HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Sirota: Warren not intere...

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:07 AM

Sirota: Warren not interested in ‘Hillary Clinton model’ of sitting down and shutting up \

Sirota: Warren not interested in ‘Hillary Clinton model’ of sitting down and shutting up

By Stephen C. Webster
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:55 EST

Appearing with “The Young Turks” host Cenk Uygur on Tuesday, author David Sirota critiqued Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) recent grilling of the nation’s top financial regulators, saying it’s the first evidence we’ve seen that Warren is showing no interest in “the Hillary Clinton model” of sitting down and shutting in hopes of earning the right to be taken seriously.

“What’s un-serious is the notion that a senator shouldn’t ask serious questions about the biggest financial meltdown in contemporary history,” he said.

“When it comes to Democratic senators, what you hear is, ‘Please follow the Hillary Clinton model,’ that’s what it’s basically called,” Sirota said. “Hillary Clinton came in and she had star power and she laid low and didn’t do very much. Same thing for Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate. The expectation, if not the mandate for liberal senators is, only can you be taken seriously if you follow this model that says essentially, sit down and shut up.”


“The encouraging thing about Elizabeth Warren is, I think she’s saying, ‘You know what, I’m not playing by those rules, I’m going to play by rules that says I’m here as a senator, I campaigned on things…’” he added. “ ‘I campaigned on themes. I made certain promises to voters about what I would stand up for, and the serious thing to do is to stand up for those things and to fulfill those pledges when I’m in office.”


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/20/sirota-warren-not-interested-in-hillary-clinton-model-of-sitting-down-and-shutting-up/

127 replies, 14109 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 127 replies Author Time Post
Reply Sirota: Warren not interested in ‘Hillary Clinton model’ of sitting down and shutting up \ (Original post)
kpete Feb 2013 OP
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #1
freedom fighter jh Feb 2013 #42
brush Feb 2013 #118
unblock Feb 2013 #2
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #10
unblock Feb 2013 #49
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #50
unblock Feb 2013 #51
KharmaTrain Feb 2013 #21
winter is coming Feb 2013 #46
blm Feb 2013 #3
monmouth3 Feb 2013 #5
Sunlei Feb 2013 #6
sabrina 1 Feb 2013 #9
Sunlei Feb 2013 #12
progressoid Feb 2013 #104
Sunlei Feb 2013 #113
calimary Feb 2013 #14
n2doc Feb 2013 #19
blm Feb 2013 #24
bvar22 Feb 2013 #36
frylock Feb 2013 #58
Skip Intro Feb 2013 #54
frylock Feb 2013 #59
AtomicKitten Feb 2013 #74
Skip Intro Feb 2013 #83
AtomicKitten Feb 2013 #84
Skip Intro Feb 2013 #85
tblue37 Feb 2013 #125
amandabeech Feb 2013 #127
joeybee12 Feb 2013 #43
sabrina 1 Feb 2013 #89
cali Feb 2013 #15
frylock Feb 2013 #61
roguevalley Feb 2013 #94
zentrum Feb 2013 #7
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #92
Evergreen Emerald Feb 2013 #112
blm Feb 2013 #114
Evergreen Emerald Feb 2013 #119
blm Feb 2013 #121
Evergreen Emerald Feb 2013 #122
blm Feb 2013 #123
antigop Feb 2013 #4
madokie Feb 2013 #8
wolfie001 Feb 2013 #11
Sunlei Feb 2013 #13
Cleita Feb 2013 #32
Sunlei Feb 2013 #34
Gorp Feb 2013 #71
Sunlei Feb 2013 #90
tavalon Feb 2013 #107
Gorp Feb 2013 #115
calimary Feb 2013 #16
wolfie001 Feb 2013 #20
Sunlei Feb 2013 #35
MADem Feb 2013 #38
Luminous Animal Feb 2013 #69
MADem Feb 2013 #70
msanthrope Feb 2013 #75
BainsBane Feb 2013 #77
appacom Feb 2013 #17
actslikeacarrot Feb 2013 #18
msongs Feb 2013 #23
actslikeacarrot Feb 2013 #87
Enrique Feb 2013 #78
NCTraveler Feb 2013 #22
blm Feb 2013 #26
NCTraveler Feb 2013 #27
blm Feb 2013 #29
antigop Feb 2013 #47
bvar22 Feb 2013 #37
MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #98
tavalon Feb 2013 #108
MADem Feb 2013 #30
Whisp Feb 2013 #39
NCTraveler Feb 2013 #40
treestar Feb 2013 #44
Demeter Feb 2013 #25
MADem Feb 2013 #28
treestar Feb 2013 #45
NCTraveler Feb 2013 #57
MADem Feb 2013 #60
NCTraveler Feb 2013 #63
MADem Feb 2013 #66
Cha Feb 2013 #65
MADem Feb 2013 #67
stevenleser Feb 2013 #73
MADem Feb 2013 #79
MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #91
stevenleser Feb 2013 #95
MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #96
stevenleser Feb 2013 #100
MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #102
tavalon Feb 2013 #109
stevenleser Feb 2013 #117
Cali_Democrat Feb 2013 #72
ecstatic Feb 2013 #76
ErikJ Feb 2013 #31
patrice Feb 2013 #101
tavalon Feb 2013 #110
Larkspur Feb 2013 #33
MADem Feb 2013 #41
Larkspur Feb 2013 #53
MADem Feb 2013 #64
Whisp Feb 2013 #56
MADem Feb 2013 #62
tavalon Feb 2013 #111
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #48
just1voice Feb 2013 #52
ecstatic Feb 2013 #80
graham4anything Feb 2013 #55
Babel_17 Feb 2013 #68
MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #97
JTFrog Feb 2013 #116
blm Feb 2013 #120
Enrique Feb 2013 #81
WillyT Feb 2013 #82
freshwest Feb 2013 #86
grantcart Feb 2013 #88
sheshe2 Feb 2013 #93
spooky3 Feb 2013 #99
Rowdyboy Feb 2013 #103
nikto Feb 2013 #105
tavalon Feb 2013 #106
tblue37 Feb 2013 #124
BWCC Feb 2013 #126

Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:09 AM

1. Why be a Senator at all, then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:15 PM

42. As a stepping stone on the road to the presidency nt

I understand that you question was rhetorical, but I think it does have an answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:11 AM

118. What's the reason for dissing Hillary?

Wonder what the agenda is with the Hillary bashing? Let the repugs fight among themselves. We certainly don't need to do it ourselves. And let Elizabeth Warren do her job the best way she sees fit, but bringing in Hillary's name and Obama's names seems like "dirty tricks mischief" to me, totally unnecessary and seemingly designed to stir up division. Elizabeth Warren could easily be praised for her job performance without the editorializing on Hillary. You might even say Hillary paved the way for her to get after the malfeasance of the banksters immediately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:17 AM

2. it's actually been a long tradition across the political spectrum to be quiet for the first year.

then again, al franken seemed to manage to make the news when he was finally sworn in....

no one seemed to have an issue with his "first year" behavior.
republicans whined about his politics, of course, but not about his first year behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:29 PM

10. Al Franken has maintained a very low

national profile since being sworn in. He is visible in his home state, but you rarely see him on national television. I think the advice is for those who may want a shot at the WH...

I am delighted Sen Warren has decided she has an actual job to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:31 PM

49. the standard is a low profile in the senate, not in the media.

franken has done things like actually chaired committee meetings, not the usual stuff of first-year senators.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #49)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:33 PM

50. Well he is smarter than most of them...

so I am very happy he is doing so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #50)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:35 PM

51. i'm certainly not complaining either ;)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:03 PM

21. ...and so far Senator Warren HAS followed that lead...

Unlike Grumps McQueeg and Little Linz who fall all over themselves to find the nearest camera or microphone, I haven't seen Senator Warren do that. Just like Senator Franken, she's refused teevee show appearances. I expect the only time we'll hear her will be in Senate hearings and speeches on the Senate floor. And that's fine with me...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KharmaTrain (Reply #21)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:35 PM

46. I'm not sure she's refused all interviews but she's certainly not grandstanding.

She seems to be waging war on the same issues she's be advocating for some time, and she's not just saying shit to get screen-time. I'm glad to see her asking the questions that a lot of "ordinary Americans" have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:22 AM

3. This is my beef with those who say Hillary was a great senator - she NEVER DID ANYTHING

and absolutely never stuck her neck out to oppose Bush publicly on any matter of significance. In fact, behind closed doors she and Schumer led the fight AGAINST Kennedy and Kerry's filibuster of Alito. She only supported the filibuster after activists flooded her office with angry calls.

I challenge her cheerleaders to name ONE instance of Hillary leading ANY significant opposition of Bush in the senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:17 PM

5. This would be a good OP on its own in GD....n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:19 PM

6. anyone who went vs bush in those days lost their careers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:23 PM

9. No they didn't actually. Too bad a career is more important than lives.

Hillary never had the support of those of us who remembered her vote on Bush's war resolution. And that in the end probably made the difference in her losing to Obama. I supported him because he opposed the Iraq War and never supported anyone who voted for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:36 PM

12. The republicans demonised Mrs. Clinton so much, thats why Obama rose to the top in primary.

In a way the republicans helped elect Pres. O

President Obama is a great President and did get us out of the Bush war. Mrs Clinton didn't object to that did she?

I think Mrs Clinton also would make a great president but she doesn't want to run. I do love Mrs. Warren, I wish all Senators would act like her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:53 AM

104. Actually, the agreement to leave Iraq was made before Obama became President



The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: "Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq") was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement


In fact the administration tried to extend our stay there.

The U.S. is abandoning plans to keep U.S. troops in Iraq past a year-end withdrawal deadline, The Associated Press has learned. The decision to pull out fully by January will effectively end more than eight years of U.S. involvement in the Iraq war, despite ongoing concerns about its security forces and the potential for instability.

The decision ends months of hand-wringing by U.S. officials over whether to stick to a Dec. 31 withdrawal deadline that was set in 2008 or negotiate a new security agreement to ensure that gains made and more than 4,400 American military lives lost since March 2003 do not go to waste.

In recent months, Washington has been discussing with Iraqi leaders the possibility of several thousand American troops remaining to continue training Iraqi security forces. A Pentagon spokesman said Saturday that no final decision has been reached about the U.S. training relationship with the Iraqi government.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #104)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:17 AM

113. yes, and so was the giant economic crash and the bank 'bailout' all started known by bush.

a trillion dollars to those banksters. by audit a trillion dollars 'missing'

Remember when Obama and McCain went to washingtondc before their election? McCain suspended his campaign, Obama did not. They sat around a table, with then President Bush and his Admin screaming 'blame' at each other over the incoming crash?

Obama was the voice of reason and McCain sat there like a deer caught in the headlights. President Bush ran out of the roon and never returned.

America is darn lucky we didn't end up with palin/mccain in the drivers seat. WE still may never recover from what bush, et all did to America.

I agree with what Simon Wiesenthal said about President Obama, (not exact quote) "you are Americas last hope"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:42 PM

14. I'd bet that had a LOT to do with Hillary's loss to Obama.

All other things being equal - that's what finally determined how I voted in the 2008 primary. She carried California. But I just couldn't do it - and for me the deal-breaker was that she fell for the bush/cheney lies and Barack Obama didn't. I realize clearly that he wasn't IN the Senate when it came time to vote on the war. But he'd maintained an opposition all along and for me, that counted a LOT.

What really bothered me was this: I have always been greatly impressed with Hillary Clinton's towering intellect, her brains, her brilliance, her ability to cut through many things. Brains are pretty big with me. I'm the one who liked Spock when everybody else was sighing over Captain Kirk. My husband's a nerd and a geek and an egghead. I'd take a Paul Krugman or a Neil deGrasse Tyson over some football player or hunky movie star - ANY day! Her intelligence is formidable as hell! In terms of sheer intellect, no one touches her. Yet with all that brainpower, she still allowed herself to be snowed. She was STILL taken in. And I'd have expected Hillary Clinton, of all people, to have seen through it and resisted. SURELY someone as smart as she is would have known or would have seen at least SOME of the information we all saw - that was more than enough to convince many many millions of us. She HAD to have seen or heard at least some of it. Or somebody on her staff had to have seen at least some of it, and brought it to her attention - or tried to. I mean, CRIMINY! If WE lay people and outsiders and non-pros could get that information and study it and analyze it and discuss it and vet it fully and conclude, correctly, that the case for war was an utter fraud, WHY COULDN'T SHE? That always bothered me a lot. It still does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:52 PM

19. The most reasonable thing to conclude is, she knew

She knew it was a fraud, but to maintain 'credibility' and not be labeled a far left wing kook, she went along. She went along with a lot of things. That does seem to be what is demanded of Democrats nowadays.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:27 PM

24. She wasn't snowed - she knew what Bill knew and he had access to classified docs that NO other

senator would have had on Iraq. Bill was fully supportive of Bush on Iraq and he urged Tony Blair and Dem lawmakers in Senate and house to support Bush fully, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:01 PM

36. When the Democratic Primary was down to two, I agonized over the two options.

There was so very little daylight between the two Centrists on Policy that it was a
tough choice.
I finally decided on Obama based on
Hillary's more Hawkish posture, and her support for Mandated Health Insurance.

.
.
.
.
The Joke was on me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #36)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:56 PM

58. clinton and obama were always at the bottom of my list..

I forget the website that has all the issues, and you vote for them and their weighted importance. Clinton and Obama were waaaay down at the bottom of the list of democrats I was likely to vote for. naturally, it came down to those two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:46 PM

54. Obama has said he didn't know how he would have voted on IWR

had he been in the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #54)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:57 PM

59. i think we all have a pretty good idea now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #54)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:56 PM

74. riiiiight (in his own words -->)

Check out what he said to that direct question posed to him, Senator-Elect, in 2004.

He said NO! The equivocation being peddled here is simply not factual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #74)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 05:43 PM

83. Yes, it is factual. He did say he didn't know how he would have voted on the IWR. Here:

I'm not peddling anything here other than facts.

Obama quote, re IWR:

"I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.'


One article reporting this:

-------------

The question comes up in part because he told The New York Times in a story published July 26, 2004 that "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.'

Today on CNN, Obama told Candy Crowley that was the only time he ever said anything like that -- and he did it to avoid putting down John Kerry and John Edwards, two senators who had voted to authorize the war and were about to become their party's presidential ticket.

"The only time when I said I'm not sure what I would do if I were in the Senate was right before the Democratic convention, when we had two nominees that obviously I did not want to be criticizing right before they got up and received the nomination," he said.

"But you didn't mean it?" Crowley asked.

"So -- well, no. What I'm suggesting is, everybody had difficult choices to make. And I -- and these were difficult choices. I made the right choice." Obama replied.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2007/10/166381/1#.USVPyjfNmSo

-------------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #83)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 06:07 PM

84. Nice try.

Perhaps you need to re-read the article you've supplied.

He explained his statement: "The only time when I said I'm not sure what I would do if I were in the Senate was right before the Democratic convention, when we had two nominees that obviously I did not want to be criticizing right before they got up and received the nomination," he said.

In that isolated incident, he was covering butts for the Democratic Party, clear as can be.

You can refer to the video I provided above where at approximately 1:08 Senator-Elect Obama is asked:

Q: "If you had been a member of the Senate, you would have voted against the resolution?"

A: "Yes."


It is clear what you are trying to do here, and I'll leave it up to others to decide just how lame your obfuscation is trying to muddy the waters as cover for you-know-who.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #84)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 06:22 PM

85. Wow. I mentioned he said something, and proved he said it. I'm not doing anything here

other than discussing politics on a political discussion board.

WHy everything has to be a drama-filled confrontation with some people here is beyond me.

It isn't my fault Obama said two different things about how he might have voted on the IWR.

But indeed he did, as I pointed out, quite fittingly given the context of the subthread.

However, if you feel you're determined to take a simple, and factual, statement by me and blow it up into some grand conspiracy, then by all means, knock yourself out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:31 PM

125. I don't believe for one second that she

didn't know better. She rolled over to protect her own ambitions. That is worse to me than being fooled, though being fooled would have been bad enough when the truth was so obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue37 (Reply #125)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:20 PM

127. I think that her basic instincts are really quite hawkish.

Sure, she probably thought that being hawkish helped her ambitions.

But I don't think that she had any problems with being hawkish to begin with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:28 PM

43. Ask the former senator from Missiour and the former Senator from Georgia

how truthful your ridiculous post is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #43)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:01 PM

89. How about I just remember the facts as they unfolded rather than contribute

to the ridiculous revisionism taking place that is fooling no one other than those who either were not following the facts at the time or want to believe they never happened.

They all knew the truth, half of the Democrats voted according to the facts, the other half caved. All of the Republicans of course did what was expected of them.

I am for facts not fairy tales, and I know those facts and will never forget them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:44 PM

15. ridiculous. Pat Leahy? Bernie? Ted?

lots of others

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:59 PM

61. DK until he was gerrymandered out of a job

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:31 PM

94. dying for a good cause is called integrity. silence in agreement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:21 PM

7. I second that. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:56 PM

92. Actually she did. She actively sold out her constituents to the cause of globalization,

 

she pretended ignorance/complicity in the "ginning up" of military adventurism, she worked tirelessly to "reform" bankruptcy in favor of Big Money over the little people. In short she worked to advance her own agenda regardless of the fact that it devastated the people that voted her into office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:55 AM

112. BS

She did many many things for her state as a Senator. She did not grandstand. She was not shouting from the rooftops.

But she was an excellent senator.

The premise, that unless you are on the propaganda machine (called the media) you are not "doing anything" is BS.

I am no cheerleader. And, I am not going to do your work for your.
Educate your damn self.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Evergreen Emerald (Reply #112)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:27 AM

114. In other words, you can't find any issue where Hillary led Dem opposition to Bush, either.

I know the historic record. Your 'damn self' is spitting into the wind because that's all ya got.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #114)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:51 PM

119. Bs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Evergreen Emerald (Reply #119)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:54 AM

121. Then please proceed. No one else has found it, maybe you'll be the lucky one.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #121)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:04 PM

122. A simple search of the internet will give you plenty--

If you really want the answers. If you would rather play games...you will play by yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Evergreen Emerald (Reply #122)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:13 PM

123. I've researched plenty and paid close attention to DC since the late 80s. You KNOW you can't

come up with one issue important to Dems in the senate where Hillary led opposition to Bush.

You can't so you lash out immaturely at those who say publicly what you don't want to acknowledge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:49 AM

4. K & R. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:22 PM

8. She will be a tremendous asset to our government

Senator Warren is fearless

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:34 PM

11. "I Feel Hillary's a Bit Too Aligned with Walmart, maybe in their pocket.....cont.

Last edited Wed Feb 20, 2013, 05:03 PM - Edit history (1)

.......because they both reside in or have roots in Arkansas." Maybe MaDam will give me a thumbs up for the cleaned up post. Apologies for the "B" word. Sorry, but she's in bed with Walmart and not "very into" the needs and wants of the little people.......Hopefully, she'll be prodded into the direction of Progressive ideals and values, but I'm not holding my breadth. That being said, way to go Sen. Warren!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wolfie001 (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:40 PM

13. walmart is Americas largest employer in America, we're all in bed with them.

Also the number one gun seller.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:50 PM

32. Speak for yourself.

I have managed to not patronize Wal-Mart since they forced themselves into my community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #32)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:55 PM

34. I don't use walmart either, I don't want cheal fall apart crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:51 PM

71. WalMart doesn't exist in my mind. They won't get a penny out of me.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gorp (Reply #71)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:49 PM

90. Wish people would have done that 15 years ago before walmart killed all the local small businesses

About the same time Romney was vulturing workers jobs, laying off Americans,killing the office supply small businesses. Investing in China, Iran and other terrorist grower countries.

Today Walmart is the largest employer in America and has to work with our Gov. politicans because they have a huge effect on unemployment. On the brightside President O, asks to raise the Federal minimum wage to 9.00 an hour. All the states will have to match that rate with their minimum wages. Be good for all the Americans who now work for 7.25 an hour and the extra spending would boost the economy. Of course, Republicans don't want that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #90)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:56 AM

107. Some did, but clearly not enough

I've been a night shifter for almost 20 years and in my early days I shopped at Walmart because they were the only gig open at 3am, but after some research, I did a gut check and realized that I couldn't, with a clear conscience, continue to patronize them. And I haven't ever since. I'll admit, though, that I've helped some non brick and mortar stores along as I rarely switch my schedule so my afternoon shopping happens at 3am, online.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #90)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:08 AM

115. Well, I may have been boycotting them for longer than 15 years, but certainly at least that.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wolfie001 (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:45 PM

16. Welcome to DU, wolfie001!

Glad you're here. I hope Hillary Clinton can fully see the light. I still have faith in her, even while deeply disappointed in her Iraq War vote. And she's lightyears better than the best the bad guys have to offer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:59 PM

20. Thanks calimary

I too share your hope in Hillary and I shouldn't come off so harsh but unlike the previous poster, I don't accept Walmart. I don't shop there and I will avoid them with all my strength. I reject their business model of wage-slavery and lack of Union access. I've been a lurker here for years and years and every now and then something gets my gizzard going and Sen. Warren is one of those somethings!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wolfie001 (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:00 PM

35. BS, it is a fact walmart is Americas number1 employer and #1 gun seller in America.

I don't accept the crappy pay the states won't raise or the republican union busting. Or buy cheap chinese made crap from the mega-store that killed off the backbone of America, the small local family run businesses.

One good thing is President Obama just asked for the Federal minimum wage to be raised to 9.00 an hour. When that happens the States will be forced to raise their minimum to 9.00 an hour for all Americans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wolfie001 (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:08 PM

38. Well, you shouldn't be calling Secretary Clinton the "B" word, then.

And if you knew anything about her, you'd know she had to fight those assholes at Walmart tooth and nail; that she took the job because she would have been the first woman on their board, that she worked hard to make them "greener" while she was active on that body, and that your characterization of her upthread is just horse shit.

Shame on you. If you've been lurking here so long, you should also know that the B word always brings out a crowd--unless that's your intent, you might want to get rid of the damn post, it's just stupid.

FWIW, Warren got plenty of help from Clinton's machine in her race--she wasn't getting advice from neophytes.

Too much "catfight comparison" happening here. I don't like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #38)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:20 PM

69. According to DU's community standards, the "b" word in okay now.

P.S. I don't like the catfight comparison, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #69)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:49 PM

70. Well, I am not about to test that hypothesis.

I didn't alert on the post, and I don't intend to, but I think the poster would do well to edit.

I will admit that I do find it astounding that language gets so much attention, but when real people like Warren and Clinton are denigrated in such an unseemly and blatantly sexist fashion, that there's substantially less fervor expressed. Any of those "alphabet" words or old school expression aren't the issue in the big picture--some guy trotting out a load of comparative garbage like has been done here, without a single "b" "c" or "p" word, too-- that's the real sexism.

It bothers me that so few are disturbed by it, relatively speaking, and so many are eager to pile on Clinton, because she's not "as good as" Warren (who, many would be shocked to learn, is a former Republican, too, just like HRC--only she was one more recently).

Warren voted as a Republican for many years saying, "I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets." However, she states that in 1995 she began to vote Democratic because she no longer believed that to be true. However, she says that she has voted for both parties because she believed that neither party should dominate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren


I hope EW doesn't do anything to disappoint the purists, where will they go, then? It's only a matter of time that she will, I suspect--she understands cooperation and compromise, and those don't sit well in some corners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wolfie001 (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:58 PM

75. Please edit the sexist term in your post. Welcome to DU--I note that you are using a sexist term

against a Democratic woman, and invoking the term 'Progressive.'

How 'progressive' is it to use sexist language? I don't know ANY progressives on this board that tolerate that term.

There's another term...it's called 'ratfucking.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wolfie001 (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 05:01 PM

77. Your sexist insults are not acceptable

at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:47 PM

17. No need for the invidious comparison between Clinton and Warren

Admiring Warren does not preclude admiring Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:51 PM

18. i dont understand why....

...praising a woman has to include tearing down another woman?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to actslikeacarrot (Reply #18)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:18 PM

23. it's called comparing and contrasting, don't see any "woman" issue in the OP as written nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #23)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 06:36 PM

87. I reread it. Still dont understand...

...why we need to compare two democrats like this, but I admit I could be reading more into it than there is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to actslikeacarrot (Reply #18)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 05:05 PM

78. because Hillary is a good example for what Sirota is talking about

he lists Obama, who is male, as a secondary example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:12 PM

22. In or out of the Senate Hillary was not one to sit down and shut up.

She made some mistakes along the way, but being quiet was not one of them. At any point in her life.



“When it comes to Democratic senators, what you hear is, ‘Please follow the Hillary Clinton model,’ that’s what it’s basically called,” Sirota said. “Hillary Clinton came in and she had star power and she laid low and didn’t do very much. Same thing for Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate. The expectation, if not the mandate for liberal senators is, only can you be taken seriously if you follow this model that says essentially, sit down and shut up.”

This quote is attributed to Sirota. No one else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:31 PM

26. Then please recall for us the many important issues she led opposition to Bush in senate.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #26)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:43 PM

27. I am not interested in your game.

It goes from she did nothing, to where is her opposition to the shrub. You can search for yourself.

She is a role model for young women all over the planet for her lifes work. I understand what CDS and nothing will convince you that she is anything but pure evil. Therefore my time will not be wasted.

Keep fighting for a mans comments, which are in no way backed up by facts in the article, on how he likes his women to behave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #27)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:46 PM

29. Not a game. If she led on any issue while in the senate, then share it with us.

If she did not then her camp needs to stop claiming an accomplished senate career and leadership that she did NOT pursue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #29)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:19 PM

47. How about outsourcing of jobs and increasing h1-b visas--selling out US workers?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702780.html

When Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton flew to New Delhi to meet with Indian business leaders in 2005, she offered a blunt assessment of the loss of American jobs across the Pacific. "There is no way to legislate against reality," she declared. "Outsourcing will continue. . . . We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences."
...
But the Clinton camp has been pressed by labor leaders on her support for expanding temporary U.S. work visas that often go to Indians who get jobs in the United States, and it has been queried about the help she gave a major Indian company to gain a foothold in New York state. That company now outsources most of its work to India.


Hillary Clinton reaffirms support for more H-1B visas


She never did explain, exactly, what engineers and IT people are supposed to train for after their jobs get shipped overseas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #26)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:06 PM

37. Hillary lead the charge against Violence in Video Games!

There was something else she did too, but I can't remember what it was.


Both Obama and Hillary were already running for President when they took the Oath of Office for their Senate seats,
and worked very hard to avoid anything controversial that could influence Campaign 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #37)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:50 PM

98. Introducing a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag burning?

Could that be the courageous act of valor you're trying to remember?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #98)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:00 AM

108. Oh, damn, don't remind me of that!

I think HRC is a great politician, but she is still a politician.

Politics = poly tics = many blood sucking insects

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:46 PM

30. Sirota is an ignorant asshole--as I suggested downthread.

I figured I might as well come right out and say it!

With sexist "friends" like that, who needs enemies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:10 PM

39. is this where she calls Bill's 'women friends ''trash''? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #39)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:13 PM

40. Sure. Why not. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:30 PM

44. +1 Where are they getting that idea?

And why are they pitting these two against each other?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:27 PM

25. Clue to the conventional...Not Many Women Are

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:44 PM

28. WTF? Because all women have to conduct themselves in the Exact Same Way?

Fuck that shit.

Why isn't John McCain more like Mitch McConnell? After all, they're both GOP men!

What a load of garbage--Warren brings a very specific skillset to the Senate, that's why she isn't sitting down and shutting up. Her skillset requires that she speak out.

HRC, OTOH, was a supreme behind-the-scenes negotiator, one who earned the hard-earned respect of Robert Byrd, who was not easy to please.

Just because you couldn't see the strings doesn't mean they weren't being pulled.

I find this guy Sirota's stated assumption--that all women in the Senate have to "act" the same way--offensive. Why reinforce a bullshit stereotype? Repeat a lie enough, and all that...

And just because he didn't see it, it didn't happen. Please. He's setting up a fake catfight between "feisty" Elizabeth and "Do-nothing" Hillary--and even some Democrats waste no time in agreeing with this phony divide-and-conquer. Fuck him. Both of them have more value in one of their moldy discarded toenail clippings than any Republican senator has in their entire body, so enough with the horse shit comparisons.

Awful lot of "doing" here for a "do nothing" IMO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

This entire comparison is a load of bull. Stupid, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #28)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:32 PM

45. +1 Great Post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #28)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:54 PM

57. He attempts to attribute his thoughts to others without actually doing so.

It is garbage. He literally pulled shit out of his head, then tried to make it look like it is how peoples personalities are formed in the Senate, therefore backing up his bs meme. No where are his thoughts here attributed to any Senator.

I love men who have a very strong opinion with respect to their approval of the appropriate behavior for women. It would make me swoon if he would tell me I bahave like a good girl.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #57)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:58 PM

60. Yes, exactly--he's an asshole. A stealth sexist! No doubt, no question, and no argument from me!

Funny how I see so little griping about this kind of shit, when this is the REAL sexism--not inappropriate use of naughty words.

THIS is the kind of shit that needs to be railed against, loudly and often. It's just not acceptable or appropriate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #60)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:00 PM

63. I am somewhat stunned to see the response this is getting.

The thought behind the quotes seem like they are from a simpleton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #63)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:05 PM

66. It's amazing what you can learn about people from some threads.

I think some of these threads serve as unintentional flypaper.

Or a litmus test....where we see true colors shining through...!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #60)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:03 PM

65. I agree with you about David Sirota

I appreicate what Elizabeth Warren is doing but I don't appreciate him stirring up shit. Elizabeth is part of a Team who is supportive of President Obama and Hillary Clinton. He does no good by setting people off against each other who are on the same Team.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #65)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:06 PM

67. +1,000 -- love the pics, too! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #60)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:56 PM

73. The anti-Hillary, pro-Warren in 2016 folks will say anything to attack Hillary. This is only the

beginning.

Part of the difference is that Hillary was the junior senator from her state and the senior senator was and is a very prominent statesman who had a lot of experience. Warren by chance finds herself the senior senator from Massachusetts. That is a very different circumstance beyond the obvious points that the two women have different ways of being senators, just like the dozens of men who find themselves in the senate have different styles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #73)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 05:06 PM

79. Don't remind the purists the Warren was a Republican while Bill Clinton was in the WH.

That will totally harsh their mellow.

In fact, if you look at the two objectively, Warren is at LEAST as likely to "compromise" as HRC--maybe even more so, based on her comments.

People don't really know her at all. They like her on ONE issue, and because of that, they think she's "like them" on all things.

I would wager that Warren is closer to Clinton on most issues than she is to some here on DU. It's one of the reasons why I like her, actually.

I'm still pretty disgusted that so few took note of the deliberate "divide and conquer" tactic expressed in the OP, the blatant sexism, and instead used the OP as an opportunity to pile on HRC. It's tiresome and also revelatory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #73)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:52 PM

91. Anything. Anything at all.

One lying sumbitch told me that Clinton voted for the Iraq War.

Imagine!

Superficially yours,

Manny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #91)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:43 PM

95. So who are you going to run who was in the congress and voted "no"

queue the jeopardy music...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #95)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:47 PM

96. Why not ask who I'd run who visited Pluto in a rocket powered by aardvark sweat?

Are we suddenly limited to candidates who were in Congress when the IWR was introduced?

Superficially yours,

Manny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #96)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:27 PM

100. I'm just giving you an opportunity not to post superficially for a change.

There are a lot of congressmen who voted No. If thats a big deal, you could just toss out a name.

Or you could keep superficially attacking Hillary Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #100)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:19 AM

102. So you're OK with folks voting for the IWR?

Last edited Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:51 AM - Edit history (1)

Let's just say that we disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #73)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:10 AM

109. Before Obama, I would have said 2016

is too early to be talking about Warren for President. The day I saw Obama give his speech nominating Bill Clinton, I told my husband, that man will be President one day, not realizing it would be so soon.

I think it's almost a foregone conclusion that a woman, hopefully a Democrat, will be elected in 2016. If HRC runs (she says now she isn't. I'm hoping some rest will change her mind) in 2016, she will be the Democratic nominee and I think she's won enough respect through the years that she will win. I wouldn't want another strong female candidate running in the primaries with her. Sure Senator Warren has a chance in the future, but I think it will be HRC who shatters that glass ceiling, at least I hope it is.

I know that HRC is nowhere near as liberal as I like but then few ever are. She's highly competent and very intelligent, something that is imperative and yet, occasionally not followed, in the President's office. I wish they had a sign that said, "Actors and idiot sons need not apply", just outside the Oval Office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #109)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:39 AM

117. Well said, I like Elizabeth Warren, and I think she might be a good Pres candidate one day.

But she will not be anywhere near as competent and experienced as Hillary Clinton on January 21st 2017. There will be no comparison between the two in that regard.

There was a comparison between Hillary and Obama in 2008, they both were very lightly experienced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #28)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:56 PM

72. You're right. It reminds me of sports comparisons which are almost always racist

Dirk Nowitzski is always compared to Larry Bird.

Kobe/LeBron are always compared to Jordan.

Steve Nash is always compared to John Stockton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #28)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 05:01 PM

76. +1000 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:50 PM

31. Warren 2016

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #31)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:35 PM

101. Count me as a leaner. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #31)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:12 AM

110. I think it's too early

That said, if HRC isn't in the primaries and Elizabeth Warren is, I know where my money, my time and my vote will be going.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:53 PM

33. The big diff between H.Clinton and E. Warren is that that latter is an...

expert in finance and banking. Clinton was primarily a celebrity, granted one with a lot of knowledge, and the junior senator from NY. And Warren is now THE Senior Senator from MA. Shumer was and still is the senior senator from NY.

I'm glad Warren asked the regulators the tough questions. She IS representing her constituents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larkspur (Reply #33)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:13 PM

41. Yeah, because "celebrities" graduate first in their Wellesley class....please.

Celebrities go to one of the toughest law schools in the land.

Celebrities become one of the most successful Secretaries of State the nation has ever seen.

You should be ashamed of yourself. It's not a contest, but you have certainly won the prize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #41)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:45 PM

53. Congress is full of lawyers from Harvard and Yale. Clinton was 1 among many in that regard

Her celebrity came form her being First Lady prior to running for the Senate.

Warren's diff in that her expertise is in finance and banking AND she ran on a platform to hold the banksters accountable.
She is also the senior senator from her state. Clinton was always the junior senator from her state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larkspur (Reply #53)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:03 PM

64. You surely are NOT that obtuse. The only reason EW is the senior senator from MY state

is because John Kerry resigned to take Hillary's job.

You don't get "seniority" by taking a test, you know. Or being somehow "better."

It's the luck of the draw. If the person in front of you leaves, you move up.

Ted Kennedy had to die before John Kerry got to spend a brief moment as the Senior Senator.

And being the "senior" doesn't mean one gets to "boss around" the junior. I'm thinking you're unclear in that regard, too, based on your comments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #41)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:52 PM

56. She and Petraeus were not so successful in arming Syrians.

 

That was one that didn't work, can you name one success story that was as large as this one is?

I keep hearing how great she is, but I have never seen 'teh list'. She logged in the most airmiles. Ah huh. She is the most tired SoS. hmmm.

Anything else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #56)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:59 PM

62. You have google--go on and use it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larkspur (Reply #33)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:13 AM

111. Celebrity did come to HRC but she is extremely intelligent and capable

And her gender has nothing to do with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:29 PM

48. Unfortunately, she didn't shut up when voting for, and backing, Bush's wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:42 PM

52. Or the Obama model of "look ahead and forget about war criminals"?

 

Warren isn't going to forget about anything criminal, she takes her job seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to just1voice (Reply #52)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 05:07 PM

80. Uh.. that's not his model. He can only deliver

what people have asked for and demanded, and what people have asked for is healthcare, jobs, a better economy, and immigration reform. When people get serious about bringing Bush to justice, that might happen one day as well.

I would love to see the war criminals dealt with--but the reality is that we'd be looking at President Romney and VP Ryan right now if President Obama had dedicated his entire first term to the impossible task of prosecuting Bush while the economy tanked. So basically, not only would Bush &Co still be free, but we'd be ramping up towards the next illegal war in Iran (and possibly even Russia!).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:46 PM

55. This alt-media writer Sirota got it all backwards. the comparison is a lie.

 

As I stated in a posted thread the other day,

Hillary and Al Franken both once seated did their job.

They did not run to the mics and give interviews and soundbytes.

They did their job.

Elizabeth is copying Hillary and Al.
They all did their jobs.

That the media is covering it is not the same as running to the media outside of the job like the republican ones do, arguing the case to the media and not inside the chambers itself.

So Superstar Sirota is all wrong.

But then Superstar Sirota makes a fortune writing his scorched earth op-eds. After all, he wouldn't make a penny if he didn't do what he does, and he lives quite nicely. Wish I had his assets and was paid what he does to write an opinion piece.(and Sirota is a celebrity and got a fan club).

The main thing wrong with society today is these talking head type blathering all the time.

Let the people do the work and those like Warren, Franken, Hillary do not need any spin at all.

Those like the republicans need spin and lies.

imho.(and unlike Sirota, dang, i don't paid big money to say it).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:15 PM

68. HRC was the Junior Democratic Senator of my state

Emphasis on Junior. It's expected that a Junior Democratic Senator will check their ego at the door and follow the lead of the Senior Democratic Senator.

Especially when that Senator is as powerful and experienced as Chuck Schumer.

Feel free, anyone, to correct me if I'm wrong but IIRC Schumer valued, relied on for support, and praised HRC.

These are just the facts. I too have lots of issues with HRC and Bill Clinton though I've voted for both and financially donated to HRC.

Everyone in the party knew 2008 was going to be a brutal race for President and most accepted that HRC would need to be bullet proof in regards Defense and the Iraq War.

And yes she voted for The Iraq War Resolution but, really, has all nuance disappeared in regards that.

It wasn't a declaration of war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution



Even experienced politicians were ill prepared with just how far Cheney and friends would go to lie us into war. I admit that HRC should have thought the worst of that crew.

Furtermore, imo, HRC and President Obama are both too friendly to corporations and the status quo.

Senator Warren is more my speed but that takes nothing away from my respect for HRC for standing up to the unending and brutal attacks from a demented right wing.

She is a tough cookie and I was proud to support her.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Babel_17 (Reply #68)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:48 PM

97. Schumer, the Senator from Wall Street? I'm sure that it just tore Clinton up to

follow his lead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Babel_17 (Reply #68)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:24 AM

116. Actually she interrupted Sen. Byrd's anti-war speech in order to lay out the blueprint

for going to war based on the same reasoning her husband used to go to war.

I'm not gonna list all my issues with Hillary, as I really appreciate the job she has done as SOS, but I don't like seeing folks trying to rewrite history either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Babel_17 (Reply #68)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 08:31 AM

120. Kerry was vilified since early 70s and still exposed IranContra, BCCI and S&Ls his first term

in the senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 05:07 PM

81. I remember the pundits lauding Hillary for this

even some Republicans, "hey she's not so bad, she's actually playing ball!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 05:15 PM

82. K & R !!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 06:28 PM

86. Rushbo hates Hillary, Warren, Michelle and Fluke. Sometimes we learn more from enemies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 06:37 PM

88. I like the Elizabeth Warren model just fine.



But the idea that Hillary didn't accomplish a lot is not true.

In my industry (insurance) than any other recent Senator bringing in needed reforms. Among other things she exposed and ended widespread insurance scams that were aimed at members of the military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:13 PM

93. First and foremost. We did not vote for Senator Warren,

so that she could play the role of a wallflower. We voted for her to be our voice in the Senate. She is doing this, beautifully IMHO! Warren will do this with grace and Righteous Anger.

It is time for a change in Washington, and I do believe that we are seeing the beginnings. Sirota states
“When it comes to Democratic senators, what you hear is, ‘Please follow the Hillary Clinton model,’ that’s what it’s basically called,”


Who are all these Dem Senators that are voicing this opinion? I think Sirota is stirring the pot, trying to cause a riff. IMHO, it is the GOP Senators that are voicing this, because they surely want to shut up our newest Senator from MA. She is their own worst enemy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:26 PM

99. I wish Sirota had not chosen to make a sexist comparison between Warren and Clinton.

There are plenty of Democratic Senators who are male. Can't Sirota find one (other than an African American) who "sat down and shut up", to use as his example? Why would he have assumed that Warren would follow any other woman's method of operation rather than a man's method, given that there are plenty more of them to choose from?

He's also ignoring another angle, which is that women and minorities who are the pioneers are often put in an impossible position of not being too threatening--and having to shut up even more than their white male counterparts in order to succeed. Warren is fortunate not to be the first at what she is doing. All credit to her and I hope she continues what she has started. But I'm not going to put down others who faced even more challenges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:24 AM

103. Jeez. I love Hillary and Elizabeth. Actually I love all strong liberal/left women including Tammy,

and Barbara (Mikulski and Boxer) and Nancy and Michelle and Jill and Elena and Sonia and all the rest of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:55 AM

105. She's gotta' keep it up

If she does, she will receive support from many, many places.

I gave $ to her campaign. And Grayson too.

Good people in politics should be reinforced. It is all good citizens' duty to support them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:24 AM

106. I didn't realize I knew about that rule

I suspected that Elizabeth Warren would sit down and shut up and I was sad, because she has such a vibrant, important voice. I've been pleased and surprised to see that she declined the invitation. I love her honesty and am thrilled that the hallowed halls couldn't shut her up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:25 PM

124. New Republican senators--Cruz, for example--

feel no compunction about coming on strong, so our guys shouldn't either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:41 PM

126. Warren is a different animal...

 

She rode in on a wave of enthusiasm and hatred of Wall St. Obama has done nothing but make the Big Banks much stronger and more wealthy.

And of course it's fun to make a comparison. I'll be honest and I know I'm not the only one, if Warren was in the primary, I would have a tough time getting behind Hillary..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread