What is so great about Elizabeth Warren?

[ericson00]

There seems to be a lot of people who want her to run for president or VP, even tho she has been a senator for 3 years, and was on a panel for a bit before, and her role could probably have been replicated by others. She was also a firebrand academic. She does talk tough against financial institutions and sponsors popular sounding bills.

But why is she qualified to be president, or why would she make a better nominee than Biden, Bernie, or Hillary? I'm not attacking her; I just would like to know her appeal. I do think one problem she'd have would be her appearance in a Michael Moore movie; he is someone who makes progressives look bad to moderates, you know.

[JoePhilly]

1. You are about 6 months late to the party.

[leftofcool]

2. I think the supporters of Bernie were Liz Warrens supporters

She did not want to run. She is a great Senator and not a better nominee than the ones we currently have. I prefer she stay in the Senate where we need her.

[ericson00]

3. yea but by being part of the Corporate Dem party, she has sold out

unlike Bernie, right?

[arcane1]

6. Where is she being corporate? Just because there are right-wingers with a D next to their name...

...that doesn't mean EVERY Dem is a right-winger. I don't know where you're getting that from

[Autumn]

8. She has not sold out and Liz is not a corporate Dem.

[leftofcool]

12. That I know nothing about.

[ericson00]

15. if you or the other posters check out the primary forums

you'll see what I'm alluding to.

[RobertEarl]

24. Our problem is

The Party has so few who are not corporate sellouts.

Corporate sellouts are those who won't take a stand against global warming and fossil fuels. They are in favor of protecting Wall Street while Main Street withers. They favor the continuation of privatized health care which is ripping people off.

So, if you have a problem with some of us not liking corporate sellout Dems, here's your big chance to show us why we should love the sellouts.

[Duckhunter935]

4. This is in the wrong forum

But to answer your question, she is much better and MUCH more schooled on the economic issues than Hillary. As far as I know she does not seem to evolve when the polls tell her to. Hillary has too much baggage, I support Bernie but he has a very high hurdle to clear. I would love to see Biden,Warren or even better Warren/Biden.

[ericson00]

7. this is in the right forum; she's not in the primaries

and is vaguely associated with them at all, which is why I didn't put it there.

Schooled? Or do you mean she's more hardline against "neo-liberal" policies such as free trade and for more bank regulations? Hillary knows the economic players and system of this country very well. She is probably a little to Warren's right on some economic issues, that is true. But that's not the same as "schooled" at least in terms of knowledge, more outlook.

[Duckhunter935]

11. I stand corrected

Little to the right, lol. She is owned by Wall Street.

[ericson00]

13. I don't think pols like Hillary, or Biden for that matter

are "owned" by Wall Street. I see them and other Dems as simply willing to accept that Wall Street's place in America is powerful enough that working with them at the table is more productive than trying to keep them away from the table, knowing they'll come back and take all of it for vengeance. I don't condone the bankruptcy bill, or a few of the other things; tho the outlook is understandable.

[Duckhunter935]

18. We ca disagree on that

[cali]

25. the evidence that they are unduly influenced

is very strong.

[hifiguy]

29. Lock, stock and barrel.

When Blankfein says "jump", she asks "how high?" Every word she says in public has likely been preapproved by Goldman Sachs.

[pipoman]

5. She is a great populist and doesn't have Bernie's socialist baggage....

Warren/Sanders 2016

[truebluegreen]

21. LOL for "socialist baggage"

[NowSam]

9. She is a leader on issues

Bernie is my candidate but Warren has been an outspoken fearless speaker on the issues that matter so much. She has helped moved the conversation exactly where it is today. Like Bernie she doesn't poll test her opinions. She can speak off the cuff with mastery of the issues and has a fantastic ability to cut through the arguments of the oligarchs.

In my opinion, Joe was string and outspoken on Marriage equality and has always had the appearance of being for the working and middle class. I am not sure he has always acted in accordance with that appearance. HRC - I just don't get at all. She has been on the wrong side of so many votes that really mattered. She can't speak off the cuff and seems to duck a lot of questions. She is backed by the Oligarchs and I see only teeny tiny difference between her and Jebby. I also worry that that difference is in the appearance of being on our side only. I guess I just don't believe her, or Bill or any of them any more. Bernie and Warren are on the correct side of the issues - consistently. I trust her and I really trust Bernie.

[Rex]

10. So are you bashing Warren or Moore? I can't really tell your intentions.

Doesn't really matter...you are way late to that party. Good luck.

[ericson00]

14. I'm not bashing anybody. I just want to know why the buzz,

around anything she says or does?

[Rex]

17. Okay short answer, she makes the people that own Wall Street nervous with her ideas.

That makes huge headlines. Also, Moores main draw is moderates - that is why so many authoritarians dislike him. He drew in millions away from the status quo and that scared the little authoritarians running the mainstream media.

She scares banksters just like Moore upsets republicans and it causes those that hold the status quo above life itself, to become worried. Just google her name and Wall Street and you will find out firsthand.

[mmonk]

16. She understands what happened in 2007/08, isn't bought by the interests that are an impediment to

fix that problem, is not a globalist at all cost and a myriad of other things. She's kind of what the Democratic Party used to be about on the economic side of things.

[abelenkpe]

19. Moderates don't like progressives?

[NorthCarolina]

20. If you have to ask......

[reformist2]

22. Umm, just about EVERYTHING? :) :)

[cali]

23. I take it you thought president Obama

wasn't qualified when he first ran

[cherokeeprogressive]

26. I'll take "She Has No Personal Server in Her Basement" for $2000, Alex.

[ericson00]

34. whoa, this is neither a primary thread nor one for RW attacks

against Democratic Heroes like the Clintons, with concrete electoral and legislative accomplishments.

[cherokeeprogressive]

35. There you go with the hero shit again...

Creeeeepy.

[BuelahWitch]

37. And he capitalizes "heroes." Even creepier...n/t

[hobbit709]

27. She's not a tool of Wall Street.

[MannyGoldstein]

28. She initiated and launched the CFPB

Can you name anything that Hillary's dine that's as important (for the 99%, of course)?

[wendylaroux]

30. oh it's this guy

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

31. heh? Hillary lost to some guy named Senator Barack Obama

That's President Barack Obama.

Obama and Hillary had basically identical health care plans. Neither Obama nor Warren represented the Democratic establishment as Senators.

This can't be a serious question.

[ericson00]

32. this isn't a primary thread. This is a thread so that I can see well articulated reasons

why she is so venerated on these blogs, and why some (tho not as many) think she should be the Democratic nominee. This is a very serious question because I know all about her firebrand talk, and I agree with most of it. I'm just wondering what actions she has taken part of or been a big part of that warrant her popularity here.

You do have a case that Warren didn't represent the Democratic establishment. I differ on Obama in 2008.

[elfin]

33. Instead just ask "What's so great about being perfect?"

She is my touchstone about "getting it" about the economy, humanist values and all that resounds to ME.

I understand that she may be more effective in the Senate, but I rejoice in her more national presence.

[StevieM]

36. Can I recommend a grammatical change to your post which might produce slightly different answers?

In your second paragraph your second sentence says "I am not attacking her."

Maybe make that the first sentence in a new (third) paragraph, even if it means the previous (second) paragraph is only one sentence long.

I think that people who like her read your post, and perhaps miss that statement--that you are not looking to attack her--and come out swinging.