and his staff shot that down quickly.

No one knows if she will be tempted to run - it sounds like she has definitely not encouraged anyone to support her doing so. However, if she opts to run in the primary, one of two things will happen - neither bad for her. One is that she will lose, but her profile will have risen higher, more people will know what she stands for and many issues that might otherwise be lost will be raised. Then, like Kerry before her, she can return to her seat and run for reelection when her seat is up. (If she were up in 2016 she would not be able to run for both, but she is not up) The other is that she wins the nomination. This means that she would have had to run a stunningly perfect campaign, beating a candidate with far greater name recognition, a strong resume, and far more money and a husband who is Bill Clinton. That would mean that she has become an incredible powerhouse. Where is the problem?

[drmeow]

125. you make some good points

and thank you for making them civilly.

Most of the time I am trying not to think about 2016 cause it is still too far away.

[ChiciB1]

112. ONCE Again, I Agree With You & This Post! n/t

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

60. After the last six years

I almost think she'll get more done in the Senate than in the White House. Especially if she moves up into a real leadership position, like taking over Reid's spot. She's got acumen unrivaled among our Senators in terms of economics, which is desperately needed.

Actually, makes me wonder if Richard Cordray could be drafted to run against Portman in Ohio. If he's got his lieutenants well-established enough to take over for him at the CPFB (is that the right order of initials?) we could use another Senator who can crunch the numbers without being on the Wall Street payroll.

I suppose if she got the WH, she could start working on executive orders from day 1, but I'd hope she had a crack team of lawyers on hand to give her realistic feedback so she is careful to stay within legal bounds on same and not give the Republicans any ammo for real fights.

[merrily]

71. I doubt she will be elected to replace Reid.

Job #1 of a minority or majority leader is to cover the asses of the members of the Caucus and protect their chances for re-election. Reid has done that to perfection. That 's why he keeps getting elected, even though a lot of DUers blame him personally for whatever happens with Democrats in the Senate. (In my observation, if he knows he has the votes for something good, he goes forward with it as fast as he can. If not, you will never know why he didn't go forward. And he knows how to use the Senate rules as well as he knows how to tie his shoe, maybe even as well as Byrd did.)

Watching Warren call out Obama and others, would you trust her to cover your ass and therefore vote for her as leader if you were not as populist as she?

I am not sure I trust motives regarding the position they created especially for her, but I will definitely keep an open mind about it. Only time will tell.

As for the last six years, I think they could have gone differently had there been the will. I don't buy everything about that some DUers do and I know you don't either.

[rhett o rick]

42. Hillary Clinton betrayed us all when she not only approved of the Iraq War, but she

was very effective as selling the war. She can not be trusted.

[drmeow]

44. Where in my post did I say ANYTHING

about Hillary Clinton?

[rhett o rick]

69. Sorry, I over reacted to your post. I just want it very clear that H. Clinton should not

represent Democrats.

[jtuck004]

95. I doubt there is much chance of that. Even if she wins. n/t

[rhett o rick]

100. I see what you did there. nm

[drmeow]

119. She doesn't represent Democrats

she represents corporate centrists - so did Bill.

[rhett o rick]

130. Yes, I agree. nm

[Scuba]

51. Ridiculous premise.

[drmeow]

122. How so?

[BeyondGeography]

55. Presidents have to compromise

not just to govern but because they owe people. You just don't get the job with no strings attached, never did and the Supreme Court has made conditions even worse.

So I agree with you. Warren will retain much more freedom of movement as a Senator and her position will only strengthen if she stays put. If she runs now Hillary most likely defeats her anyway and she's wasted an enormous amount of time, effort and capital. Even though she'd be pushing 70 in 2020 she could still be President (if Hillary loses) as the audience for her brand of truth will be huge by then. If Hillary wins, she will have to be dealt with as someone who speaks for a big chunk of the base and who has no trouble getting airtime.

[StevieM]

78. I hope Hillary wins in 2016, but if the GOP can con the country into electing them again

then I do think that Warren will run in 2020.

She will be 71 in 2020. I don't think that is too old to run for president. If she served for 8 years then she would be 79 when she left office. In this day and age, many people are healthy and active into their late 70s.

Again, I hope it doesn't come to that. The thought of 4 years with Jeb Bush or Paul Ryan or Scott Walker in the White House is unimaginable. Actually....I can imagine it. It would be an unmitigated disaster.

[drmeow]

124. Exactly

[ChiciB1]

111. Thumbs Up On Your Post!!

Exactly what I posted a few minutes ago! She can do much more by staying and building a real following and not just being a flash in the pan. Just keep they keys to the gate for a while and hold the line!

WOW, I'm so impressed.

[humbled_opinion]

7. She certainly did stand up

on principle a Democratic leader with backbone to actually help the little guy..... She is everything I hoped Obama would be, but wasn't....

[RiverLover]

10. Exactly. I still want what he promised in 2008, things we just took his word for because he was

so utterly believable.

But now we have this women who is walking his talk & living his words that he refuses to stand by, I want that for US! She is proven to be the real deal.

I'm feeling very defeated tonight though. We are in big trouble. The corporations' reach, its spider web into Washington is so deep. I just don't know...

[Marrah_G]

36. I think that if she runs (and wins) ....

... and switches to the center, I would lose my mind and give up on politics forever.


But I really don't think she would move to the center, I'm just jaded after recent history.

[ChiciB1]

114. PLUS 10,000... n/t

[SleeplessinSoCal]

8. She speaks so clearly and connects to people so easily.

Not sure uf her area of expertise can be carried over onto other areas. But she'd be bound to be strong and insightful.

[Dustlawyer]

11. I would love to see her and Bernie run together!

Don't care which runs for President and which is VP. The debates would be the best damn thing ever aired on TV as far as I am concerned. We all need to beg them both to run!!!

[still_one]

110. If she runs and wins the nomination, there is no way she would do that

though it would be an interesting combination.

If Bernie runs as a Democrat, he is going to bring some interesting issues to the table, and that is a wild card that could effect a lot of things

[bigwillq]

12. I hope she runs.

And I hope the same for Hillary and Bernie. It would make for an interesting primary season.

[Agschmid]

13. Sure would!

[merrily]

31. I hope Hillary decides she wants to do too much grandmothering to leave time for running.

A pipe dream, I know. But, I am allowed to dream.

[bigwillq]

32. I'm sure a lot hope the same as you.

I would like to see her run. If she wins, she wins. That's democracy.

But she'll have to do it without my vote.

[merrily]

34. If she wins, it will cost Democrats the election--and probably many Democratic voters.

And, if she wins the election, which I doubt, it will cost the Party even more Democratic voters.

She is hated bitterly by almost all of the right, many on the left. Moreover, her so-called "racially tinged" campaign against Obama will cost her many votes--both of African Americans and of others who are not African American, but just cannot abide that shit from a Democrat.

I know many who joined the Democratic Party precisely because of equal rights for everyone, racial and ethnic minorities, gays, everyone.

More and more, the Party is making itself dependent on cultural issues, like race and choice . You can't do that AND run for President a oman who ran the campaign against Obama that she ran and who finally herself defined her constituency as "hard working white people." That's well beyond even the dog whistles that Goldwater and Reagan ran on.

[Agschmid]

35. I don't agree, I think she can certainly win...

I just think she might not be the president I think we need.

[merrily]

37. Many do disagree, just as many disagreed in 2008, the last time Hillary was "unbeatable."

They were wrong then and they will be wrong again. She's not either inevitable or unbeatable, by any stretch, no matter how hard and how long they try to sell that.

The more people see of her, the lower her ratings go, even on her recent book tour.

[still_one]

113. That is actually a pretty accurate assessment

[closeupready]

58. If HRC wins the primary & Dems then lose, 1% Dems STILL win.

Since the GOP will be CERTAIN to take care of their interests, just as they take care of the interests of the 1% who vote GOP.

Elizabeth Warren scares the 1% because liberal fiscal policies would help the poor and middle class at the expense of the 1%, thus diminishing their socioeconomic subjugation of those beneath them.

I wish people would wake up to how they are being played.

[merrily]

66. The 1% win, no matter what. With the exception of a couple of blips in our history,

that has been so since the East India Company and John Hancock and gets more so every year lately. The same people don't necessarily stay in the 1%. However, whatever the composition of the 1%, they are the people who are winning.

[olegramps]

77. Then effectively you support any Republican for the job.

[bigwillq]

83. Nope.

I don't support any republican for the job.
I support most DEMs. I don't support Hillary. If Hillary runs and wins the DEM nomination, recent trends suggest she will win my state (CT), so I am free to vote for another option. No harm, no foul.

[still_one]

115. I agree. Different if you were in Florida though

[bigwillq]

116. I agree. I would vote for the DEM

probably even if Satan was the nominee!

[still_one]

120. Not sure if that is a good choice, but I agree

[bigwillq]

123. Satan, ham sandwich, Peter Pan

If I lived in Florida, I would most likely vote for the DEM, even if it was someone I really didn't care for.

[TeamPooka]

14. Welcome back to the fight. This time I know our side will win. nt

[Agschmid]

15. Thanks!

I've voted her into the senate!

[RiverLover]

17. Thank you!! Profoundly, thank you Agschmid!!

[leanforward]

20. New Minority (Majority) Leader

Just a thought. All other arguments aside, it hit me tonight, that if other opportunity are not presented, Senator Warren would be a good leader in the Senate.

[drmeow]

24. Actually, what I'd really like to see

is her on the Supreme Court!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

61. I think her age would rule her out.

Presidents like to choose younger SCJ's so that they'll stay on the court for far longer.

Not saying it's impossible, just unlikely.

[drmeow]

121. I think she would never be confirmed

regardless of age.

[silvershadow]

25. Good. Because if it ain't Bernie or Lizzie, this party is toast. nt

[merrily]

38. The Republican Party was declared dead in 2008 and 2012. Autopsy after 2012 by the RNC head, even.

The two largest political parties have rigged things so that it's very difficult for any other party to win the Presidency and other national offices. And, partly as a result of that, between them, they have all the donors who are really, really rich and willing to open their checkbooks to politicians, along with the strategists, etc.. I would never count either of them out.

[silvershadow]

88. Perhaps so. You have talked me off the ledge. LOL

[WillyT]

26. HUGE K & R !!!

[tiredtoo]

27. Elizabeth Warren

Is the best thing that happened to the Democratic Party in years. However i voted no in both polls Moveon and the other one. I do not feel she is strong enough yet to be a presidential candidate.

[merrily]

33. Hmmm. The primary would show that. Besides, Hillary will lose the general if she is the nominee.

How weak a candidate would Warren possibly be, if she could beat Hillary in a primary after all the incessant backing Hillary has been getting since at least 2012?

[PAProgressive28]

28. She probably won't run

and that's fine. She'll kick ass in the Senate.

[rury]

39. If Elizabeth Warren were to somehow become president

and had to deal with a Republikkkan House she would have to compromise just like President Obama has.
These posters clamoring for her to run and stand up for the people all by herself need to get in touch with reality.
Until voters start electing OVERWHELMINGLY LIBERAL Congresses to work with Democratic presidents we are going to keep getting flawed budgets like this one.
Oh how I wish that were not true, but it unfortunately is.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

65. Or she could simply do LOTS of executive orders.

The scope of what she could do would be far more circumscribed, but within that scope she could make vast changes.

And that's 'reality'.

[busterbrown]

92. Yea, but I think Warren would have a better chance of..

turning the Senate than Hillary would...

[JI7]

41. the reason she doesn't have much chance is she doesn't have much ground support

all the support groups across the country are all Hillary people.

before the 2008 elections there were groups for Obama which now you don't see with anyone other than Hillary.

[Ash_F]

45. Her positions are in line with most Americans

It is amazing how powerful the propaganda can be.

[RKP5637]

52. IMO she has the guts many democrats lack! She does not capitulate to obstructionists,

the greedy, unruly and those working to undermine the US for their personal gain and cronies at the sacrifice of "we the people."

[BlueCaliDem]

56. That's why she'd make a perfect Majority/Minority Leader in the Senate. Yes, there's a new Sheriff

in town, as Lawrence O'Donnell has said, because there are new train robbers in town come 2015 - more Teapublicans. We need a strong, outspoken, no-nonsense Majority/Minority Leader like Senator Warren to stem the crazy from coming through Congress and someone to keep Democrats' spine from becoming rubber when it does.

I would rather see Senator Warren stay in the Senate and pressure Democrats into making her Majority/Minority Leader than see her in the White House with an increasingly conservative Congress (conservative due to gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, etc) that will do everything they can to negate her influence in policy making. Congress is where the power lies in this country.

[RKP5637]

64. This makes sense to me! n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

74. Me, too. With Senator Warren as Majority/Minority Leader, we can make Democrats in Congress

more progressive and stop the rightward bend of our Party. Just look at the Republicans. They've undergone that same transformation (although in a negative way for this country), and now they're practically fascist - all through electing more right-wing members to Congress than they've ever had before.

We should follow that example and we can get the Congress more suited for this progressive country, starting with having a more progressive Majority/Minority Leader in the Senate - and Senator Warren is perfectly suited for that position. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter who we elect to the White House. As President Obama has showed us, the president can be hamstrung by Congress and forced to compromise to get anything done. It's essential that we have a Progressive leading the Senate and then the House of Reps.

[Agschmid]

80. Like this idea, will be interesting to see what happens.

[modestybl]

86. If she doesn't filibuster today...

... she is just another handwringing, ineffectual Dem...what's the point of working so hard to get Dems elected when they refuse to fight as hard as the tea baggers are willing to fight?

[RKP5637]

99. Dems don't want to hear it, but the tea baggers are willing to fight and they stick together

whereas dems often argue among themselves while not fighting and not representing their base.

[TBF]

57. She's our new Ted Kennedy

in the Senate. Will wait until Iowa to hash out who looks like the best presidential candidate. Elizabeth, Hillary and especially Bernie are at the older end of the spectrum - not sure whether we have enough votes w/baby boomers to get them in or if we need to look at younger dems. In terms of pure policy Bernie would be my pick, but a lot of things go into picking someone who has a good chance to win.

[Vinca]

62. I've always said I'd vote for her (or Bernie) in the New Hampshire primary.

And I used to say I'd vote for whoever the Dem candidate was in the general. Now . . . not so sure. I'm sick to death of Democrats who are actually moderate Republicans.

[Mr. Evil]

90. What you said. n/t

[RiverLover]

70. The Left Ramps Up Push For Warren Vs. Clinton

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/elizabeth-warren-challenge-hillary-clinton-2016

Bring it!

[modestybl]

79. So... will she be filibustering today???

... or will she be yet another caving Dem?

[Agschmid]

81. We will certainly see.

Not sure filibuster is the best route, but I certainly expect a nay vote.

[modestybl]

85. What would a "nay" vote do if it passes...

... I want to see if she is just another worthless, handwringing Dem... if she doesn't filibuster this after all she said yesterday, I can't take her seriously...

[LittleBlue]

91. Run, Warren, run!

Pleeeaassssseeee give us someone other than Hillary

[joeybee12]

96. If she gets that stripped from the bill she's definitely strong...

That's my issue with her...she's on the right side of things, whether she can get those things accomplished remains to be seen.

[BootinUp]

97. Warren would do terrible in a national general election

worse than Kerry, much worse.

[og1]

98. Still waiting for Godot

Please do not ask to sacrifice this last hope for democratic populism in the arena of presidential politics! She is needed more to reform or start a new party for those of us who seek justice and equality. Sanders and Warren are needed more to build a new foundation for a new party. It is time to start over the. The democrates since the early seventies have not been new deal democrates,they have been slowly evolving into a moderate Republican Party. We are at war with neoliberal capitalism. We are going to lose some battles and we must accept that fact. We need new leadership; we can not accept winning the White House as winning the war! A great political war strategist was Howard Dean. Sanders,Warren & Dean could and should be the architect of a new deal progressive party!

[ChiciB1]

109. I've Supported Her VERY Early On... BUT NOT

necessarily for a run for President. Not that I don't think she could handle it, but I truly think she can be extremely effective as a Senator for a full term and build support from her fellow Democratic Senators AND House members. I feel if she were to run now part of her "fight" would be put on the back burner. The reaction from Obama regarding her has been pretty negative and I really have to say my support for him is less now. I've supported him for so long, put aside the part of me that is very liberal because I felt it was necessary for Democrats overall.

When he decided to whip up Congress people last night and brought Dimon along with him my jaw dropped. I KNOW there are things in this bill that he feels he needs but unfortunately I'm not convinced anymore that those at the White House are really fighting for "we the people!" I'm having a very hard time buying what they're selling anymore and the deals being cut make me feel like I'm getting sold something I don't want to buy.

I've thought about this all day long and can't shake what I'm feeling. I know I feel that we're pretty much an Oligarchy now and this bill is just seems to be adding fuel to TPTB!

I really, really think having her as this bare bones fighter will start a wave and perhaps more and more eyes will be open and ears will hear her cry!

She has made me feel HOPE that I haven't felt in many, many years. Now I need to find a link to write her or sign on to some sort of petition in support of her. She has no fear and has some TRUE GRIT that's been lacking for so very long.

I know some of my feelings about Obama have dropped down several notches, and wonder if they aren't going to drop more. My gut is telling me something and I have to think very hard about exactly what it is!

WOW, Lindsay Graham just told Warren "she's tired and upset" and to me it sounds like he's talking down to her... UH, because she's a woman!!! I'll stop now before I really go off!

[fadedrose]

117. And you will see more allies = she builds confidence

and more will speak courageously . . .

[INdemo]

127. If she ran in the primary she would win and

If you thought Obama's grassroots campaign was spectacular what Elizabeth Warren would do would make his fund raising look like a Sunday School collection plate. People that have never given a dime to a political campaign before would dig deep to fund her campaign and she could do it.
But for now I think Elizabeth Warren would best serve us as a Senate leader. But I don't think Hillary stands a chance at winning the nomination because she is too close to Wall St and I think Obama just blew it for Hillary because people see how her decision making would be influenced by the same bankers and Wall St execs as Obama's