Elizabeth Warren To Wall Street: Drop Dead

[octoberlib]

The too-big-to-fail banks think they’re going to teach Professor Elizabeth Warren and the rest of her progressive rebel scum a lesson about saying mean things about them. As we just learned, the heads of the five families from Citigroup, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America have been talking amongst themselves about how to get Warren to pipe down with all her talk about how corrupt they are and how they caused the financial crisis in 2008 that almost broke the country. Their bright ideas include withholding $15,000 per bank in “campaign donations to Senate Democrats in symbolic protest,” or possibly leaving a horse’s head in Sen. Warren’s bed.


Like a typical liberal, Sen. Warren has responded with a blog post:

In 2008, the financial sector collapsed and nearly brought down our whole economy. What were the ingredients behind that crash? Recklessness on Wall Street and a willingness in Washington to play along with whatever the big banks wanted.

Years have passed since the crisis and the bailout, but the big banks still swagger around town. And when Citigroup and the others don’t quite get their way or Washington doesn’t feel quite cozy enough, they quickly move to loud, public threats. Their latest move is a stunner.


Read more at http://wonkette.com/581104/elizabeth-warren-to-wall-street-drop-dead#odgPOTtRED22u6Dm.99

[hifiguy]

1. She is NOT going to back down.

Seeing who someone has as enemies can be a very interesting reflection on a person's character. She has all the right enemies and pisses off all the right people.

[Fumesucker]

3. I welcome their hatred...

Sooner or later she's going to say it..

[merrily]

17. She doesn't need to say those exact words. She's been clear.

[sabrina 1]

24. The last time the two Third Way Founders tried to attack her, her response was 'oh, please',

dismissing them the way you would a two year old throwing a temper tantrum. They scurried back into their hiding places after the avalanche of negative responses they received.

They actually thought they could influence the 'left' if they smeared Warren. But they were not among their little circle of Investment Bankers anymore, once the decided to write their disgusting 'admonishment' to Warren in the WSJ.

So now they are apparently hiring people they THINK can influence the Left and it is very disappointing to see people like Dean do their bidding.

That too failed and diminished Dean's reputation. It certainly didn't diminish Warren's.

[merrily]

25. I can relate. I sometimes give that kind of response to posters who mouth talking points that are

bs. Sometimes, it's "Oh, please" and sometimes simply "LOL." Because some stuff just is not worth any more of a response than one of those.

But, there's the left and, then again, there's the other left. (If a nurse or XRay technician tell me to turn on my left side and, in pain and panicked, I start to move the wrong way, "Your other left" is sometimes the second and very diplomatic instruction.)

[hifiguy]

33. Warren is not in what George Carlin

called "the big club." HRC is an honorary charter member. They FEAR Warren. With good reason. The best of all reasons to back her.

[merrily]

35. Boston dweller here. She's my Senator!

[hifiguy]

36. Lived in Cambridge for 3 years

While in law school. I am very fond of Boston.

[merrily]

40. As they say, "What's not to like?"

Yeah, I know. It's far, far from perfect, but so is every other location on planet earth. It's blue. It's full of historic sites, smart people and lovely architecture. And the same crap you find elsewhere that you wish you found nowhere.

[hifiguy]

42. And usually there's not much snow.

This year being the exception. For this Minnesota boy it was an easy three winters. Loved my time there!

[merrily]

44. Given global warming, it's odd to me that this year broke the record set in the winter of 1996-1997.

You would have thought that the prior record would have occurred in 1896-97.

I was here for both record breaking winters.

The remarkable difference, though, was that, during the winter of 1996-97, it snowed about every other day throughout the winter (or so it seemed to this gal), whereas this winter, there was hardly any snow until the end of January.

[Fearless]

108. You actually get more snow the closer the temperature is to 32 degrees F.

The air can hold more moisture at higher temperatures than lower. So in actuality, to a point, you will see more snow because you will have more moisture in the air because of temperature increases.

[merrily]

124. Maybe, but that was not the case this year. We had quite a stretch of days well below

32 above zero. Twenties, teens, single digits, with wind chills going down to 35 below or more (less?), esp. overnight

[Fearless]

125. Locally yes, but most of the country was warmer than usual

The moisture follows the jet stream and hits the east coast

[merrily]

126. Not sure what temps in the rest of the country have to do with Boston setting records for snowfalls

in 1996-97 and 2014-2015, but I will take your word for it.

[WillTwain]

97. Love MN

But old man winter, skeeters and years of suffering watching the Vikings finally drove me out of there. Pawlenty did a number on the state, too, They got a hell of a break when Dayton edged Emmer.

Wellstone was in a class of his own.

[Art_from_Ark]

41. And Cotton is my Senator!

Wanna trade?

[hifiguy]

47. I feel for ya, Art.

I'd trade him for a sack of secondhand footballs and cackle at what a great deal I got.

[merrily]

48. What do you think?

I've never lived anywhere but a (generally) blue state. NJ, NJ and MA. If I move, it will probably be to another blue state. Downside is that cost of living tends to be higher than in red states, esp. in the cities, and I've never lived outside a city (though here, I did live in Brookline before moving to "Boston proper&quot .

[Art_from_Ark]

58. Until recently, Arkansas was a solidly Democratic state

in all but presidential elections. But ever since the murder of Bill Gwatney, who had been the state's Democratic Party chairman, in 2008, the party has been careening downhill.

[merrily]

59. Wow. I didn't know about the murder. How awful.

[Art_from_Ark]

80. It was a very tragic and senseless loss for everyone

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

[merrily]

81. Do you have an opinion on why successors were not as

successful as he?

[Art_from_Ark]

82. I can't really hazard a guess

I'm scratching my head trying to come up with a reason. Either his successors are totally inept, Faubus Democrats, or? Fellow DUer WhiteTara might be able to provide some better insight since she has had direct contact with his successors.

[merrily]

83. Thank you.

[Art_from_Ark]

85. One thing I can say about his successors

They showed really poor judgment if they had anything to do with asking Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to take sides in the 2010 Democratic primary for the US Senate by supporting Blanche Lincoln over the more liberal Bill Halter. And 4 years later, they pushed Halter out of the race for governor so that Mike Ross could run unopposed in the primary (and then get his butt handed to him on the proverbial platter in the general election).

One more thing-- One of my fellow Arkansans mentioned on a different thread that several of his liberal friends did not vote in the last election. I don't know his friends, but I think a possible reason might have been the way the state party establishment has treated Mr. Halter.

[merrily]

86. It may be simply the same things that have been ailing Democrats all over the country.

IMO, that general pattern goes back to whether it's actually true that center right Democrats are more electable, as the DLC, Third Way, the Progressive Policy Institute and others assert, or whether Truman was correct when he said a Republican cannot beat a real Democrat, but a fake Democrat will lose to a Republican.

As far as Halter v. Lincoln, this may apply: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6396919

Pay particular attention to the links Schumer's comments, as he made avoiding primary challenges for Senate races official policy in 2005. Siding with the incumbent, if the incumbent is running, can be seen as simply going with someone you know won the state in the past. But siding with the incumbent is also a very good way of discouraging primary challenges.

The risk is that the damage done to the primary challenger may not be reparable if the challenger becomes the nominee anyway. That is my perception of what is part of what may have happened in the Lamont (D) v. Lieberman (I) race (the Republicans having abandoned their candidate, who was a bad one). And even that does not explain the Crist (I) v. Meek (D) v. Rubio (R) race, when it almost seemed to me almost as though Crist was really the choice of "official" Democrats. But, it may well had relevance to the Halter v. Lincoln stuff.

And, yes, I can see why that would have caused disaffection among Halter's supporters. And that is another risk the Party seems very willing to take.

My own view is that the Party should stay out of primaries, but that does not seem to be the conventional wisdom du jour.

[Art_from_Ark]

87. It is kind of ironic that one of the state's most notable recent US senators,

Dale Bumpers, challenged and defeated a long-time incumbent, J.William Fulbright, in the primary back in 1974 (the same year that Bill Clinton ran for Congress in Arkansas's 3rd district). Bumpers went on to become a fairly decent liberal Senator. I can't say whether he matched the caliber of Senator Fulbright, but he certainly towers above everyone who has held that office from Arkansas in the past 16 years or so.

And Halter was no newcomer to Arkansas politics-- he had been lieutenant governor when he challenged Lincoln. One reason why he challenged Lincoln was that she was constantly trailing behind the Republican challenger by double digits. And getting Obama involved in the primary was an absolutely stupid move, especially considering his approval rating in the state was below 40%, which was about the same proportion of support that Lincoln got in the general election.

[merrily]

88. I feel your pain. In Massachusetts, after Kennedy passed, four announced for the Dem primary

for his seat. One was a guy who was involved with both Bain (Romney's old firm), one was Rep. Mike Capuano, whose voting record in the House is probably as liberal as any other Rep, with the possible exception of Rep. Lee; one was Khazei, a middle to liberal candidate; and the other was Coakley.

Coakley immediately got a million dollar money bomb from EMILY's List. I have never known EMILY's List to back a candidate the DNC opposes. (The caveat here is that Ellen Malcolm, founder of EMILY's List has many ties to Massachusetts and may have had a prior relationship with Coakley. Additionally, Malcolm was a co chair of Hillary's 2008 campaign, and, like many Massachusetts Democratic politicians, Coakley had supported Hillary.)

As best as I recall, no big party star campaigned during the primary for any of the four, except that Bill Clinton came to Massachusetts to campaign for Coakley.

The rest, as they say, is history. Luckily, the next time the seat was up for grabs, the Party backed Warren and Warren was able to beat by then incumbent and Republican, Scott Brown.

[smirkymonkey]

94. Me too!

I am so proud of our Senator!

[Jackpine Radical]

102. I'm a little more generous in interpreting Dean's motives.

I think he just wants to make sure a Dem is elected, believed that Hill had the best chance, and wanted to put his weight where it might help avoid a primary fight. Given his own experience, he may be a bit nervous about nasty primaries. Half-a-loaf pragmatism, as it were.

[calimary]

107. I am, too. On his watch, our party did a LOT better.

[pa28]

38. She's certainly not afraid.

It seems Warren is the only politician out there willing and able to confront the banks and make her case in public.

She wins on brains and conviction and now she's been made officially dangerous. If big finance had hoped to isolate Warren it looks like their idea is backfiring badly.

[merrily]

49. She is wealthy, smart, respected and in her 60s. Not a lot to be afraid of personally at this point

Everyone fears for their kids and grandkids, though. No, scratch that. Climate deniers, for one, must not be too afraid for their kids and grandkids.

[pa28]

52. Indeed, not much for her to be afraid of personally.

The easiest thing in the world for her to do would be what everybody else in her position does. Turn around and act as a bolster for the status-quo.

What I really love about Elizabeth Warren is that she is an outlier. She's acting purely on principle.

[merrily]

56. As a general rule, I avoid trying to judge the motivations of others. I've learned that

I don't even always know all my own motivations. But, I usually like what she says. I voted for her for Senator and would do so again. And, as between Warren and Hillary, I'd pick Warren any day of the week and twice on Tuesdays.

[hifiguy]

43. And that will be a great day!

[JonLP24]

76. I love your signature

Could I borrow when I need to? Probably won't now but would love to in the future.

[hifiguy]

104. Feel free.

I swiped the banner link from another DUer, so go for it!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Go get 'em, Senator Warren!

I am proud to be on your side!

[bvar22]

4. Hillary to Wall Street:

Don't worry, guys. I have your back.

[merrily]

18. See Reply 17, but for purposes of my reply to your post, "She" refers to Hillary, not Warren.

[hifiguy]

46. Never doubt that.

Not for a nanosecond. She will never turn on her owners.

[TheKentuckian]

5. Fuck them dropping dead, cut them into little pieces.

[merrily]

77. I can only hope that you and Zorra find your respective voices someday.

That was sarcasm, but I do sincerely hope both of you post more and more!

[A Simple Game]

6. I'm sure Senator Warren will miss all of the money they

weren't giving her in the first place. The others... they won't cut them off and take a chance on making an enemy. One thing about the big banks, they don't mind buttering their bread on both sides.

[Phlem]

13. That's how you always win

Fund both sides of a war.

[merrily]

19. Only if the "fundees" are corrupt.

Luckily for banksters and Wall Streeters, many in both parties are willing, if not eager, to sell out the 99%.

And the big money is the soft money anyway.

[Phlem]

103. yep.

Seems to be that anywhere there's big money corruption follows.

Hope your having a great day merrily.

[merrily]

129. Thanks! You as well.

For the most part, we are a greedy species. Some of us fight it better than others. .Some of us don't fight it at all.

I can't vote the Koch brothers out of office because I don't own enough stock in their companies. Even if I did, they and people like the Waltons have enough personal wealth to influence any politician. The only ones I can vote out are the ones in government who do their bidding and tell me they are selling me, their employer, out to special interests for my own good.

[Flatpicker]

7. Now's the time

To remove corporate funding in politics.

Call it the Warren bill? I don't care, but make it so...

[Enthusiast]

8. +1 an entire shit load.

[merrily]

20. It's going to take a Constitional amendment, not a bill. And probably will never happen, anyway.

[hifiguy]

34. The words could be simple.

"The rights guaranteed herein shall be secured only to natural persons and not to any artificial persons or creations of law."

[merrily]

39. Yes, but it's not going to happen. It's not going to get out of Congress, let alone

ratified. And, if an amendment giving women rights equal to those enjoyed by men could not even get ratified, I'm fairly certain that the ratification process would be even worse.

Besides, when you have individuals as rich personally as Soros, Buffet, Perot the Kochs, the Waltons, your amendment would not necessarily take money out of politics.

Remember, money, even foreign money, was in politics long before Citizen's United. And all we got was McCain Feingold, which was totally voluntary on the part of the candidate and which even McCain violated when he ran for President.

[BrotherIvan]

60. Actually, it wasn't McCain that broke the public financing agreement

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/mccain-says-yes-to-public-financing/

With his decision, Mr. Obama became the first candidate of a major party to decline public financing — and the spending limits that go with it — since the system was created in 1976, after the Watergate scandals.

Now running a presidential campaign costs over $1 Billion. Who else do we think is going to win but a servant of the moneyed class.

[merrily]

61. I said McCain violated the law, not a verbal undertaking.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/04/14/495202/-DNC-Suing-FEC-Over-McCain-Finance-Violations

The FEC agreed to let him off with just repaying the money and 'in kind" that he used (like traveling to campaign stops on his wife's plane for free), above and beyond what the law allowed and did not prosecute him.

Obama had agreed to proceed under McCain Feingold, providing the Republican nominee did the same, but changed his mind, while McCain kept his verbal undertaking, in theory, but then violated the law. Reneging on a campaign statement, as Obama did, is not a violation of the law. What McCain did is a violation.

[BrotherIvan]

65. I see your point

But the fact that Obama opted out first has always stuck with me. I was very, very disappointed to say the least.

[merrily]

67. Yes, disappointing, but not a violation of the law.

Maybe there should be consequences to violating statements made during a campaign with the intent of getting votes. But, so far, there aren't any. Under a 2 party system that is as tight as ours, there are not even noticeable consequences at the ballot box.

[BrotherIvan]

98. It used to be that the press would hold a candidate accountable

Sadly, that is gone. Look at the Cruz/Obamacare flip flop right now. They just let him spout the most idiotic lies, turn a complete 180, then lie some more. The fact that someone like Cruz and the brother of the worst president we've ever had can run tells you how unbelievably bad it is.

[merrily]

127. A few people control all mass media in the US.

That is because this country decided that deregulation was a great idea and preventing monopolies was a bad idea. Every President from Nixon to Obama.

[lovemydog]

64. Perfect.

[joshcryer]

9. Where is the legislation?

Lot of talk, little action.

[RiverLover]

11. Well if there is no threat, why is Wall Street threatening the Democratic Party? /nt

[Phlem]

12. yep.

[merrily]

21. Trumka also threatened the Democratic Party.

[joshcryer]

23. Warren wants to break up the banks.

Making them more valuable. She doesn't want to nationalize the banks, she wants to break them up so the investors will make bank.

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Then why don't the banks break themselves up? nt

[merrily]

31. They don't want to be greedy.

[joshcryer]

55. They might. GM did it.

I don't think the banks want to rock the boat because as it stands now their intertwined nature lets them get away with mistakes (there was a Mexico fraud thing recently, if I recall correctly, millions of dollars lost). Breaking up the banks properly is open to error. Which toxic assets get liquidated and which get absorbed? Nevermind the thousands of people getting a pink slip if / when it happens. Think about it, if they did it to themselves, how many pensions would be cut? How many people would be fired?

The banks are unsustainable, they'll be "downsized" eventually. And when it happens investors, hedge fund managers, the top 1% will get a nice 20% boost in their portfolios. The best way for all involved to do it is to do it legislatively with government oversight. The blow has to be softened.

But Warren has offered nothing substantial to those ends, except for words in a fundraising pitch, and slamming people with her own background over administrative actions they can't do.

[paleotn]

99. Bullshit....

There's far, far more value in oligarchical control of the global financial system. Had smaller financial institutions with limited reach been more valuable than global goliaths, we wouldn't have seen the industry consolidate as it has since the early 80s. You should really hide your irrational Warren hatred a bit better than that.

[joshcryer]

117. Investors don't seem to think so.

According to Warren. Do you think Warren is wrong about bank divestment?

[paleotn]

118. She's correct for the right reasons...

...to reduce risk in the global financial system and hopefully avoid another 2008 meltdown. Your investor profit meme is fantasy. If it were true, shareholders would be clamoring for the break up of certain large financial institutions. Efficient markets and all that clap trap. They haven't so your point is utter and complete bullshit. But I guess haters just got to hate.

[joshcryer]

119. It's WARRENS argument.

Warren was the one to bring up bank value and blamed complexity.

You are deflecting.

[paleotn]

120. Not hardly....

...if there were significant value in breaking up Citi, JP Morgan, BoA and others, it would at least be in the works already. If anything, consolidation has continued virtually unrestrained. M&A activity in the financial sector continues. Those utter fools! Don't they know divestiture is where the real shareholder value lies?!

[joshcryer]

121. There is risk.

We haven't forgotten savings and loan.

Warren made the argument about investors. Your mockery is so hilarious because you are directly mocking Warren's OWN argument!

[rhett o rick]

114. Your logic defies logic. Banks merge to make more money. Monopolies are capable of

of cutting off competition. How does breaking up monopolies make them more money?

[joshcryer]

116. Warren said it herself!

She grilled the fed why the banks were undervalued!

[rhett o rick]

123. Again how does breaking up banks make them more money? If Sen Warren said that

breaking up banks will make them more profitable, please show me the origin of the quote. She is trying to reduce their power and making them compete will do that.

[merrily]

22. LOL!

[MannyGoldstein]

27. !

[merrily]

28. Care to elaborate? Also, if you do wish to elaborate, please indicate

if you are elaborating as TWM or not.

[MannyGoldstein]

29. !!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6426595

Regards,

FWM

[merrily]

32. Oh, please.

I kid you.

[MannyGoldstein]

50. I look forward to the day

when you feel comfortable enough to come out of your shell and share your honest feelings with us.

I hope to be in a blastproof structure when that happens; advance warning would be appreciated.

[Zorra]

51. No worries, brother, I don't do collateral damage. nt

[rhett o rick]

113. I found your thread above to be shocking.

I thought you were a female. I admit I am old and probably not up to the latest stuff, but ???

I know you can't respond, just wanted to express my confusion.

[merrily]

128. Sexist (and ageist, too)!

[joshcryer]

57. Stay classy.

[merrily]

62. Zorra's a class act to and for the 99%.

[joshcryer]

63. Not so sure about that.

The jury at least didn't appear to agree.

[merrily]

66. The jury does not even purport to decide whether a DUer is a class act to and for the 99%.

[joshcryer]

68. Telling someone to "blow me" is not "classy."

If you think it is, then OK, I guess.

[merrily]

69. As always, context matters. Let me make very clear that I am not comparing you to Hitler,

but stopping one of Hitler's rants with "Blow me" would have been, IMO, very brave in a good cause and being very brave in a good cause is, IMO, classy.

But again, the point was that it is not any part of a DU's jury's job to decide whether a DUer is classy or not.

[joshcryer]

70. Eh, there's no comparison.

I don't think they were making any statement other than a baseless insult to an internet poster without any substance whatsoever.

It's embarrassing what passes for substance these days.

FYI, I'm literally the only poster in this thread who dares to question Warren's sincerity when it comes to breaking up the banks. All it takes it a tiny bit of drafted legislation. That's it. That would prove so much. But I wait and wait. I encourage her to do it. She'd have at least a dozen or two Democratic Senators behind her. The banks are too complex. Breaking them up only makes sense.

Oh! And Sanders is on the banking committee and is a really great negotiator. He could get it out of committee (and he could do it by making Warren's own argument that the banks are undervalued because they're difficult to assess for investors, investors aren't investing in the banks because they don't want them to fail).

[merrily]

71. I made no comparison between you and Hitler. To the contrary.

Disagree with the rest of your post and with the rest of your contribution to this thread.

[joshcryer]

72. I don't think "blow me" is classy in the context it was used.

You diverted to some silly metaphor about Hitler. If you think it was classy to say "blow me" to someone asking for legislation, I think that's fine, but I would have to disagree.

I edited my post, btw, getting a vote on legislation to break up the banks is not terribly difficult. Sanders is on the banking committee. Making Warren's own argument that the banks are undervalued due to how big they are is the perfect way Sanders can get the one vote he needs.

But since Warren won't even co-sponser significant liberal legislation out there (such as the Climate Protection Act, or the Follow the Money Act, or the Ending Secret Laws Act), it's unsurprising she's failed to do a damn thing so far with regards to breaking up the banks.

BTW, her reticence on the Follow the Money Act makes me laugh every time someone calls for her to support legislation that will get big money out of politics. And yes, I've called her office, I have never gotten a reason why she won't support it (or the others I mentioned).

[merrily]

73. I already responded to all that. Don't know why you feel compelled to repeat yourself, but I don't

feel compelled to repeat myself. Besides, if you keep posting to me, to you, that's apparently an indication of how clever you are. However, if I reply when spoken to, as I was raised to do, to you, that's something for you to gossip about on and on with with other DUers who also disagree with my politics. And that's so boring. So, for at least the tenth time, I gladly give the last word to you--and, so far, you've always accepted it.

[joshcryer]

74. Thank you!

I am gracious that you are "letting me" have the "last word" after comparing me to some "high school mean girl." And "politely responding" when being spoken to. You know that you are the one who initiated comments to me, by defending classlessness, of all things.

Fortunately for me I don't have to endure some long winded explanation as to why Warren doesn't sponsor some liberal legislation and why she's literally in the group of Third Way people when it comes to supporting progressive legislation. I don't have to hear the pained explanation as to why she doesn't draft legislation to break up the banks, either.

[BeanMusical]

122. Nice temper tantrum.

[rhett o rick]

111. Do you support such legislation? Or just being critical of Sen Warren? nm

[joshcryer]

115. Yes, of course.

They can't be allowed to be a to big to fail risk. That was Warrens biggest point as she oversaw TARP.

[byronius]

10. Best Thread Title Ever.

Wonkette rules.

[turbinetree]

14. Dear banksters

She hit's a nerve doesn't she bankster's, are you afraid, she has a lot more citizens that back her than you, your money can't corrupt a principle it only corrupts the process .
Ms. Warrens

[LittleBlue]

15. YES! Keep speaking for us, Lizzie!

[Augiedog]

16. Pitchforks and torches

How about a Wall Street roast

[hifiguy]

37. That would be one hell

of a pig roast!

[flobee1]

84. a sing along

The banksters theme song

[liberal_at_heart]

30. K&R

[Dems to Win]

53. The slimy greedy banksters may just goad Elizabeth into running for Prez

[SheilaT]

54. This is why I just don't get all those people

who think Hillary Clinton is such a fabulous choice for President. Just show one time when she has stood up to the banks or the oil companies or any of the entrenched powers. She just never has. She kow-tows to them quite happily. And people think THAT'S what we want for a President?

I keep on being reminded of the comment (by Paul Krugman, I believe) that Newt Gingrich was a stupid person's idea of a smart person. Well, to me Hillary Clinton is an uninformed voter's idea of a liberal.

[merrily]

79. Some DUers do not think Hillary is a liberal, nor are they anxious to see liberals run.

Sometimes, people know exactly what they are aiming at and simply do not want the same things as you do. They are not all seeking the same things you are or motivated by the same things you are and simply confused about how to get them. They just want something different than you do to begin with.

I've been chastised at DU more than once for pointing out that Hillary was a founding member of the DLC and has behaved consistently with that and with the Third Way. Their criticism was not necessarily that I was mistaken about the facts because I am not. Rather, their beef was that my implication was that Third Way was undesirable, when they thought it was good.

Others do post that they are very liberal, but that they are also "pragmatic" or looking to the most electable candidate. I think that is true of some, but that others who say those things are not liberal at all. JMO. And some even say Hillary is liberal, even though I think it's fairly clear she is not and she does not claim to be.

[Scuba]

89. +1

[Caretha]

92. merrily

Once again "Hits it out of the park!"

Btw, baseball season starts April 5th...

That's what I like about you merrily, you're always ahead of the game.

[JonLP24]

75. This is exactly why she needs to President

to say things like that but she has a very important job now so I can understand. I'm currently on the Bernie Sanders bandwagon myself.

Recommend.

[JonLP24]

78. Shhhh!!! SHHHH!!!!

Oh my god. She says this right after Howard Dean said don't "soak the rich".
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6351511

[Scuba]

90. Please Elizabeth, please run for POTUS.

[Martin Eden]

91. If the Democratic Party made a clean break from Wall Street

... it would be a step in the right (left) direction.

[antigop]

96. +1000 nt

[JEB]

93. Blow me Wall Street.

Greedy Un-American traitors.

[treestar]

95. Er no. She only means to regulate them again or more.

She is not dumb enough to think we can go back to local banks. Which could be corrupt without being noticed.

[The CCC]

100. Elizabeth Warren To Wall Street: Drop Dead

Tax the rich at the 91% rate like that of republican Eisenhower.

[colsohlibgal]

101. Way To Let Them Have It Senator Warren!

It's refreshing to see a democrat who gets it and isn't afraid to call it like she, and anyone else without figurative myopia, sees it.

Barney Franks made me shake my head last night watching Maher's show. He said we needed to keep Dodd-Frank from being cut enough to cause more problems like 2008. Newsflash Barney, it's already been declawed enough, and the bill wasn't what was really called for to begin with.

If Hillary is the nominee I hope she sees the light between now and then. She could be a hero like FDR if she changes course and goes after the plutocrats. Of course that's likely just a dream, since she gets so much funding from Wall Street Banksters.

[red dog 1]

105. K&R

Warren For President in 2016!!!

http://elizabethwarren.com/blog/wall-street-isnt-happy-with-us

[world wide wally]

106. If she keeps this up she may be "drafted" as President!

That is a hint to other Democrats running for anything!

[cui bono]

109. Sen Sanders has railed against the banks for years, funnily Wall Street didn't feel the need

to threaten anyone then.

Very telling. Very telling indeed. They know she is resonating with the voters in a very real way.

[Duval]

110. K&R nt

[rhett o rick]

112. Great post. Thanks for posting. nm