The Hill: 5 reasons the left doesn’t believe Warren

[RiverLover]

5 reasons the left doesn’t believe Warren
1/17/2015

Here are five reasons the left hears “yes” when Warren says “no.”

1.) She hasn't definitively ruled out a presidential run.

"Every candidate says they're not running before deciding to run," said Erica Sagrans, campaign director at Ready For Warren.

..."Things change fast in politics, and Warren hasn't ruled anything out," Sagrans said.

..."Warren is wisely hedging her bets. She is underselling herself politically by saying, 'No,' which is intriguing to the base but she is leaving room to potentially over-deliver publicly should the circumstances merit her jumping into the 2016 fray," said Ford O'Connell, a GOP strategist.

2.) She's distancing herself from President Obama.

Warren flexed her political muscle during the budget negotiations late last year and spearheaded a successful revolt against an Obama nominee to the Treasury Department with ties to Wall Street.

Her attention-grabbing moves come at a time when Democrats are fiercely debating whether to move to the middle on economic issues or shift to the left....

3.) She hasn't ordered the grass roots groups to shut it down.

,,,"We're not running this campaign because of some sort of parsing of her speech," said Nick Berning, MoveOn.org communications director. "We take her at her word. We're running the campaign because we think our country will be better off if she enters the race."

"Elizabeth Warren has always been a reluctant politician, but she has always listened to her supporters," Sagrans said.

Sagrans noted that in Warren's book, the senator wrote that she was persuaded to challenge then-Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) during the 2012 Senate race after one of her supporters urged her to get in....

4.) Her promotional tour didn’t end after the midterms.

Warren campaigned heavily during the 2014 midterm election campaign, hitting the trail in states like Iowa, Kentucky and West Virginia. While she campaigned for these candidates, it also seems to have fueled national interest in her own political career...

5.) She's remained tight-lipped about Hillary Clinton.

It seems that virtually every prominent Democratic politician is being asked about Clinton ahead of 2016. While Warren did join each of the female Democratic senators in the last Congress in signing a letter urging Clinton to run, she has not openly endorsed her probable candidacy.

In an interview with The Washington Post in June, Warren declined an opportunity to defend Clinton after she said in an ABC News interview that she and former President Bill Clinton were "dead broke" after leaving the White House.

The Post reported that Warren paused for "a full 19 seconds" because answering: "Uh, I was surprised."

"There is no question about Warren is mulling a run and she has the dynastic Team Hillary unnerved," said O'Connell, the GOP strategist.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/229840-five-reasons-the-left-doesnt-believe-elizabeth-warren

Xposted in the EWG.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

1. Excellent analysis - I'm bettin she runs. Otherwise Wall Street wins & we lose regardless, that is, unless Bernie pulls off a miracle.

[daleanime]

3. Amen....

I think Bernie could win, but it would be a horrible uphill battle. Warren would be a tap in. Just play footage of her grilling Wall Street executives in red states.

[RiverLover]

6. +1 nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. Reason #6 ...

Because it is just who we are, on the Left ... Champions of the impossible (highly improbable); rather than, laborers witin the possible.

[daleanime]

4. With the shape this world is in....

we had better start doing the impossible.

[RiverLover]

5. You're so right, we need to embark on a 'Mission Impossible"

kick some ass too.

[F4lconF16]

9. Impossible is never as impossible as we seem to think it is.

http://www.inc.com/kimberly-weisul/how-to-do-the-impossible-from-the-man-who-is-doing-it.html

[1StrongBlackMan]

16. Agreed ...

But the cynic in me has it that too many pick the "impossible" BECAUSE there is no accountability or work; but, plenty of room for talk, in the "impossible."

[F4lconF16]

20. Perhaps.

I disagree that that should be a reason not to do it anyways. As was said, the world is needing some impossibility to become possible, or we're in a lot of trouble.

Also, I do think many (certainly most) here want to do the impossible because we actually believe we can, and are ready to do so. Even at my most cynical moments, I have met too many good, decent people who are ready as well to believe that our cries to take a stand are simply a shell of what might be. Cynicism is certainly merited with the state of affairs we are currently in, but...it needs to be ignored if we are to progress. Otherwise, my cynicism would lead me to say that we are already lost; that the system will need to break before we can rebuild. Given the sheer amount of pain that would cause, and the uncertainty that would follow, I refuse to accept cynicism and the conclusions it draws. Hope is a powerful thing, when backed by action.

[daleanime]

24. Nicely put!

[Gman]

22. Very astute observations

It is so easy, and makes some feel so self-righteous to be the champion of what is clearly impossible to achieve immediately. When the impossible predictably doesn't happen because, it's not that easy, they walk away content with the notion that they are morally and intellectually superior to those pragmatists that share the same values but are willing and do put in the long term hard work, and are considered sell-outs for doing so.

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. Yes ...

But this only works when they ignore that accomplishing the "possible", actually does move us far closer to that "impossible", than the failed "impossible" campaign ... albeit, at a much slower, than desired pace.

I do not support "political moral victories" or "principled political loses."

[Bluenorthwest]

31. So you support 'the fierce urgency of the maybe later'.

Typical of those who are served by the status quo. The status quo does not serve my people.

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. No ...

It is NOT an either/or ... the status quo is moved by PUSHING for the impossible, while DOING the possible.

A failed impossible campaign leaves "your people" with the status quo. No?

Typical of those who are served by the status quo.

Please don't lecture me on "be(ing) served by the status quo" ... I would venture to guess, I have been fighting against the status quo, more and for far longer, than you ... and it is my fight, and the winning of the possible, that informs my stance.

[F4lconF16]

34. That's crap.

I'm sorry for being blunt, but seriously, that's crap. What has "accomplishing the 'possible'" done for us but shifted us further right, year after year? The only gains I can see are social victories, and if you ask me, those would have been a lot easier if we didn't have Democrats who pandered to the racist, sexist, homophobic "center". There's a reason Obama took so long to support gay marriage--hint: it was a political calculation to be "centrist", like you and other posters here keep advocating we do. (And I'm not insinuating you want us to be centrist socially--clearly you're rather outspoken on those issues.)

Oddly enough, I'm not sure our "unprincipled moral victories" have gotten us anywhere. That's kinda what happens when we give up our principles.

[RiverLover]

42. Great post.

Thank you F4lcon.

[daleanime]

35. Agreed, with a but.....

of course there are things we want that we could live without if we have to. No matter how right, decent or fairly their continued absence will not kill people.


But there are things that can not be safely put off. How many years/decades to you think we can put off trying to deal climate change? What must be addressed must be addressed, whether it's possible or not.

[Plucketeer]

30. Thing is....

in this world of 2-dimensional super heroes..... In this culture of superlative fantasies..... it seems that the "impossible" is what's required to jell real resolve.

[F4lconF16]

47. Important point.

I think you've noticed something we tend to forget. If we simply go after the possible, that does not motivate people, because they need real change, not baby steps. There are big problems that need to be dealt with now, and someone like Warren is more likely to inspire people to tackle those issues because she herself goes at them full throttle.

It is a very 2-dimensional process. Good catch.

[Plucketeer]

52. Lofting Senator Warren to the oval office

would be equal in achievement to lofting Neil Armstrong to the moon. But it CAN be done.

[F4lconF16]

7. How can we contact her to urge her to run?

I would like to send a letter in if possible.

[RiverLover]

9. You can email her~

http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=email_senator

And also, join MoveOn & DFA efforts to change her mind~

Run Warren Run!

With 81.3% in favor, MoveOn members have voted to launch our campaign to encourage Elizabeth Warren to run for President. Join us?
Ask Her to Run

http://front.moveon.org/

Here's the campaign ad they put out for her~

[F4lconF16]

15. Thanks.

I wonder how likely it is that she'll actually end up reading it, or even someone close to her. Time to send it anyways!

[Plucketeer]

51. Here's a few lines of what I wrote...

So here we are at what may be THE most pivotal moment of this nation's being.
For the white hats, the "pre-ordained" is as dismal a prospect as the dark side's best. It's really down to a choice of which poison does one prefer. And, of course, that's NOT "choice" unless one's yearning to be euthanized.
No - what's needed is REAL choice. A choice - a voice - that represents a course back to the "We the People" ideal - not the We the Corporations fantasy. To be SURE - it won't be good enough for someone to stand on the debate stages and simply contort the dialogue - only to have it snap back to reality once the votes are counted. We NEED someone IN the Oval Office who DOES the things they've professed they'd do. And to that end, I'd suggest you look around, Senator Warren.... you're on a lofty plane by yourself.

[hedda_foil]

74. Well said, Plucketeer. Well said. nt

[RiverLover]

78. Nice.

"We NEED someone IN the Oval Office who DOES the things they've professed they'd do."

Obama's turnabout once elected is what fuels our desire for the real thing. Thank you for writing her directly! You've inspired me to do the same, instead of just signing off on the Draft Warren effort letters with 1000s of others.

[MyNameGoesHere]

8. I hope she isn't forced to run

this is one person we shouldn't force into compromising. I understand the thinking that she will be "our" person in the Whitehorse, but that never, ever happens. Not EVER. A president has to be the president to all Americans and the world.
She has already shown she can switch sides for whatever reason. Think it couldn't happen again if it was done in the name of compromise?

[F4lconF16]

13. Umm...

She has already shown she can switch sides for whatever reason. Think it couldn't happen again if it was done in the name of compromise?

For "whatever" reason? Methinks you haven't actually listened to her in the last few years. She is out there fighting harder than almost anybody else. She switched from being a Republican because she realized just how screwed up this world for all the people who already have little. She's a damn strong person. Yes, she may have to compromise some--that's the nature of the beast. But if you think she's going to completely sell out (cough cough like another candidate already has cough cough), then I think you're dead wrong.

[MyNameGoesHere]

19. She has switched sides in the past

it is a fact and not a debatable point. Now we can debate the why she did it. However no one knows for sure except her. In my past experience politicians do it for political gain. She IS a politician and no she doesn't walk on water yet.

[F4lconF16]

21. If she was in it for political gain

She could have made an excellent Republican. She's smart and easily could have played into power and wealth. But she's not, and is fighting more than almost anyone else out there for the people. That, in my book, tells me that she cares.

Of course she doesn't walk on water. Many of us who support her have reservations abouy her; her Israel stance, for instance, worries me. Contrary to what you might hear, we aren't purists who want unicorns. We just want someone who isn't a pro-corporatist, hawkish, 1% defending, self-serving person who will turn their back on us every time they get the chance.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. I do not agree. Warren herself says she sees the paradigm as being an 'insider or outsider' in DC

a person who wants to play the 'outsider' can do so by leaving the Party which they have been 'inside' since Nixon and entering the other without ever really speaking about the social issues and very horrible positions she held for many many years.
I require that she address her loyalty to Reagan policies around AIDS which were ignorant and bigoted and heartless. Also as an economist who was a Reaganomics supporter for so very long, I'd like someone to explain why they think she's a good economist. Supply Side until Clinton? That's not a genius that's a slow learner.
Were you a Reagan voter? Did you think 'Trickle Down' was a great idea? I knew better. I'm not an economist.
I'm not satisfied with her boosters who shout 'Goldwater Girl' at Hillary. Warren was an adult, Nixon through Bush Republican. So 'Goldwater Girl' terrible as that is, is a hypocritical form of attack for people promoting a 30 year loyal Republican. I find that tactic deeply offensive and indicative of a conservative world view, different rules for different people. 'It's bad that she had Republican parents, but great that our candidate was an actual Republican for 30 years'. I don't trust people who do that sort of shit. Why should I as a person already subjected to different rules as a gay person?

[F4lconF16]

45. I'm not sure where exactly we disagree.

Sorry, I may just be being stupid. I'm on my phone and it makes threads kind of hard to follow at times.

I think that she needs to address those issues as well. Given her recemt record, and the passion with which she speaks, I am willing to accept that she has learned, albeit slowly. That said, she did support a lot of pretty messed up stuff, and for a long while. She does need to explain that. Most importantly, she needs to do so with full honesty and transparency. If she cannot do that, not only will she be torn apart for it in should she decide to run, but I think she will also lose the support of people like yourself, and rightly so. She needs to come out and discuss this and get it in the open. I won't pretend that it doesn't worry me that she hasn't already, and perhaps I should have mentioned that in my last post. My hope is that she will soon, and that she just feels the timing has not been right yet. We will see if that is the case.

As for the economic side of things, well, maybe she learned slowly, but she sure as hell has it down now. She is proposing and supporting better policies than most anyone out there.

Kinda agree the whole goldwater girl thing is stupid. Clinton supports plenty that can be criticized now, now reason to attack her for what she did as a child/relatively young person.

[RiverLover]

46. FYI - "Elizabeth Warren to Obama: 'Evolve already'" (same-sex marriage)

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/03/elizabeth-warren-to-obama-evolve-already-118346.html

[Jim Lane]

63. Lying again, I see.

You refer to her alleged "loyalty to Reagan policies around AIDS" and you have never offered one bit of evidence beyond her having been a registered Republican. You apparently want people to assume that a person registered in a party is automatically loyal to all the policies of all that party's candidates, but you don't want to spell that out because its' so manifestly ludicrous.

Over and over you answer the "Goldwater Girl" business (which I personally don't see as having much relevance to a Clinton 2016) candidacy. I guess you find it easier to debunk that bad argument than to defend your own even worse argument.

[Autumn]

49. Force?

[MyNameGoesHere]

58. Ok

coerced if you like.
Wait how do I get a childish little thingy laying down and laughing? I am sure it would boost my argument.

[7962]

11. I just dont get why its SO hard to just say"I dont know" or "I could change my mind"

Its just ridiculous how politicians are. And the responses she has given shows her to be just like the rest of them

[certainot]

28. because to be uncertain is generally considered a sign of weakness, much more so

than being wrong or lying, or changing one's mind to another completely opposite position.

because...

[trumad]

12. Distancing herself from Obama

Yeah we know how that works out.

[F4lconF16]

14. The difference is, it's the other direction.

You know, actually moving towards helping voters? Standing up for things we believe in? It's a bit of a difference than shooting a gun and saying "I'm not Barack Obama".

[bahrbearian]

17. Which Obama? President or Candidate?

[treestar]

54. that was my first though

that would mean she'll lose.

[LawDeeDah]

18. Hee hee, this is going to really, really bother some people

that want a Hillary coronation.



Warren for Prezzy!
NGU

[brooklynite]

32. Well then. feel free to name them

I don't recall a single Hillary supporter who says Warren shouldn't run if she wants to.

I just point out...as she does...that she's not running.

[F4lconF16]

36. You really

Have missed all the people saying she should just stay in the senate? Cause I don't know how you can read these threads and miss that without being purposefully obtuse.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. If she can't explain her past conservatism and demonstrate her current liberalism well enough to

win a Primary, she should not run in a Primary. I do not care for candidates that have a 'don't question me' attitude and that's Warren when it comes to her Republican past. I lived through the shit she voted for, I'm not going to betray those who did not live through it by accepting a Reaganite unquestioned.
If Hillary took vows and joined a convent tomorrow, my questions for Warren would remain the same. I did not vote for Hillary last time, don't really want to this time. Questions about Warren are about Warren, and answering them with bullshit about Hillary is unacceptable.
When Warren voted for Reagan a second time, there were over 5,000 Americans already dead from AIDS, Reagan had done nothing. Not said a word. She was fine with that. And she needs to answer for that, she must speak to it or she should not ask for my vote.

I wish neither of these candidate were thinking I might vote for them. Both have far too much anti gay shit behind them, Liz in particular. I'd like no more 'I used to be against your rights' candidates. They should all stay home and count their millions.

[AtomicKitten]

57. You don't know how she voted and she hasn't said.

I find your assertion that she did presumptuous and purposely manipulative in an effort to smear her.

In an interview with The Daily Beast released on Tuesday, Warren, 62 ... admitted that up into her early 40s she was a Republican.

-- snip

Warren admitted though that she voted for both Democrats and Republicans.

-- snip

But she declined to say whether she voted for Ronald Reagan in either his first presidential campaign or his reelection campaign.

link: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/189657--liberal-favorite-elizabeth-warren-admits-she-was-a-republican

In fact, my research finds the only person claiming she did vote for Reagan is ... you. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5248278

[Jim Lane]

64. Please don't trouble Bluenorthwest with facts.

You're right that we don't know how Warren voted.

Even weaker is Bluenorthwest's assumption that "she was fine with" Reagan's policies (or anyone's policies). I voted to re-elect Bill "Triangulator" Clinton even though I was far from fine with many of his policies. I wonder if Bluenorthwest also voted that way, and if so whether we can fairly infer that Bluenorthwest was fine with DOMA, NAFTA, etc.

[AtomicKitten]

69. Your point on inference is excellent.

Last edited Mon Jan 19, 2015, 06:11 AM - Edit history (1)

The dissemination of false info here is disgusting and pretending to be an impartial bystander makes the charade complete.

[LawDeeDah]

60. Hillary can't explain her present conservatism.

Of the two, there is no question in my mind who the fabricator who looks upon most of us with contempt is and who the real deal is. In that regard, I don't care if Warren was a Ferengi in another part of her life.

[brooklynite]

56. The "Stay in the Senate" comments seem to come from people who live in Massachusetts...

...who have every right to expect her to carry out the work she was elected to do.

[certainot]

25. she shouldn't run until the left gets serious about rw talk radio

the liberals/progressives/democrats that want her to run cannot collectively say they will or can 'get her back' as long as they ignore the well-oiled corporate think tank-directed monopoly of 1200 radio stations that have been used successfully for 25 years to completely dominate messaging on local and national levels and move the country right.

anyone who thinks the internet will make up the difference has not been watching the last 5 or 10 years when internet was supposed to change things.

[F4lconF16]

38. You could say the same about the main media corps.

What would you have us do but fight anyways? I guarantee that your only real alternative to Warren wouldn't do a thing about the corporate media and radio.

[certainot]

59. radio has been essential to their success merely because the left ignores it

radio is critical to creating the alternate reality the rw depends on, creating made to order constituencies, and creating the national and local buzz to short cuircuit normal feedback a democracy depends on.

when the left's orgs finally pulll their fingers out of their asses and stop wasting our donations and volunteer hours and finally get serious about talk radio we'll all be amazed at how fast things turn around. the republican party/teabaggers/talk radio base will fall apart and the MSM and politicians that use it to enable their support and love for the 1% will start to look like the shills they are. talk radio works because it's loud and only LOOKS like it represents something popular because it gets a free speech free ride in most of the country- including all those states with few people and two senators.

[7962]

61. I dont know, I think the internet made a HUGE difference in '08

Even the republicans admitted that they were WAY behind the curve on GOTV info thru the internet. And the age of folks who mostly use the internet keeps rising.

[LawDeeDah]

62. Yes, it did.

Part of the reason the Clintons failed so was their stuck in the past ministry of doing things the same ideas. I remember Hillary saying The Youtube in one of the town halls or debates or interviews. It may be trivial but it also showed how far behind they were - and that The Youtube dug up the Tuzla embarassment. I don't think they really thought about how news shows keep files on hand for years after. That really showed me how stunned and out of touch with reality the two of them are/were.

[certainot]

68. internet is still relatively democratic. people have many different choices

in politics on the internet- just change the page.

talk radio is distinct in that it is a monopoly, it's well coordinated, it's gods can lie with little or no record of it, and in most parts of the country there are NO political alternatives while driving or working. it is a classic PSYOPS

most liberal blogs spend a huge amount of their time/resources merely reacting to bullshit/distractions/distortions that wouldn't even be there without rw radio getting a free speech free ride.

[dreamnightwind]

76. The internet may yet change that dynamic

It's taken awhile to manifest, but the internet is spreading to places only radios used to serve, such as cars and cafes. Maybe we should work to make sure there is a diversity of viewpoints available on internet radio. And I applaud your stubborness on this issue, don't ever give up.

Now, why are you picking on Warren? RW radio is no more a reason for her to not run than it's a reason for Hillary or any other Democrat to not run. Run Liz Run!

[certainot]

79. i'm not picking on her. i just don't want to see another talk radio swiftboating

operation go unchallenged by all the people who say they're going to get her back. they've been getting away with it for 25 years, attacking anything and anyone close to liberal, pushing the country and media to the right.

i would much prefer warren to hillary or many other pols, but the left continues to allow the right to take free pot shots at their candidates while looking the other way. then they have to react after the fact and the lies and framing and narrative has been established and chuck todd (just like limbaugh and 400 other radio gods) ends up talking about whether warren really has native american heritage or not, etc.

there would be nothing more efficient and significant liberals could do to get warren elected and effective in office than to finally challenge the right's best weapon. until then, forget it. we ignored it for obama and he was hampered effectively on most issues.

re internet, i hope you're right, but there are still huge parts of the country with no free wifi anywhere, and free talk radio everywhere.

[George II]

26. So if I read this correctly, Warren isn't being "honest" with everyone yet....

....people want her to be President?

[RiverLover]

29. 2012 headline - Hillary Clinton: Repeats 'no' for 2016, can't stand 'whining'...

Washington (CNN) – It doesn't matter how many times Hillary Clinton says she won't make another bid for the White House in 2016. There is always someone that a) doesn't believe her b) hopes she will change her mind or c) wants to prevent her from running....

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/18/hillary-clinton-repeats-no-2016-cant-stand-whinin-about-life-choices/


Plus, Obama promised he'd finish out his senate term...we still wanted him.

[brooklynite]

71. I see - so Warren is just another politician who says whatever's convenient...

...I thought I was told she was different...

[obxhead]

27. Democrats moving towards the middle on economic issues

Would be a hard left turn.

[Helen Borg]

33. She's awesome.

Funny how sometimes people say that she was "just a Harvard Prof" and now look where she is... Sounds to me that being a Harvard Prof beats being in Congress!...

[RiverLover]

43. No kidding! She's kicking some career politician butt :)

[MohRokTah]

37. Ah Jeez

[laserhaas]

41. The Right would IMPLODE - even if she only filed her OGE 278 Form

Can you imagine

and we should luv it


just sayin....

[oberliner]

44. So are you going to run for President? ELIZABETH WARREN: No.

Believe it. Respect her enough to believe that she means what she says.

http://fortune.com/2015/01/13/elizabeth-warren-sheila-bair/

[tularetom]

48. I don't think she's going to and furthermore I don't think she should

I don't know how old Warren will be in 2020 but the country isn't ready for her yet.

Apparently, things have not turned to shit for enough Americans and a candidate who really has ideas that would help thhe middle class will still be ridiculed by the beltway press as a left wing loon. So we must need four more years of crappy republican or republican lite policies in order to convince us to take a different route.

If the entire country isn't begging Warren to run by 2020, there's no hope for us.

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. So who produced the graphic, telling her what she has to say? Someone without any respect

for her, obviously. She's a senator, and some nobody on the internet thinks they can dictate to her the language she uses to say she's not running.

What part of 'no' do they not understand?

On edit: looking for the source of the picture, it was satire, taking the piss out of the "she's running anyway!" crowd. Well played.

http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/01/14/warren-fails-unequivocally-totally-dont-ever-ask-deny-shes-running-president/

[brooklynite]

55. The graphic should be edited to require her hands be in front of her...

...so we know she's not crossing her fingers behind her back.

[wyldwolf]

65. this is reaching the level of climate change denial

And no, it doesn't 'bother' me. It amuses me. Warren only gets in if Hillary doesn't because there will be a big vacuum to fill.

[rhett o rick]

66. If the Democrats can't come up with anyone better than H. Clinton-Sachs, we are lost. nm

[wyldwolf]

67. the left says that in most election years. Yawn.

[rhett o rick]

72. And the conservatives turn a blind ear. Of course they have the Oligarchs support.

I wonder if it feel comfortable to be on the side of the Oligarchs? Do they think the Oligarchs will give them a treat? H. Clinton-Sachs is a tool of the Oligarch Rulers, but apparently some like the comfort of being on the side of power. Stand behind the bully and egg them on. The day is coming where the common people will throw out the conservatives that are strangling the lower classes.

[wyldwolf]

75. because every time fatalist progressives predict doom and gloom unless we nominate their person...

... they're mostly wrong.

Yawn.

[rhett o rick]

77. Apparently you don't recognize the doom and gloom of today. Apparently you are alright with

where we are today. How many studies do you need to tell you we no longer live in a constitutionally controlled democratic republic before you realize that we need change. H. Clinton-Sachs will not bring change. Maybe some in the area of social issues, which the Oligarchs don't care about, but not in the areas of economy, war, the NSA/CIA Deep State, etc. She is part of the system we must change.

Over half of our school children live in poverty. What percentage do we have to get to to make you realize that THIS IS DOOM AND GLOOM. We need change, progressive change.

Visit your local foodbank and then tell me that the progressives are wrong.

[rhett o rick]

73. Half the world's wealth is owned by the 1%. Do you really think that Clinton-Sachs will work

to turn that around? Or do you even care? The wealthy don't necessarily wish us to die, they just don't care if we do.

[L0oniX]

70. I would ask her ...if not now then will she ever run for POTUS.