OBAMA'S STAFF: -We helped elect Barack Obama — now we’re calling on Elizabeth Warren to run in 2016

[AikidoSoul]

THIS ANNOUNCEMENT JUST IN FROM OBAMA'S STAFFERS. :


http://readyforwarren.com/obama-alum-letter/



We believed in an unlikely candidate who no one thought had a chance.

We worked for him — and against all odds, we won in Iowa.

We organized like no campaign had organized before — and won the Democratic primary.

We built a movement — and the country elected the first-ever African American president.

We know that the improbable is far from impossible.

Now, former staffers from President Obama’s campaigns, along with former staffers from OFA, are joining with the thousands of Americans who are calling on Elizabeth Warren to run for president in 2016.

Rising income inequality is the challenge of our times, and we want someone who will stand up for working families and take on the Wall Street banks and special interests that took down our economy.
We urge Elizabeth Warren to run for president in 2016.
Signed,

See link for all the staffers' signatures

[PAProgressive28]

1. She can't win

Imagine her against Romney? Romney wouldn't cancel out the Massachusetts curse. He wouldn't cancel out the anti-Northeast bias. She wouldn't be able to run a populist campaign against him.

[AikidoSoul]

3. There are always obstacles in any campaign... certainly Obama had many... but he won.

The announcement came from those who worked to get him elected. There are many people who see her as representative of the true soul of the Democratic Party, and want her to lead the party back to its roots.

She is outstanding and very courageous. She is the ONLY voice besides Sanders' who speaks for everyday citizens.

I would work my heart out for her.

[ProfessorPlum]

5. I would work my heart out for her, too

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

53. Where do I sign up?

[pangaia]

93. Me too.

Can you imagine the look on 'you know who's' face if Lizzy won the nomination?
And then the PRESIDENCY !!!


(PS - like to call her Lizzy.)

[genwah]

9. She doesn't have to win, just run. Just to the primary debates. She can't make it, but I'm sick of

running from these wimps!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/zL0ipXUD-uU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[AikidoSoul]

20. She is a fighter. Just listen to her excellent speeches. The woman is not afraid to put the gloves

on and keep them on.




Manny Golstein has a link about her with this great video of her recent speech.

The link to his thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025951178

[AikidoSoul]

47. Please don't tell me that her speech is void of real meaning, spirit and a warrior spirit.

Some here blame her because she once was a member of the Repugnik Party. But many, many people who used to be Republicans are horrified at what they've become.

For God's sake... if you've never heard her speak, then do please do it and it will become obvious that she is the real thing.

The dyanmics will change dramatically if she ends up president. She will have to deal with the prejudice against women problem ... but I think many will see her as the "good mother" archtype, and will believe her message.

[rurallib]

24. That's the spirit

that got the democratic party where it is today!

[genwah]

25. Yep.

[blkmusclmachine]

37. Yeah, GOP-lite. F that bi-partisan bullsh!t.

[CrispyQ]

106. +1!!

They want us to keep voting for the lesser of two evils, cuz eventually that leads to the same place.

[albino65]

26. Yes and imagine anyone voting for a black president in 2008

He couldn't have won. Oh, wait a minute, he did.

[DemandsRedPill]

116. any color

After 8 years of absolute torture and pain and embarrassment of the Bush Crime Family we would have voted for a pink alien or at the very least someone with zebra stripes

Black was easy at that point

[99th_Monkey]

27. Warren would destroy Romney within 5 minutes of debating

In fact, Mitt Bain-Capital Romney would be her PERFECT opponent.

[tecelote]

30. That's what I was going to say.

Romney would be the perfect opponent for Warren.

We can only hope.

[Mnpaul]

66. I'm thinking that debate would look something like this

[Voice for Peace]

105. heheheh yes..

She is powerful because she is competent confident smart
and has a nice solid ego. ie, No need to pretend. She
knows her stuff and speaks plainly.

I'm in. I think she would clobber anybody in a debate
at least in the economics area.

[Scuba]

95. Bingo!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

101. I don't think it would take even that long; I give it only 3 minutes.

[Aldo Leopold]

41. What?

Is there a "shakes head in utter befuddlement" smiley? There is absolutely no substance to your post.

[Octafish]

51. Is that you, Hill?

How much per speech again?

[merrily]

52. I would hesitate to assert that I knew so much more than those who actually were part of the Obama

campaigns.

[still_one]

54. She can't win because she isn't running, and though there are many who believe she is speaking in

some secret code when she says no it really means yes, it means exactly what she is saying

[AikidoSoul]

55. You may have forgotten that many politicians say "no" but end up running.

If you analyze their behavior, you might suspect that they are playing out a strategy with logistics being a primary motive.

In another post on this thread there was a story that made an excellent point on how she says "no".

"Warren’s press secretary Lacey Rose said today, 'As Senator Warren has said many times, she is not running for president.' Warren has said the same repeatedly herself, but she’s always been careful to phrase it in the present tense."

Article link:

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

[still_one]

103. I just don't think Warren plays the political games of other politicians. Same with Sanders. We

will know in the full course of time what will happen

[BlueMTexpat]

124. I'm with you.

With all due respect to former Obama staffers who are now supporting Elizabeth (who still is not running yet), I wish that Obama himself had had much more seasoning before becoming President.

I believe that he has done an incredible job in the circumstances. But I believe that he would have done an even better job had he realized from the outset the intractable mindset of 21st century GOPers, which is literally unprecedented.

Elizabeth and Bernie are both outstanding Senators. They are sorely needed there right now.

[1StrongBlackMan]

99. I guess politics is different; but, ....

Does "NO", no longer mean "NO"?

[still_one]

104. That is the way I look at it. In addition, I think that Warren is starting to feel quite

comfortable in the Senate, and is not ready to move on to other endeavors in the near future, because she believes she can accomplish more where she is right now

[1StrongBlackMan]

107. I agree ...

I think she recognizes that being a Senator allows one to focus on a very narrow set of issues. Her passion is the consumer, the working classes, and her Senate seat allows her to focus on that ... to the near exclusion of everything else.

(I know that many here think that the sun rises and sets on the economy and protecting the working classes; it does not, especially for the POTUS. The Presidency requires a level of multi-focus, unknown to any other position.

[still_one]

110. very well put

[helpmetohelpyou]

61. hehe

[Fearless]

69. She can win.

[JDPriestly]

73. And do you seriously think that Hillary can win?

I don't.

Long list of signatures, and it is probably just a start. All of those people have local connections in areas of the country and are seasoned campaigners. Really a good start for Warren.

This link is posted above.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025951178

That speech, that speaker will appeal to Americans who are sick of the corruption in D.C.

Just sick of it. It's disgusting.

How is it possible that pension funds are supposedly failing when the stock market has grown so much this year? Corruption not just in government but in many of our institutions including local government.

This is a watershed issue. Republicans have two years in which to convince the country that they can run the government honestly and for ordinary people. Their ideology dooms them to fail at that task.

And once the right-wingers have been shown to be what they are, the nation will be ready for change, real change -- either Warren or Sanders.

[Enthusiast]

84. Thank you, JDPriestly.

You should develop an OP based on this—How is it possible that pension funds are supposedly failing when the stock market has grown so much this year?

Something is afoot.

[NewDeal_Dem]

119. +100

[Mnpaul]

88. What they aren't telling you

is why those pension funds are failing. I believe the biggest problem is that these funds invested heavily in Wall Streets "sure thing" mortgage backed derivatives. They were a "sure thing" when they were based on prime mortgages but someone pulled a bait and switch and instead someone sold them subprime(labeled as prime) mortgage based derivatives. Now they want the pensioners to pay the price for their fraud.

The same thing happened with GM. Management was dipping into the pension and retirement healthcare funds since the 70's to show a profit and pay dividends when in reality they weren't. That changed in the 90's when financial rules required them to disclose this funding on the books. I believe the funds were underfunded to the tune of 5 bil.

GM attempted to deal with the shortage by issuing bonds and investing the money on Wall St. They bought into dotcom stock and lost their butts making the problem worse. The only assets GM had when they declared bankruptcy were those two funds. They did not belong to GM, they were the property of the union workers. President Obama did them right by protecting their interests in the bankruptcy. The bondholders thought that they had first dibs on that money but it wasn't property of GM.


and after all this, they want to try it again?

edit:
and one more thing. Warren and Sanders are the two people that will come out before any audience and tell you in clear, simple terms that the above mentioned events are occurring.

[INdemo]

85. Repuvlicans T Baggers woud be shaking in their boots and pouting

as they crawl back in their holes because they would realize they cant win against Elizabeth Warren. Democrats that haven't voted in the last two elections as well as new voters would be registering so fast that International Paper Company could not produce paper fast enough to print registration forms.
Yes Republicans would be in shock.
Democrats would give every last dime they had to contribute.
Talk about taking this country back. There would be a massive lay-off on Wall Street that would send New York's unemployment numbers through the roof.
Yes Elizabeth Warren would win.

[magical thyme]

91. did you forget your sarcasm thing? nt

[Scuba]

94. Word salad.

[Voice for Peace]

102. Warren against Romney? There is pretty much nobody who can cancel her out.

What will Romney say? "Friends, we can't be worrying about the
poor and middle class..."

Nobody else is saying and doing what she is saying and doing.
And her message RESONATES with many who lean conservative/
traditionally vote Republican.

[AikidoSoul]

4. What is "this"? The fact that Obama staffers signed a letter urging her to run?

Last edited Fri Dec 12, 2014, 04:39 PM - Edit history (1)

If so....remember that many individuals and groups are urging her to run. MOVEON just issued a survey to garner how much enthusiasm people have for her.



Edit: corrected spelling error.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Today I was told on DU that Warren is the ONLY Democrat standing up to Wall St when in fact

many Democrats voted against this bill, the entire Progressive Caucus including Bernie Sanders, Peter DeFazio and Maxine Waters who founded that caucus in 1987 when Warren was still a Republican and would, the following year, cast her vote for George Bush over Walter Mondale. But she's the only Democrat ever to make such a stand. Only one. Ever.

[JDPriestly]

76. She is a more effective speaker than some of the others. She knows the banking and

bankruptcy law better than many others. She has written books about how the game is rigged against the middle class. She is no ordinary politician. With the exception of Sanders, we would have a problem trying to find a politician less corrupt than Elizabeth Warren. READ HER BOOK and you will understand.

[leftofcool]

79. But, where does she satnd on women's issues, children's rights, abortion rights, foreign policy etc.

I don't dislike Warren but I want to know where she stands on about 1000 other issues, not just banking.

[JDPriestly]

81. I'm hoping we will find out soon.

I also like Sanders.

I think Warren could get elected. I think Hillary has a log of the political machine behind her, but I don't think she can stir up the excitement that a Democrat needs for 2016. And Bill and Hillary are associated pretty closely with Pete Peterson. As a Social Security recipient, that scares me -- really scares me. I do not want another friend or associate (in amy way) of Pete Peterson in the White House.

[Scuba]

97. ...

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm

[Scuba]

96. Here ya go....

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm

[AikidoSoul]

131. Here's where Senator Warren stands on the issues

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm

[NBachers]

151. How will she respond when she gets tested by the people who are poking the hot spots of the world?

[RBInMaine]

83. It was Dukakis, not Mondale.

[Mnpaul]

89. and Warren was a Republican from 1991-1994(see #67)

but who cares about any of those messy facts.

[A Simple Game]

100. And Hillary was a Goldwater Girl, do you care about that fact?

Many of us on the left try to persuade those on the right to convert to the left and often have good results because logic is on our side. I haven't been as successful as many here are but I am proud of the 3 or 4 converts for which I feel personally responsible.

Then we have those that belittle them more for converting than they would if they remained on the conservative side. Why would anyone do that?

Do you think we are wasting our time converting people on the right to join us on the left? Or do you think the converts should just sit at the children's table and keep their mouths shut?

[Ruby the Liberal]

115. I file that under Former Smoker

It is amazing how staunch people can become after undergoing a sea change. Especially in ideology.

[MissDeeds]

23. MoveOn lost me too

I hate that they get out ahead of the primary process and try to play king maker, and I told them as much when I canceled my membership. They should let the voters decide who the candidate will be, then throw their support behind him/her.

[woo me with science]

70. I am still very cautious at this point, too.

Bernie has earned trust, over decades. And Elizabeth is uncomfortably silent on the MIC and the police state. I love what she has to say about the banks, but we don't just need to be financially more comfortable in a police state. We need the restoration of our democracy and Constitution.

Not to mention that he is better than any politician I've ever seen at resisting all efforts by the MSM to divert and distract and distort and reframe the narrative.

[JDPriestly]

77. Bernie is great. We shall see who runs. Bernie and/or Warren?

[AikidoSoul]

10. You still haven't said what you mean by "this". You say you are "less supportive because of 'this'"

Wha?





Maybe you are a Hillary fan who has proven herself to be the preference of the Wall St. crowd.? That is unless Jeb gets the nomination.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Jeb you say? He'd make it even more ironic, but any Republican nominee will share with Warren

a history as loyal Reagan/Bush voters. With Jeb as their nominee, they'd both have voted for his Daddy. And that is just charming, really. So uniquely American.....

[AikidoSoul]

40. Your comparison is narrow. She is not the evil member of any dynasty as is Jeb Bush

Senator Warren relentlessly fights for the middle class, students, and fair banking practices. She has been fighting Wall St. long before she ran as a Senator.

How can you fairly compare the two? The Bush family is deeply connected to banking and Wall St.

Notice today that Jebby's picture is on the front page of the NYT around 3 p.m.

This appears directly under his picture:

"Jeb Bush in Washington in November. Mr. Bush, a former Florida governor, has moved toward a run for the White House. Credit Susan Walsh/Associated Press"

and also:

"
"Jeb Bush Keeps Eye on Center of 2016 Fray...."





edit: Added a question mark.

[bobGandolf]

92. I think Jeb has the best chance of winning.....

against a democrat. He will have a hard time getting nominated.

[99Forever]

112. I agree.

Considering the results of listening to these people and where it has gotten us for doing so. I am very skeptical that they have working people's best interests as their top priority.

Tends to happen when you've been mislead before.

[harun]

113. Yeah, those staffers got us a pro Wall St. Trojan Horse.

[AikidoSoul]

125. Would you rather have Romney as your president?

Obama is not perfect, but he has done much to bring this country back to some semblance of sanity. Compare him to the Bush years and then talk about a :Trojan Horse".

[loyalsister]

7. Why do people think she could do more about income inequality as president?

She would not have the vocal flexibility she has now. And, presidents do not have the luxury of focusing on a particular issue the way she can now.

[AikidoSoul]

8. She is a special breed. Her behavior and words are consistent. She is highly articulate.

She is using every opportunity to speak to anybody who can help her with her battle with Wall St. and the KOCH Bros.

She has guts.

If elected president I think she would use the bully pulpit at every opportunity to educate the public about the truth of what is happening. Right now the MSN and other propaganda sources are filling the air and scene with distortions and lies. She would not shut up and would likely create a movement the likes of which we haven't seen in our lifetimes.

[loyalsister]

11. Speculations based on service as a senator are naive

She has not said what she would do as president, because she has not (probably will not - according to her) declare herself a candidate.
A Democrat from a very blue state has tremendous flexibility to do what she does. If she were elected with votes from every state in the country, do you think she would represent the right leaning citizens, the socially liberal wall streeters who many if not most of us on DU disagree with? Or, would she pretend that the only voters who matter are people on DU and other liberal voters?
Obama also had more flexibility as a senator, and people perceived him to be much more liberal than he is. There is no evidence that Warren would continue to behave as she does now if she were elected. Only assumptions- as with Obama.

[AikidoSoul]

38. We should pay attention to her exact words when she says she "is not running for president".

Taken from an article posted at ABC News:


"Warren’s press secretary Lacey Rose said today, 'As Senator Warren has said many times, she is not running for president.' Warren has said the same repeatedly herself, but she’s always been careful to phrase it in the present tense."

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

[loyalsister]

63. lol

I've seen that claim a few times, and it's a joke.
If you honestly believe she has the level of integrity you claim, why in the world would you want her to be in a position where she would have to sign a bunch of really bad bills? That will happen to the next president because the house is not going to flip. They have to produce a budget and there is no way it's going to be everything you, I, and other progressives want. Even if we get back the senate, there will be horse trading as there was in the current budget.
Or, do you think she would never sign a budget unless it had ONLY everything she and the more liberal Democrats want? Do you think Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, FDR, LBJ, never signed bills they disliked?

It seems to me that having Bernie in the debates to help drive the agenda to the left would be helpful. We just need a candidate (who. can. win) and administration that can do the same.

There are a lot of "fiscally conservative" Democrats who love their money, would Warren represent them if she were elected president?

[JDPriestly]

78. Well. That sounds very much like the way Hillary thinks.

Not all people are as cynical as Hillary.

Elizabeth Warren has nothing to gain by compromising. She is very independent. Comes from a family that really struggled and worked for and earned her position at Harvard.

Have you read her book?

[Bluenorthwest]

16. She was a consistent Republican voter, Nixon through Bush.

So 'consistent' is not really a good choice of words. For decades she voted in an anti gay, racist Party that was stridently opposed to choice. She says she did this because she agreed with their financial policies, but those policies were also terrible and destructive to the country. So she was not even correct about her area of expertise, she advocated and voted for trickle down so loyally that she seems not to have given a flying fuck about Reagan's AIDS policy, which was do nothing and let them all die, nor about his racist rhetoric and the drug war that his racism created, nor about that reproductive choice thing, the religious right, Iran/Contra, Watergate, Vietnam, the Gulf War.....

[AikidoSoul]

22. At one point I was a registered Republican, and considered myself an "Eisenhower Republican". The

Sixties and Martin Luther King completely opened my eyes. Have been a raving Liberal Democrat ever since.

Except when I tried to get Ross Perot elected. At that time I saw both Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton as driving down a very dangerous road... one that has put us into a stranglehold of serfdom values at the all levels of government.

People change. With more information and education, it is possible.

Warren spoke out against the practices of Wall St. LONG before she ran for Senator of Mass.

[tecelote]

33. Before my time...

[AikidoSoul]

50. This is the period when my parents were Republicans. The Republican Party changed, and so did they.

I'm proud to say that many years later, my father a lifelong Republican, who lived in Texas at the time... sued George W. because of his actions on water rights of individuals where my dad lived. Daddy voted for Al Gore that year.

[Mnpaul]

67. consistent Republican voter?

Warren tells a different story

STEPHANOPOULOS: Final question, it might surprise a lot of your supporters to know that you were a registered Republican as recently as 1996.

WARREN: I was -- no, I think you're...

STEPHANOPOULOS: 1991 to 1996...

WARREN: I think it's four.

WARREN: I was originally an independent. I was with the GOP for a while because I really thought that it was a party that was principled in its conservative approach to economics and to markets.

And I feel like the GOP party just left that. That they moved to a party that said, no, it's not about a level playing field, it's now about a field that has gotten tilted. And they really stood up for the big financial institutions when the big financial institutions are just hammering middle class American families.

You know, I just feel like that's a party that moved way, way away.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-sec-jeh-johnson-sen-elizabeth-warren/story?id=23471456&singlePage=true

[SunSeeker]

74. Wow. She was Republican until 1994?!

Through Reagan and Iran - Contra and the anti-choice onslaught, and the deregulation - fueled collapse of S&L's?! Through Reagan destroying unions?


Republicans have always wanted to destroy Medicare and Social Security, since the passage of the New Deal legislation How could she be a member of a party that wants to destroy the New Deal instead of be in the party that created the New Deal?

What the fuck was she thinking?

There has NEVER been anything "conservative" about the way the GOP spends money. They spend like a drunken sailor, its just that they only want to spend money on corporations and the military - industrial complex. Reagan drove up our national debt doing that.

She needs to explain what these conservative fiscal policies are that she likes so much.

[Mnpaul]

86. Do you have reading comprehension problems?

She was a registered Republican from 1991-1994. Before than she was an independent. Reagan was president in the 80's.

And you have no choice but to support a party that wants to destroy the New Deal. Neither party is standing up to defend it. One party may tell you that they are but in reality they are destroying it as fast as the other.

[SunSeeker]

135. So you think its OK that AFTER Reagan destroyed unions she joined the GOP?

I'm not the one with reading comprehension problems.

[SunSeeker]

137. And bullshit on your "both parties are the same" meme.

The GOP has been an enemy of the poor and middle class since the days if Herbert Hoover. Some Dems may not fight as hard for us as we'd like, but they are not like Republicans, who actively work to destroy unions, social security, reproductive choice, health coverage, voting rights...and everything else that matters to the middle class.

What's concerning to me is that any thinking person would take the affirmative step in 1991, on the heals of the Reagan Era debacle, to join the Republican party.

[Mnpaul]

139. The Democrats haven't been a friend either

Their trade deals have been anti-labor all the way. Obama was against union spending when the money was going elsewhere. The numbers don't lie. The majority of Americans have seen no real increase in wages for years. Some have even seen a decline. The horrible Post Office union killing bill was signed on by both parties. When the President Obama proposed making cuts to SS, few Democrats spoke out. The healthcare bill stacks the deck against elderly workers and the exemption for temp services traps workers in jobs that go no where.

And any thinking person knows that Reagan did not do this on his own. Democrats had control of the Senate or House during some of those years.

[SunSeeker]

141. OFFS. Why are you on DU if you think Dems aren't "a friend"?

The ACA was a compromise--that was the only way to get Lieberman on board. Even then, it passed by 1 vote. Although far from perfect, it is saving thousands of lives. We couldn't keep waiting for perfect. 45,000 Americans were dying each year due to lack of health coverage.

Sure there are some blue dogs, but there are plenty of Dems who are our friend. And NO Republicans who are. The parties are dramatically different. If you refuse to acknowledge reality, there is no point having a conversation with you.

[Mnpaul]

142. I see the reality in my wallet

and the only difference I see is less money in it under Democrats. The only change I see is higher taxes. My wages stay flat, my taxes keep going up. I get to pay for healthcare for other people but can't afford it for myself. The ACA is a joke. It is not affordable healthcare, it is affordable insurance. The two are not the same.

and that is probably why no one bothers to turn out.

[SunSeeker]

144. Now you're just lying.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/07/barack-obama/barack-obama-said-hes-cut-taxes-middle-class-famil/
Obama didn't raise your taxes, unless you spend your money on cigarettes and tanning beds.

The ACA is not a joke. It's saving lives. It allowed my brother to get health insurance for the first time in his adult life. He is finally getting the care he needs for a chronic condition that went untreated for years, and eventually would have killed him left untreated.

Take your bullshit Tea Party talking points elsewhere.

[Mnpaul]

146. Not lying at all

I was talking about cigarettes and Obamacare(ruled a tax by the SC).

and the reality still stands. There is no difference between the two economically or otherwise for me. There isn't much difference between the two on any the issues important to me.

You have to realize that not everyone is seeing the great things you are seeing. I have yet to see anyone in the real world that shares your rosy view.

You are the one with the Tea Party thinking. It's great for you so it must be for everyone else.

[SunSeeker]

149. You lied that Dems raised your taxes, in reference to your paycheck.

That did not happen. Now you're just making shit up. I am not saying things are "rosy" but that they are a lot better than they were 6 years ago.

I am not generalizing based on my individual experience. That is what you purported to do in referencing your allegedly taxed higher paycheck.

You have no credibility with me. Take your bullshit elsewhere. Stop wasting my time.

[Mnpaul]

157. Careful, you are sounding more like Joe Wilson

with every reply. I made the statement that all I see is less money in my wallet due to increased taxes(which is true). My wages have remained flat due to the anti-labor free trade policies which stack the deck against American workers(also true). If the TPP passes, I may even be banned from putting a "Made in America" label on my work as that would put others at a disadvantage. Democrats and Republicans alike want to take a dump on American workers just so the 1% can profit.

Sorry, but the only one lying in this subtread is you. You completely fabricated this smear on Warren on thin air. Warren wasn't a Republican when Reagan was president and some of the Democrats in Congress at the time were the ones who help promote his agenda. We are looking to kick this type of Democrat to the curb. You probably want to elect more.

[AikidoSoul]

132. "She needs to explain what these conservative fiscal policies are that she likes so much. "

It's a fair question.

[Mnpaul]

138. conservative fiscal policies are not to be confused with

Republican fiscal policies. The two aren't necessarily the same. Part of what she said the other night could be consdered conservative fiscal policy. The Wall St. amendment was in no way conservative, it is radical.

[AikidoSoul]

129. You have either been mislead and believe what you are saying, or you are purposefully planting

propaganda. I hope the first explanation is the one that's correct.

See post number 67 by MnPaul and go to the link. There is an interview with Warren where she says she was an Independent first, but then she voted as a Republican for four years. but soon became alarmed by the direction they were going and left the party.

You are completely wrong about "how she voted". To suggest that she had some kind of allegiance to the Repug Party is just plain wrong.

[NYC Liberal]

32. What bills would she pass with a GOP House and Senate?

What makes you think the media would cover her, or wouldn't distort what she was saying the same way they've always done it?

[AikidoSoul]

34. Right now they are covering Warren on the major free network news channels. And yes, the MSM

will always lie and get bought off. Fortunately more and more people are going to other sources for their news and information.

I'm also highly enthusiastic about the announcement by Obama election staffers for Warren to run. They include some of the most technologically talented people on the planet.

It was because of them, that Rove couldn't steal the last election. Obama's team knew what was going down and put a tech based stop to it.

[Legalequilibrium78]

39. Lol..what's next she'll usher in a new wave

of Democratic Congress and Senate? Because these are the body of govt. that makes and passes laws, not the executive branch. Holy shit!! your comment is so ridiculously over the top bereft of any substantive points.

I say let her run, and I know she will lose big time. She won in the bluest of blue state of Massachusetts, for a seat that used to belong to a Liberal lion/icon Sen.Ted Kennedy who I am sure Sen.Warren never ever voted for, as she was busy being a "Republican" until the late 1990's. Talk about irony!! Now she is being undeservingly lionized as this great Liberal icon? Pfft.


Fact is Sen.Warren has supported the party - the Republican party - that has been responsible for damaging this country's financial/fiscal problems, from deregulations, gutting of the environmental policies, privatization policies, attack on public employees, attack on immigrants, attack on people with AIDS especially during the heyday of Reagan mania. All of these and much more she has tacitly supported by being a Republican, voting Republican politicians from the national level down to regional level. Yet some of you thinks that Hillary Clinton is unqualified or unsuitable to run for the Democratic party's nomination for President because she used to be a Goldwater-Republican. Talk about hypocrisy!! Lol

[Ineeda]

111. As has been said several times

before in this thread -- she was a registered Republican from 1991 to 1994. That's THREE years, not a lifetime, and it was twenty years ago!! Please absorb that -- THREE years. That's certainly not a disqualifier, IMO. Lots of smart, responsible people change their minds about all sorts of things. You've never changed your mind? About anything? It's called learning and it's called progress.

ETA: Your post sounds so much like McCarthyism that it's scary. You know, "Have you ever been associated with...".

FWIW, I despise Republicans and think they have some sort of genetic defect eliminating their empathy gene, among others.

[AikidoSoul]

130. Wow are you ever eating up misinformation. Armed with that kind of propahanda you might

try to get a job working for Hillary

Senator Warren was mainly registered as an Independent for many years, and was only a Republican for a short period, about four years in the early nineties. She stated clearly in an interview that she was appalled at the direction the Repugs were going... and left. So four years does not qualify as substantiation of your view.


See post 67 and the link to the ABC interview with the lady.

[wyldwolf]

17. She has a magic wand and to make Congress fall in line.

[AikidoSoul]

126. Presidents have enormous "vocal flexibility" and it comes with a Bully Pulpit

Think about George W. and his cronies who made the war in Iraq. Are you unwilling to admit that they spent an extraordinary amount of time "focusing on a particular issue"?

[Legalequilibrium78]

133. Wow!! your argument falls

Pretty stupid and flat out idiotic. George W. Bush succeeded partly because of the shock and magnitude of the tragic Sept.11, 2001 terrorist attack. He and his cohorts ably manipulated the situation i.e. the media, and the massess that Iraq vis-a - vis Saddam was linked with Al Qaeda.

The American public still reeling from such carnage and devastation suspended it's collective critical thinking and questioning the policies of then Pres.Bush by going along with the deception, partly to avenge and seek retribution to what we experienced.

So for you to suggest and imply that Sen.Warren will be able to rally and galvanize the public - including the large swats of right wing voters - you are simply delusional and a cultist of epic proportion. You have suspended critical thinking, and you are simply going with your gut feeling. You are practically giddy at the mere prospect of Sen.Warren may possibly enter to run as President.

But then what happens if she does win? Face with the same intractable political opponents, and probably an even more entrenched political and wealthy elites against her administration. How would she be able to effectively handle a piece of legislation where she does not get 100% of what she wants? Let alone a House that is controlled by the Republicans? How do you square that reality with your fantasy? Politics was and will always be about compromising. None of us who supposedly belong to the same political ideology think the same, we even have large swats of disagreement. For you and your ilk to think that your "Dream" candidate can just ram every uber Liberal piece of legislation is utter lunacy and is not based in reality.

People like you, are the same ones that quit when the going gets tough. When you do not get everything that you want or like within the time line you set. You sulk, incessantly complain and then stays home come midterm election; only to prop up when the next presidential election cycle comes up. Ginning up another dreamy/loopy candidate, coming up with the same bullshit message.

[AikidoSoul]

134. What is the difference between economic carnage

and the type of carnage that 911 produced?

The difference is that most of the people in the U.S. are being affected directly, and their lives are getting more and more dismal by the minute.

That is inspiration for a movement.

Don't appreciate your ad hominem attacks. That is a style used by those who want a reaction, but not a discussion.

[loyalsister]

140. Riiiight

The education president know for tax cuts, wars, an RX program under medicare. All expected at one time or another to be signature legislation or some kind of defining initiatives.
The Bush administration had a lot of Democratic allies. Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson....
Do you know of any republicans who would step up to help Warren with her agenda?

[treestar]

127. While accusing Obama supporters of being part of a cult of personality

They feel to realize they are.

They think she can force Congress to agree to their ideals, no matter who is there. Obama couldn't because he's not "leadery" enough.

They don't agree that the vocal inflexibility will happen - she is a leader who will continue to "fight" for what they want.

To them, the Presidency is all powerful, the bully pulpit is all you need, if you keep saying the right things as POTUS, Congress will have no choice but to go along. The People want a Leader, one who will tell them what they want and make them get behind her to do it.

They found Obama was not that leader, despite his charisma. Now Elizabeth and charisma don't seem to go together, so it's amazing they are behind her - I think she said the right things, but wonder if she has that rock star quality they are attempting to confer on her.

[AikidoSoul]

136. Rock star quality?

I hadn't really thought about that. Both Elizabeth and Bernie seem passionate about the major things that need to be changed. Neither of them, to my mind, are Rock Stars in the typical way one thinks of one. But to me they are excellent leaders. Hopefully the country will not be so shallow as to seek someone again like Romney, who qualifies by his looks and flash.

The country is changing.

I do believe that a movement is in the works to seek truth and substance over flash and BS.

[AikidoSoul]

12. Kick this baby. Run Elizabeth run!!!!!!

Shameless kick.

[woo me with science]

13. Bernie Sanders, 2016.

He is the one I trust most at this point.

If Bernie were to signal trust in Elizabeth by choosing her as a runningmate, I would ecstatically vote for a Sanders/Warren ticket.

That Obama's team turns easily to Elizabeth I find troubling, as I do her recent vote for MIC funding (on which Sanders voted "Nay&quot .

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Bernie is one of a few I'd rather see than either Warren or Clinton.

There are others. Warren being a Republican during the AIDS silence of Ronald Reagan, voting for him that second time with thousands already dead and not a thing even said about it...to me that is damning and she seems unwilling to discuss it. Her supporters have already started in with 'AIDS was not so bad'. 650,000 Americans so far with a global death toll of 36 million. Her supporters actually ask if it was all that bad. By the time Reagan mentioned it, over 20,000 were dead in the US. 50,000 infected and the virus was infecting people in 113 nations.
I saw many of her 'AIDS was not so bad' supporters lose their heads over the Ebola death of one solitary person. 650,000. 'Didn't the Iraq war kill more Americans than AIDS?' they ask, because they think all questions about Warren are in service to Hillary. It's repulsive. Some of the threads have made me want to vomit. They want to revise history to serve this politician.

[AikidoSoul]

31. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what does the AIDS' epidemic have to do with

Warren being a Republican at the time Reagan was president?

Sure, Reagan was the beginning of the end of what a good Republican stood for. More and more fell into the value system of the Bush dynast.

To villify people who used to be Republican is not fair. The Republican Party has slowly turned into a highly dangerous organization that serves only the very rich. Their actions over the past thirty years has grown worse by the year.

Change takes time. I know many former Republicans who have either become Independents or Democrats. In my own family there are several who have said they are appalled at what the Republicans have become.

The very rich are now at war with the rest of the country's citizens and the environment. THAT value system based on unbridled, unfathomable greed by the One Percent.... is the number one problem today. It threatens everybody with a dismal future for most of the country. Elizabeth Warren has made this battle to stop this trend, her number one, very vocal priority!

[bahrbearian]

43. Nothing, but it works as deflection from a real discussion.

[polichick]

28. I agree, on all points.

[zeemike]

35. I don't find it all that troubling

They are after all a team...and they are looking to the next game, and can see the writing on the wall that Hillary is not the ticket...and I think the young people want the change we did not get.

But I agree with you...I trust Sanders above all others...Warren could be just another Trojan horse for all I know...But Sanders comes across ans genuine in more than just speech.

[JDPriestly]

80. Sanders has a lot of experience. Warren has a lot o personal appeal.

And she is a woman. That would be an advantage. Plus she is an advocate for the middle class.

People wonder how she could have voted Republican for so many years.

Fact is, a lot of the issues like welfare reform that caused people to vote Republican have been resolved. At this time, the biggest issue is the disparity of wealth, the concentration of so much of our economy in just a few mega-corporations leaving very little chance for competition at the local level and excluding a lot of potential leaders from even getting on the playing field of the marketplace.

Walmart is an obscenity. A huge vampire octopus killing off creative businesses and making competition very difficult for even big rivals for customers. Hillary was on the board of Walmart. Granted, Walmart's excesses are not her fault. But still, how willing would she be to sponsor or suggest much less sign bills that might revive competition and a marketplace in our country.

[NOVA_Dem]

36. I'm not going to be fooled again like I was with Obama.

As long a money controls politics nothing will ever change. It won't matter if she's president or not.

[AikidoSoul]

46. Rich and powerful regimes have been knocked down for centuries in other countries

It's our turn now.

Try to have some optimism.... there is some real passion and spirit right now for seeing Warren be our top warrior.

The human spirit is a wonderful thing.

[liberal_at_heart]

48. I love that Warren fights the banks, but Bernie addresses many issues including

Last edited Fri Dec 12, 2014, 07:16 PM - Edit history (1)

MIC spending, income inequality, wages, health care, education and many others. I do think I favor Bernie a little more than Warren although both are great.

[WillyT]

15. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[Jack Rabbit]

21. This is good news

It makes a certain corporatist Democrat look a lot less inevitable.

[albino65]

29. I'm in n/t

[LawDeeDah]

42. This news makes me very happy. Those are good people.

They know their stuff, obviously, and they are willing to work really hard. I hope this gives Warren that push over the edge of decision and she runs.

great news.

[mother earth]

44. Of course she's been saying she won't...but it won't stop the outcry for a real

progressive to end this centrist one party corporate stranglehold. RUN Liz, RUN!!!

We need a people's voice to end the status quo & corporate welfare state. End the oligarchy!

[Stellar]

45. I like the sound of that!

[AikidoSoul]

49. Wonder why this is not included on the "TRENDING NOW" thread line. Right now I have 69 recs...

that should be more than enough given that the others on "TRENDING NOW" have far fewer recs.

I wonder what I did wrong?

[Scootaloo]

56. However, as far as we know, she's not running

And I'll be honest, Senator Warren is still pretty damned good.

[Warren DeMontague]

59. True! So far only 3 Candidates have made official announcements to run for the 2016 Nomination.

And since we are apparently only allowed to support people who are officially running, I'm gonna go with this guy:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates,_2016

[Scootaloo]

60. Vermin Supreme is too mainstream for me

I'm going to vote for my local candidate, Goodspaceguy.

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

[eridani]

64. A local treasure--he is our very own Emperor Norton n/t

[AikidoSoul]

62. Reminds me of the Wizard of Oz

Which is not much different than what we have now. You know... all those Congresspersons trying to hide behind a curtain.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. WHY do people insist on the idea that we actually have competitive primaries w/ multiple candidates?

We already have a nominee, who is chock full o' inevitability and this really hep country music video!

Come on, people. You can't resist this sort of magic.

[elzenmahn]

65. Oh, I'm resistin' it alright...

...and when did Hillary officially declare her candidacy?

Now, let's see how long it takes before certain DU members, always with "facts" and "figures" in tow, start telling us on this thread that Hillary "beats all comers" and is the one candidate we should get in line behind now. I'm waiting.

[joeybee12]

58. This really makes me want to not vote for her...

I'm sorry, Obama has mainly been a disappointment...I fear Liz will be the same, and Obama staffers' endorsement carries no weight with me.

[Cha]

68. President Obama has NOT been a "disappointment".. these guys know what they're doing.

[Scuba]

98. Not to you, perhaps. To me he's been a bitter disappointment.

[Major Hogwash]

150. Why?

'splain to me how hard Congress has worked with President Obama for the last 4 years, and yet it is President Obama has left you bitterly disappointed, to alleviate some of your anguish.

[Scuba]

153. Drones, NSA spying, pushing TPP and turning the White House over to Wall Street.

For starters.

[nikto]

71. Sanders/Warren

[ALBliberal]

72. i like her

But it's hard for me to believe that as an economics professor she could vote for Bush Sr after eight years of Reaganomics. As a business undergrad in the early 80s supply side economics was being shot down by my economics professors. And the tax policies Reagan pushed through yikes. Deficit spending etc. And she voted for Bush Sr? What was she teaching students? How long (and why) was she giving Reagan's policies a chance? Why did she consider them "conservative"?

I will vote for the Democratic nominee in any event. Just hard to grasp how she got from A to B.

[snot]

75. K&R'd!!!

[MADem]

82. Warren disavowed that PAC back in August. She doesn't want to confuse donors about a non-existent

run for President. She did this formally by having her lawyer notify the FEC.

Here:

Elizabeth Warren Officially Disavows 'Ready For Warren' PAC (READ)


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/elizabeth-warren-disavowal-ready-for-warren

By DANIEL STRAUSS Published AUGUST 22, 2014, 3:19 PM EDT

Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-MA) lawyer has sent a "formal disavowal" to the Federal Elections Commission on Ready for Warren —the group that aims to nudge Warren to run for president in 2016.

"This letter serves as a formal disavowal of the organization and its activity," Mark Elias, Warren's attorney wrote in the letter. "The senator has not, and does not, explicitly or implicitly, authorize, endorse, or otherwise approve of the organization's activities."

Later in the letter Elias stresses that "Senator Warren has publicly announced that she is not running for president in 2016."

Ready for Warren is supposed to be an analogous group to Ready for Hillary, which as its name suggests, aims to lay the groundwork for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2016.

[RiverLover]

87. I didn't realize 300 people signed that! That's just so great!!!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/300-former-obama-staffers-urge-elizabeth-warren-run-president_821232.html

[IronLionZion]

90. Then she's obviously a corporate DINO, throw her under the bus!

Too soon?

[proReality]

108. I'd love to see this amazing woman as president, but

look what happened to Obama. I don't want to be responsible for her hair turning white prematurely or the ulcers or the acid reflux or ...

Nice people really don't deserve being under pressure from the evil crazies. But I'll be voting for her, if she runs.

[DemandsRedPill]

109. classic

Appears we have the classic "hero on a white horse syndrome" here

Unless you have not been paying attention no president has the power you think he or she has

Obama was our latest hero de dejure.
Couldn't even get on the 'white horse' yet alone ride it.
Hell those who put him in office were too lazy or stupid to even take time to demand he at least put on the bridle, yet alone a saddle.
Voting is only the first step
Not the final one

Yet the sycophantic loyalists still insist his failings are the fault of the 'evil Republicans' and not of his own choosing. Yes he fails on purpose if you had not noticed that yet.

So go ahead and build another hero
Ignore that hero once they're in office
And complain because you conveniently ignored the other two branches of government where the real power lies (at least as surrogates for the true power behind the throne)

Must be the crying and weeping of failing once again that blinds you and keeps you from actually finding that front door to the local party offices

You know
The place where the real power lies

[whereisjustice]

114. Poor Hillary - she's been preening and primping for years for her entitled place on the throne

If you think Obama is deferential to wealth and power, it's hard to imagine a more fabricated, triangulating, money sniffing robot than Hillary Clinton.

She's not just blue blood. When it comes to corporate cash, she's got the nose of a bloodhound.

On the other hand, if you think Wall Street and DoD contractors, NSA, CIA and our police state are under-represented in Washington - Hillary is your woman.

[LovingA2andMI]

117. Co-Sign....

I'm willing to work on Senator Warren's behalf. Just announce and make Senator Sanders you V.P. Candidate and we are ALL IN.

[mountain grammy]

118. Warren/Sanders, Sanders/Warren, either one works for me..

the time could be right in 2016. Let's go for broke. If we can't win, we can't win. If Americans won't see past the corporate, conservative media and continues to buy into the Reagan bullshit, we are just pissing in the wind anyway. Let's have an election and find out if all out liberal ideals can win with American voters in every part of the country.

What have we got to lose, anyway? The country is nearly 100% corporate run now.

[BlueJazz]

121. What mountain grammy said.

[joanbarnes]

120. I am TOTALLY on board!

[DesertDiamond]

122. Yes she CAN win. Obama won. We need someone who stands up for us. Hillary does not do that.

[BlueMTexpat]

123. I love Elizabeth. But until Elizabeth herself says

that she is running, I will support Hillary.

Period.

[tularetom]

128. Hey Obama's staff - are you gonna get in trouble over this?

It's apparent to most of us that Senator Warren is not your boss's favorite Democrat. So how's he going to react when he sees that you are all endorsing the candidacy of somebody who opposes the entirety of his administration's kid glove treatment of Wall St criminals?

Better not look for work at the Obama Global Initiative, guys.

[woo me with science]

143. kick

[fadedrose]

145. Wow

I hope I can stay alive till she runs.....what a race that will be!!

[2banon]

147. I have to say, I don't trust this.

Former staffers of Obama are supporting Elizabeth Warren? Really? That just doesn't make sense to me. Why wouldn't they go straight to HRC's camp instead, now that it's been made pretty clear that Obama was never in our camp.

Oh, wait. Now I get it. This is part of the game. This is the way to have us progressives get all fired up for the primaries at which point, HRC is pushed over the hump and ends up winning the nomination, at which point we'll see our candidate falling all over her self throwing her support for HRC, and insisting that we do the same.

Nope, I'm not falling for this whatsoever, and neither should any of you

[Marr]

148. Yeah, same here. It's sad, but...

...I find myself being instinctively distrustful.

If they want to volunteer and organize, there's not much to say against it, but... I don't know. I'm reminded of Howard Dean and the way the two parties colluded to destroy the outsider's campaign.

[2banon]

155. Exactly. Hints of a shell game setting up. We've seen this before.

won't really know of course until this plays out.

Who exactly are the "former Obama Campaign Staffers?" MoveOn? I have no allegiance to Move On, their refusal to take action on very important issues back in 2004 has discredited them in my eyes. But I've noticed they're trying to get back on the "progressive" radar recently I think it was on Net Neutrality (if memory serves) but pardon me if I'm skeptical as to why exactly the "former staffers" of Obama's campaign(s) are really behind Elizabeth Warren .

[BainsBane]

152. There are no political messiahs

Warren would encounter the same circumstances Obama has as President. Without a congress willing to vote for progressive legislation, presidents are left with Executive Orders to whittle around the edges. No President is going to save America from itself.

[riversedge]

154. Warren says (4 times) she's not running for president Mon December 15, 2014

My guess is she will not run for President. IMHO



Warren says (4 times) she's not running for president

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/15/politics/warren-denies-president/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

By Alexandra Jaffe, CNN
updated 7:02 AM EST, Mon December 15, 2014
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Sen. Elizabeth Warren was interviewed Monday morning by NPR
She repeatedly said she was not running for president
Warren has emerged as powerful figure in the Senate as a voice for the left

(CNN) -- She's said it once, and she'll say it four times: Sen. Elizabeth Warren is not running for president.

Asked four times by NPR's Steve Inskeep on Monday morning whether she was running for president, Warren held her ground, repeating each time: "I am not running for president."

"That's not what we're doing. We had a really important fight in the United States Congress just this past week, and I'm putting all my energy into that fight, into what happens after this," the Massachusetts Democrat said.

Inskeep pointed out that she was speaking in the present tense, and that she hadn't said she would "never" run, but Warren didn't change her tune, eventually becoming so exasperated she demanded, "do you want me to put an exclamation point at the end?".................

[bigwillq]

159. Congrats on 2,000 posts!

[riversedge]

160. Good eye. I missed it.

[Demsrule86]

156. I wish I could believe electing any Democrat would help

Since the House is gerrymandered and the GOP won big in gerrymandered states how exactly is electing Elizabeth or any Democrat going to help us advance our cause? Obama has betrayed us and signed a GOP wishlist while getting exactly nothing. I have no doubt Hillary will triangulate...like Bill...and pass all sort of corporate / GOP goodies. I just don't see any way forward to stop the destruction of our country. A fair number of Dems colluded with the GOP. I am just so disappointed.

[bigwillq]

158. Don't they know she's not running. I mean, jeez.

You would think they would be "in the know"