Liz had a little to say to the New Yorker that some here might find of interest…

[Jackpine Radical]

The New Yorker article also touches on an early incident between Clinton and Warren, when, according to Warren, Clinton agreed to help her stop a bankruptcy bill “that Warren felt was written, essentially, by the credit-card industry”. Once she had become senator for New York, however, Clinton voted for a version of the same bill.

“There were a lot of people who voted for that bill who thought that there was going to be no political price to pay,” Warren told the magazine.

When the New Yorker presented Warren with the critique – ascribed to Clinton advisers – that she places too much blame on Wall Street as the root of America’s economic problems, Warren responded: “I think it’s important to hold Wall Street accountable. Some of the biggest financial institutions in this country developed a business model around cheating American families, and they put out the riskiest possible products. They sold mortgages that were like grenades with the pins pulled out, and then they packaged up those risks and sold them to pension plans and municipal governments, groups that did not intend to buy high-risk financial products.

“That’s how Wall Street blew up the American economy. That’s a genuine threat, and that’s worth paying attention to.”

And she defended her apparent decision not to run against Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination. “You think I’m not forcing a debate? Call me back in a year, and ask me what type of debate we’re having.”

[daleanime]

1. K&R.....

[2banon]

2. “You think I’m not forcing a debate? Call me back in a year, and ask me what type of debate we’re ..

having" ///

very interesting. sort of gives some measure of veracity to a theory I've been entertaining, in part.

If she were to toss her hat in the ring for 2016.. she'd be forced to play it out just like the rest of the "contenders"..there's no way she'd manage to keep her authenticity in tact, she'd have to accept BIG $ from the very scumbags she's trying to hold accountable. obviously that's a big fail on all sorts of levels.

Thanks for posting this piece, and bringing it our attention.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. I think I share your theory.

Or, in my case, I would use the word "speculation" because I have nothing so well-formed as a theory, just a feeling that by going on as she is, Liz is running a very effective "non-campaign" and getting almost as much, and much more favorable, press coverage than Hillary.

[2banon]

7. Quite so. And I agree, the term speculate is more appropriate than the term "Theory" in this case..

I don't have a theory fully fleshed out either,, its more of an instinctive guess joined together with a certain measure of observation I suppose one could say.

But totally agree that she's far more effective I think in getting these issues out in the public fora, certainly than anyone else to date. Bernie is great in so far as our key mantra talking points go underscoring the issues of concern, but Warren has a way of cutting to the core with specifics after specifics, identifying many of the responsible culprits sans some government officials or especially elected enablers occupying seats of Congress etc.

She's not stupid. It can be very dangerous as we know to go much farther than she has.

But she is courageous and a true fighter, it will be interesting to see how far she dares to take on the Banksters/Wall Street. .

[NYC_SKP]

3. A couple links:

One two days old from the guardian and another from the New Yorker current edition.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/27/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-eh-progressive-populist

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/04/the-virtual-candidate

[Jackpine Radical]

5. Thanks for those links.

Interesting that at the core of the relationship between the two women is a massive betrayal of principle by Senator Hillary (D-Wall St.).

[SoapBox]

4. Awesome.