What do folks here think it means that Elizabeth Warren STILL hasn't endorsed anybody for prez?

[Ken Burch]

Last edited Sat Dec 26, 2015, 06:19 AM - Edit history (1)

...just askin'...

(and, for the record, I have no idea what it means, myself).

[NanceGreggs]

1. She will wait until the nominee is declared ...

... and then she will whole-heartedly support that nominee.

[artislife]

9. Reading your signline..would you like Bernie to run as an independent?

I wouldn't mind either way.

[NanceGreggs]

11. A little late for that, dontcha think?

He's already thrown his lot in with the Democrats - but only when it became politically advantageous to do so.

[artislife]

15. I thought he did it so there would be no Nader type thing

You know for the party and all...


But he can always split away and run solo, ala Lieberman.

[NanceGreggs]

17. I really don't care at this point ...

... what his motives were.

He's in it as a Dem - and he's losing.

If he wants to "split away and run solo" at this point, it would be political suicide.

He's smarter than that.

[Scootaloo]

27. Not from sanders, at least

I'd love to see such a vow from Clinton, especially considering the PUMA movement of 2008, and the irrational hatred her voters show towards Sanders, without even a single vote cast.

[brooklynite]

89. True or false

Clinton endorsed and campaigned for Obama.

The PUMA movement was never more than chest-thumping, and virtually all Of Clinton's supporters voted for Obama (just like Sanders voters will vote for Clinton)

[Scootaloo]

90. Has she vowed to not run as an independent in 2016?

[brooklynite]

92. Since she has no history of running as an Independent...

...and since she has the history of endorsing her opponent in 2008, not really an issue.

[CorporatistNation]

117. Do Not Count Your Chickens Before They Have Hatched!

Plenty of road left to travel and if this blackout/unfairness/cheating BS continues a lot of people will just say FO to Hillary and let the chips fall where they may.

[JonLeibowitz]

18. Wasn't it politically advantageous for the Democratic party for him to caucus with them for 25 yrs?

[NanceGreggs]

22. I'm afraid I've heard the "caucused with the Democrats" ...

... more than a few hundred times too many.

You're a Democrat or you're not. And Bernie wasn't - until he had to be.

[flor-de-jasmim]

23. This argument always misses an important fact:

The label Democrat has remained the same, but the party platform and voting records of many have shifted so far to thee right, that Bernie's policies are more closely aligned with Traditional
Democratic Values than others who have embraced the D label. Focusing on the label rather than the policies is a weak argument, IMO.

[NanceGreggs]

35. BS now wears "the label".

He chose to wear that label only when politically expedient to do so.

Focusing on the timing and convenience of when one chooses to affix that label to one's self is rather relevant, IMHO.

[tazkcmo]

104. Kind of the way I feel.

Except on Sec. Clinton's evolving on gay marriage, Keystone, TPP and single payer hc.

[artislife]

24. Then you Must be tired of hearing how the state of Vermont and declaring a party.

But that's cool.

We are tired of hearing how electable Hilary is.

Considering we rejected her the last time she ran for a National office.

[NanceGreggs]

25. The last time HRC ran for the Dem nomination ...

... she pretty well had half the Party behind her. She lost that nomination to Barack Obama.

She has more than half of the Party behind her now - and neither of her competitors are even remotely close to being Barack Obama.

[Scootaloo]

30. What, exactly, are you referencing with that?

and neither of her competitors are even remotely close to being Barack Obama.

[NanceGreggs]

32. I am relying on the facts.

Last I heard, that's still somewhat okay here.

[Scootaloo]

33. Can you be specific?

Which facts, in particular, are you using here? Lay it out, nanceGreggs. I have an idea what you mean, but hey, I want to make sure before I say anything

[NanceGreggs]

36. Yes, I can be specific.

Neither BS nor MOM are Barack Obama.

[Scootaloo]

40. C'mon, don't be a smart alek

and neither of her competitors are even remotely close to being Barack Obama.

What does that mean? What does it mean to be "close to being Barack Obama," and how, in particular, do martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders fall more short of that achievement than Hillary clinton?

[NanceGreggs]

41. Hey, ya know what?

If you think Bernie Sanders and/or Martin O'Malley are the same as Barack Obama, you just g'head and think that.

[Scootaloo]

43. I'm trying to find out what you are trying to say, Nance

'cause I know that you're not being a straight literalist there, since it's pretty obvious that nobody in this race is barack obama, thus making the entire point moot. so you're obviously trying ot suggest something else. What are you saying?

[NanceGreggs]

49. I'm saying the obvious.

Saying that HRC lost in 2008 - without acknowledging WHO she lost to, or by how small a margin she lost - is a moot point.

The constant drum-beat of "she lost in 2008 means she can't win in 2016" is a ridiculous comparison.

[Scootaloo]

52. But to make the point you did...

and neither of her competitors are even remotely close to being Barack Obama.

Okay. What does that mean? What particular qualities are you referencing that made it possible for obama, but (apparently) impossible for Sanders or O'Malley?

[NanceGreggs]

54. Might I suggest ...

... that if you don't already see the differences between Obama and BS and MOM, there would be no point in explaining those obvious differences.

[Scootaloo]

55. I want you to enumerate just what you mean

You can't just wave your hands and go "Obama!" as if that's an argument, 'cause it's not. What, in particular, are you talking about?

[NanceGreggs]

60. If you have to explain the punchline ...

... you also have to accept that somebody doesn't "get it" - no matter how obvious it is.

I can't "wave my hands and go "Obama"?

Actually, YES, I CAN!

[Scootaloo]

64. Well, I can't read your mind.

So I'm just trying to figure out what, exactly, you're getting at. You're being awfully evasive about discussing osmething you claim ought to be simple and obvious.

[arcane1]

101. She's never going to answer it. She can't.

[The Golden One]

110. So if the lesson is that the grumpy old white guy beats Clinton and beats the loudmouth

does that mean Bernie is exactly Barack Obama in one thing - having beaten Clinton, after she being a frontrunner like in 2008.

[underthematrix]

58. I can answer that.

President Obama is attractive, has presence, lights up a room when he enters, everyone wants to be in his orbit. He's smart, really, really smart. He's not a whiner. He's not vindictive. He's loyal. He's judicious in his speech and actions. He is thoughtful and takes the long view on decision-making (my favorite thing about him). He can multitask. He can handle a great deal of stress and still maintain his composure. He is a great leader. He models the way and is a great communicator. Even when he was running for president, he was known as no drama Obama. He.is.trustworthy. He has a moral compass grounded in his Christian faith. It is not something he talks about. It is something he lives. President Obama brings a vitality and physicality to his presidency that I have never seen before. He is willing to use creative forums to reach out to the different American constituencies, e.g. Between two ferns (Healthcare), Jimmie Fallon's slow jamming the news (student loans). He is amazing.

[Scootaloo]

63. And O'Malley and Sanders lack all that, while Clinton has it?

[treestar]

93. MOM and BS lack all that

while Obama had it. So where HRC could not beat Obama, she can beat BS and MOM.

Another huge difference is the number of candidates who were running back then. So many more possibilities. Here there are only two.

[underthematrix]

96. The question related to how Sanders and O'Malley were NO

Barack Obama.

[Scootaloo]

97. So Sanders and O'Malley...

- Are ugly
- have no charisma
- Drive people away
- Stupid, really really stupid
- Whiners
- Vindictive
- Disloyal
- Blather too much
- Unthinking and short-sighted
- simple-minded
- Prone to flying off the handle
- Poor leaders
- Poor communicators
- Dramatic
- Untrustworthy
- No moral compass
- Faithless
- Weak and feeble
- Isolated from Americans
- Opposeing heathcare and student loans

Fascinating insight, thanks.

[Hiraeth]

106. LOL

jesus Kee-rist jumping up and down on a pogo stick that is some funny shit right there.

[Scootaloo]

108. It's like they don't even think about what's coming out of their mouths. Fingers. Whatever.

[Hiraeth]

109. and then when you ask them for clarification they get mad at you for the words THEY are using!

hilarious stuff.

I am just now on another thread with the same thing happening.

The guy says quit pointing at my words.

I ask him then why are you using those words?



seriously.

too funny.

[restorefreedom]

77. correct. they are both REAL progressives

which makes them much better to many.

[Ned_Devine]

102. Fuck yeah!

[underthematrix]

105. I only answered the question of how both Sanders and O'Malley were

no Barack Obama from my perspective. I don't have an emotional attachment to any of the 2016 Dem candidates so I have to go with with the basics, the MOST qualified 2016 candidate. Hillary Clinton. I don't have any feels this time around. I don't feel any excitement this time around. I want to protect PBO's legacy and then move forward, especially on gun sense legislation, immigration, expanding healthcare and infrastructure spending.

[restorefreedom]

112. so of the three,

you feel that hrc is most likely to continue his legacy? my concerns of her in that regard include war, prison and justice reform, education, and infrastructure. and this latest roundup of UDW from central america by this admin really concerns me as well. I think both om and sanders would be more likely to move the obama football forward in a new administration.

[underthematrix]

114. Yes. HRC is the best candidate because she is willing to

work with all constituencies even the people you and I buy things from, e.g. cable. internet, computers, laptops, smartphones, video games, durable goods, etc.

Do you know why the Obama administration is conducting INS raids on this particular subset of immigrants? I do. These raids are being conducted on subjects where there has been a judicial finding for deportation. Even though President Obama would like to do something different, people forget that we governed by the rule of law and he has to through the executive branch follow the current legal immigration framework.

Martin O'Malley has a lot of potential but he didn't do his homework on national security and foreign policy. That surprised me. Sanders has been in the US Senate for a long time so he has some foreign policy experience. I think he and MOM said the same thing, e.g. we need work with our partners and we need ME countries to lead the fight. Well, this is exactly what is happening and one of the most recent agreements that was reached before the debate Saturday was the partnership with ME countries and their leadership in driving the ISIL strategy. I believe the UN security council signed off on it. When I listened to Bernie and O'Malley's response I was puzzled because their answers should have reflected this information.

I see a Sanders administration being challenged by their desire to put a progressive agenda in motion right away and the reality of the Presidency. There are no straight lines from the agenda proposed by a candidate and the actual agenda they can get done. I don't Sanders has done a good job of letting his supporters know how hard it is going to be to pass a progressive legislative agenda.

I don't think O'Malley is ready. He comes off as a whiner. I'm disappointed because initially I thought he would be my first choice but he criticized President Obama's leadership and that eliminated him from my consideration.

[restorefreedom]

116. thx for the detailed reply.

i actually think sanders knows he will face stiff opposition for a progressive agenda. i think he will work towards getting more progressives in the midterms and before that will fight like hell to get as much done as possible. he is also i believe going to reach out to some unlikely allies (moderate conservatives and rand paul types) to try and build bridges.

om has a great deal of executive experience but needs more exposure. hillary's most concerning feature is her history of war votes and comments over the years. she may know many people around the world, but if she thinks war is indicated, i doubt she would hesitate. thst worries me.

[artislife]

48. She lost. She was ahead at this stage of the game last time. nt

[NanceGreggs]

51. And she lost to Barack Obama.

And Bernie Sanders is NO Barack Obama.

[Scootaloo]

65. Again, what does that mean?

We all understand that Bernie Sanders is literally not Barack Obama - Just like Obama isn't Bernie sanders, and neither of them are Sam elliot, and none of these three men are a grapefruit.

You're obviously trying ot get at something else here, but your efforts to be evasive, vague, and insinuating are really hindering your communication of whatever idea that is. Please, enumerate.

[Depaysement]

80. It's code for . . .

. . . "Bernie ain't black and that's the main reason the President beat Hillary."

[Scootaloo]

91. Well, I didn't want to put words in Nance's mouth...

But... yeah, since she apparently can't actually say what the hell she means, it must be something she's not comfortable saying. GOd knows, she's not shy about trash-talk.

Either that, or an effort to make Obama's victory look like some sort of impossible outlier against the otherwise unbeatable clinton. Like no one else can do it.

[Hiraeth]

111. I do believe you have a point and you said it out loud. I heard you!

[daybranch]

66. Many of us are glad Bernie Sander is no Barack Obama,

We want someone more progressive. Obama's lukewarm support for stopping the Keystone Pipeline, his support of the TPP, his willingness to reduce social security payments for a budget deal, his lack of support for a public option, etc. have identified him as the moderate Rockefeller Republican he admits his policies emulate. But we progressives pushed him, knowing he was to the left of Hillary. We want our party to move left to match the views and needs of our people. To many of us, no matter , our color, our age or our sexual identity, Obama too much to the centrist and we long for a FDR democrat. Further we see the oligarchy strengthening its hold on our government through Citizens United, State Gerrymandering, and restriction of voter rights, so we believe it is time to act. We feel that since Hillary gets her money from the oligarchy and is unwilling to chastise them publicly, we do not trust her words and see her elitist streaks coming our in telling us she knows better about almost everything from only a $12 minimum wage to telling Elizabeth Warren we do not need to re institute Glass-Steagall and all the differences in her positions from the other democratic contenders seem to be more for benefit of the rich oligarchy. So we want a more progressive candidate for President and we need a more Progressive candidate for President than Barack Obama is and Hillary is to the right of Obama in our opinion.

[artislife]

68. She is no Barack Obama.

8 years later and more bad decisions accredited to her.

She has even less crossover appeal than before.

[Depaysement]

98. It's true

Especially second term. I fear a rollback of some of the President's policies is coming if Hillary wins and total destruction if the Crazy Party wins the Presidency and both houses of Congress.

[99Forever]

85. You're damn right Bernie Sanders is no Barack Obama.

Bernie doesn't make false campaigns promises just to game the electorate for votes.

Bernie Sanders IS what the Democratic Party stood for before it was stolen out from under us by Turd Way corporatists like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton.

So yes, thankfully Bernie Sanders is no Barack Obama.

We actual Democrats have had more than our fill of Trojan Horse DINOs already.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[onenote]

87. "We 'actual' Democrats"

I don't think you get to decide. And does that mean Sherrod Brown, John Lewis and dozens of others aren't "actual" Democrats?

Do you keep a list?

[PufPuf23]

100. Hillary Clinton is not remotely close to being Barack Obama and

that is considering that Obama turned out to be a disappointment on most issues except cultural identity issues.

Bernie Sanders the Senator and the candidate is closer to Barack Obama the candidate than Hillary Clinton as far as legislative history and proposed policy as POTUS.

Many of us are not interested in having Rahm or Debbie Wasserman Schultz or others close to Hillary Clinton near the WH and POTUS.

Why compound what most of us at DU think are mistakes by POTUS Obama?

Hillary Clinton would likely be right of POTUS Obama while most of DU would rather move left and away from neoliberal policies.

[Scootaloo]

29. Kim Davis, Dov Hikind, Zell Miller, David Duke, Joe Lieberman...

[JonLeibowitz]

34. If you've heard it too much you can always log out from and leave DU...

Your denial of his support for the ideals of the Democratic Party platform will not in any way affect others' speaking to the truth of that matter.

And to this Democratic primary voter, it is the issues, record, and character that matter. Not some silliness like party loyalty pledges.

[NanceGreggs]

37. And you can always leave DU as well. n/t

[99Forever]

86. Careful what you ask for.

You might already be getting it.

[Ken Burch]

42. It doesn't matter.

What matters is what the person stands for.

Nothing Bernie ever did hurt the Democratic Party, and in the late Seventies, Eighties, and Nineties, it would have been impossible for him to stand up for the people working inside our party. Look what was done to Jesse. Look what was done to Harkin. Look at how powerless and disregarded Paul Wellstone was. Look at how Chicago changed its mayoral election process to make sure there will never be another Harold Washington.

Why SHOULD Bernie have spend those years inside the party? If he had, it would have meant he have had to give up on everything.

Were you this sanctimonious about Heath Shuler, a former Reagan supporter, being imposed by Rahm as a Democratic congressional nominee over a progressive candidate who had only lost to the GOP by 15 votes in the previous election? Or is it only people who came to us from the left that you have a problem with?

Only people who don't care about the workers, the poor, and the powerless are making a issue about Bernie's party status. Real progressives, people who walk the walk on peace and justice issues, people who think politics is about making life different, know that it isn't an issue.

And if Bernie hadn't run, HRC would be running on Bill's '92 or '96 platform(she cheered for both at the time)so it's only thanks to him that we aren't once again a Wall Street party. Your candidate would have been perfectly content making our platform a centrist dead zone once again.

[ms liberty]

76. Well said. n/t

[Armstead]

82. And one reason for Bernie's reluictance is he DID work for Jackson for President

At that point he was still an avowed independent. But I'm guessing that seeing how irrelevant the Democratic Establishment treated Jackson made him even more skeptical of the partisan label.

And you make an excellent point of how progressives in the Democratic Party always tend to get neutered.

[bvf]

74. Purity tests are childish.

[Depaysement]

79. What hypocritical nonsense

Centrist Dems long touted the "big tent" as a reason to court and convert Republicans and moderate independents.

Since when has the Democratic Party had a litmus test for admission? Answer: never.

[Ken Burch]

38. He worked as an independent because, after 1978 or so, it was impossible to be a progressive

and work at any meaningful level in the Democratic Party.

Why SHOULD he have worked inside the party when, at the time, the party leaders would just have crushed him?

You're basically mad because Bernie didn't give up more than half of what he believed in the Sixties like your candidate did.

You'd rather have seen him neuter his principles like the Clintons did.

[NanceGreggs]

39. No.

I just have a problem with hypocrisy.

Read my sig-line.

[Scootaloo]

44. No you don't. Look at your avatar.

[Ken Burch]

45. It isn't hypocrisy. It's just the better strategy for change in this case.

That quote didn't mean Bernie had an obligation not to run this year.

Besides which, everything would be worse if he hadn't. Your candidate would never have said anything progressive about anything if she had been given a coronation. No one would be discussing poverty, and HRC would have dropped the anti-racism talk and started doing photo-ops with cops again(if she does that in the fall, can I assume you'll defend it? even though you can't pose with cops and still fight institutional racism?)

What matters is the principles, the cause, the dream. Not the damn party label.

[Live and Learn]

56. Ha, you have a problem with hypocrisy and you are voting for Clinton?

[NanceGreggs]

57. Clever comeback. Uh, yeah. n/t

[Live and Learn]

59. You made it easy. The absurdity of your statement was so glaring. nt

[Ed Suspicious]

81. Never say never.

[catnhatnh]

94. Thanks Nance...

...your signature line inspired me!

[2naSalit]

2. Too early

She's waiting until her endorsement will pack the biggest punch.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

14. You know it! ...

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. She is a smart politician with an agenda and does not

Want go make political enemies of some one she needs for important legislation.

[HereSince1628]

7. It's likely her 'agenda' will shape up to be consistent with backing the nominee.

The obstacles of her agenda are really republicans in Congress.

[oldandhappy]

4. Maybe OK to wait for nominees??!!

Eleven months to the election. We do not even have primaries in California until June 2016. Where is the fire?

[MADem]

5. She's going to bat clean-up for the Democrats, and get everyone in line.

If you're not convinced to vote for the nominee, you will be by the time she gets done with you...and you'll think it's your idea, too.

[Ken Burch]

46. You don't need to say that as if it goes without saying that the nominee will be YOUR candidate.

You're not entitled to be smug about that yet, and nothing good would come of HRC being nominated without a long, principled primary season.

2000 and 2004 prove that coronations cause defeat.

[MADem]

53. My confidence in the Clinton nomination is pretty secure.

I also think she'll win the White House.

Not sure why you interpret my confidence as "smugness." Look, that's YOUR issue. Candidate confidence is not a zero sum game. I should be able to be as confident and pleased as I like and if that makes you upset, that's possibly because you can't muster the same POV about your favored choice.

[Armstead]

83. No the Republicans will do thast....And that's not a minor difference

Those of us who will grudgingly support Clinton in the GE if Bernie loses will be doing it for ONE reason. To stave off the GOP.

Just as that has been the Democrats' only real selling point since the 90's.

And that's a really shitty basis for a political party.

[MADem]

113. Time will tell. I think you might be surprised. nt

[JI7]

6. because she is going to run for president herself ..............

as many had been saying

[bigwillq]

8. She's probably waiting until after the nominee is decided

and then she will endorse the DEM nominee

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. She prefers Sanders but is concerned about repercussions ....

... if she endorses him but Clinton is elected.

[NanceGreggs]

13. Well, that's it, of course!

She's terrified of that Clinton Payback Machine!!!

[Ken Burch]

47. Not an unreasonable fear.

Clearly, it accounts for any progressive Dems in Congress who have endorsed her. No other real reason for them to choose the more-conservative choice, more-militarist choice, after all.

[NanceGreggs]

50. So name them.

Name all who have endorsed HRC and cite the proof that they have been coerced into doing so.

Please include any and all evidence you have to support your claim.

Let's hear it, Ken.

[Ken Burch]

61. I didn't say they had been formally coerced

I said they feared retribution if they endorse someone else and she somehow wins anyway. It doesn't require someone officially threatening you to feel such fears.

[onenote]

88. Do you think this always is the case or just for Hillary?

[Ken Burch]

103. She didn't invent it. LBJ was the past master at it.

I'm not demonizing HRC as an individual here, just pointing out how political hardball works.

It's about the power of the party establishment to enforce what it wants, not any individual.

[rjsquirrel]

71. And you know that how? eom

[Smarmie Doofus]

78. Don't "know" it. OP invites speculation.

Did you read it?

[NCTraveler]

12. Endorsing now would only hurt her politically.

People take this shit serious. Warren has unanimous support among Clinton and Sanders supporters. Endorsing now is bound to piss some people off. She is politically savvy and is well aware of this aspect. Warren is also in the perfect position to help unify the party, even more so than it is now, when she endorses at the convention.

[JonLeibowitz]

19. You say that now, but if she had run many Clinton supporters would say she is devil incarnate

In fact I saw that happen back when it was unclear.

[NCTraveler]

21. Yes, I say that now. Nt

[MFrohike]

16. That she's not stupid

She'll endorse whoever wins the nomination. She's pretty clearly built a role for herself as a watchdog for financial regulation in the senate. She'll endorse, congratulate, and then rake the new president over the coals if he/she moves to weaken or fails to strengthen existing financial regulations. She's spent the last several years doing this with President Obama, so I see no reason she'd change her tune.

An early endorsement would prove troublesome for maintaining her independence AND effectiveness. Her endorsement would hardly be decisive and would likely bite her in the ass if she endorsed the loser. Given that, why bother?

[pipoman]

20. This isn't her first primary and she is prime VP material...

She would be an idiot to endorse anyone until she absolutely has to...

[Blue_Adept]

95. She's not going to be VP

Her agenda would suffer by taking that route compared to where she is now.

She'd also get crucified in her home state by many after the hard fought elections she's been through here. Frankly, us MA residents could use a couple of cycles where we don't have someone from the state seeking a higher office like that.

Additionally, it would not play well since you have both Sanders and Clinton out of the Northeast. Any VP candidate will come from either south or west.

[Eric J in MN]

99. I agree. Elizabeth Warren's popularity with the base

...will put her on the short-list for Clinton or Sanders as VP, provided Warren hasn't endorsed the other candidate.

That's regardless of regional considerations. Bill Clinton and Al Gore are both Southerners but Clinton chose Gore.

[peace13]

26. That she is a sensible human being!

And I love her for that!

[Proserpina]

28. Elizabeth Warren is her own person, and doesn't hitch herself to anyone

[Scootaloo]

31. It means she hasn't endorsed anyone for president yet.

But hten I try to avoid political astrology

[Thinkingabout]

62. James Clyburn says he does not publicly endorse until after the

Primary in his state. Also, I dont recall reading about any letter Warren signed to have Sanders run for president, she signed a letter for Hillary to run.

[vaberella]

67. She's waiting it out. She's a good Dem, she will support the Democrat front-runner after primaries.

n/t

[mmonk]

69. Let Warren be Warren.

[rjsquirrel]

70. That she's too smart

to get in the middle of a stupid food fight.

[firebrand80]

72. Trying to push Hillary left? nt

[peacebird]

84. Pushing Hillary left is a meaningless exercise. She just mouths watered down populist rhetoric

She would govern as a corporatist, third way warhawk - way right of her pretty words now. She will say anything to get the nomination.

[bowens43]

73. endorsements mean nothing to me......

[longship]

75. It means nothing whatsoever. nt

[Hiraeth]

107. I think she is waiting until it is needed the MOST. When it will have the most IMPACT.

Sometimes it is hard holding that card.

[underthematrix]

115. I think she understands politics.

Here's the challenge. HRC has been a Democrat since her undergraduate college days. She was First Lady of Ark to Dem Gov. She was First Lady to a Dem President. She was a Dem Senator from new york. She ran as a Dem presidential candidate in 2008. She was SoS to a Dem President for 4 years. Bernie registered as a Democrat in 2015 to run as Dem Presidential candidate. Before that he was registered as an independent and always caucused with the Dem. So what does Elizabeth Warren do? Does she support an essentially lifelong powerful Dem or does she support the other Dem candidate who has registered as a Democrat to use the Dem party machine to run a presidential campaign. How will her choice affect her committee assignments and her access to the Dem power coalition? What if she plans a run in 2020 or 2024? How will the party machine respond to whatever choice she makes. I don't think it's an easy decision.