HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why do people think Eliza...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:18 AM

 

Why do people think Elizabeth Warren's views are much/any different than Hillary's?

and why do people seem to think she is not on the same page or team as President Clinton and Hillary Clinton and all the other Democratic people?(including Ted Kennedy's ideas
and Jimmy Carter and Deval Patrick and Joe Biden?)

And what makes people think Elizabeth wouldn't work with Hillary?

Nothing I have seen indicates any vast divide whatsoever.

All working for the same goal, and I don't see any biting the hand that feeds them syndrome.

As Elizabeth Warren has often said EVERYTHING is on the table, regarding Iran,
I find it hard to believe that had it come to having to vote on Afghanastan or Iraq, the vote would have been much different from either President Obama or Hillary.

36 replies, 1750 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 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why do people think Elizabeth Warren's views are much/any different than Hillary's? (Original post)
graham4anything Feb 2013 OP
TheDebbieDee Feb 2013 #1
graham4anything Feb 2013 #2
leveymg Feb 2013 #5
graham4anything Feb 2013 #12
leveymg Feb 2013 #14
graham4anything Feb 2013 #15
leveymg Feb 2013 #22
graham4anything Feb 2013 #24
leveymg Feb 2013 #27
Beacool Feb 2013 #30
DURHAM D Feb 2013 #3
blm Feb 2013 #28
Beacool Feb 2013 #29
AtomicKitten Feb 2013 #33
bluedigger Feb 2013 #4
graham4anything Feb 2013 #8
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #19
graham4anything Feb 2013 #21
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #6
Recursion Feb 2013 #7
graham4anything Feb 2013 #10
MadHound Feb 2013 #9
graham4anything Feb 2013 #11
Jennicut Feb 2013 #23
Freddie Stubbs Feb 2013 #13
WilliamPitt Feb 2013 #16
SoCalDem Feb 2013 #17
graham4anything Feb 2013 #18
reformist2 Feb 2013 #20
graham4anything Feb 2013 #26
Kevski Feb 2013 #25
Nye Bevan Feb 2013 #31
NCTraveler Feb 2013 #32
Beacool Feb 2013 #34
stlsaxman Feb 2013 #35
Taverner Feb 2013 #36

Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:26 AM

1. Huh? Regarding Iraq, Hillary voted for the invasion.

President Obama, who was a state senator in Illinois at the time, let it be known that he was against the invasion of Iraq.
Hillary's vote on the Iraq invasion was one of the major reasons that many Dems refused to consider voting for her in the primaries in 2008.

Although that vote didn't make any difference to me - I was for Hillary all along until she was mathematically eliminated for the nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDebbieDee (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:30 AM

2. I never said the two views were the same on Iraq. I know the difference.

 

I would think Warren would have had the same view as Hillary's, but I put Iraq in the above, so this thread doesn't get bogged down in Iraq, which is really a long ago forgotten issue anyhow come 2016.

I started this thread, because I don't see any key differences, and if you then look at the total record, Hillary is by far above any other candidate in 2016. No one is even close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:07 AM

5. You're in denial about Hillary's long legacy as a lead advocate of regime change. Warren doesn't

have that track record and, frankly, Hillary's neocon leanings disqualify her from higher office for many Democrats.

What evidence do you present that Elizabeth Warren has hawkish, neocon leanings?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:43 AM

12. You have no evidence of the reverse.

 

In that other thread, which was very telling, because I had no idea,
Warren voted for Reagan and 41.(and I didn't post that someone else whom I almost never agree with did).

That being the case, there is nothing to indicate one would not have voted for Iraq.

And as for the neo-con remark, it is just a name byte, but has no prior/post context.

as 41 was the consumate neo-con and if one voted for 41, well

I don't believe one can say in any shape or form that Hillary voted for Reagan or Bush now did she?
So it is very disingenious to say otherwise.

I don't Elizabeth's prior party/vote against her, as I am a Charlie Crist fan,(though he is not running or thinking of higher office) but railing on Hillary doesn't make sense in light of those revelations earlier today about Warren.

President Obama might be to the left of each of them, but as a whole, all three are on the same page 99% of the time. Hillary though has far greater experience, and she knows how to defeat the bush family, being that is what happened in 1992. Quite well at that.

And it wasn't the Clinton's that led to Bush. That would be Ralph Nader's fault, or the fault
of not using the Clinton's in 2000 where 4 other states could have been one.

After all, only thing that matters is 270. Everything else is just small stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:06 AM

14. Actually, Warren condemned the Iraq War.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/07/sen_scott_brown_and_elizabeth_13.html
Sen. Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren mark positions on Afghanistan, China and other foreign policies
Published: Sunday, July 08, 2012

The two also struck different chords when asked if the War in Iraq was worthwhile or a mistake.

While she praised the courage and fortitude of troops in Iraq, Warren, 63, said people need to learn a larger lesson from the war.

"We should exhaust all other options before going to war, and we must never again put wars on a credit card for our grandchildren to pay for," Warren wrote. "If war is unavoidable and in our national interest, then we should be willing to pay for it as we fight it."

Brown said that Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi president, was a "murderous dictator" who had to be stopped.

"It was the American forces that captured Saddam and gave the Iraqi people the chance to chart their own destiny, voting in free and fair elections for the first time," Brown wrote. "While each country is a unique case, I also believe that seeing Iraqis vote and get a taste of democracy has had a positive ripple effect across the region."

On the issue of Iran, Warren said a nuclear Iran would be a threat to the world.

"I support economic sanctions in conjunction with other countries that have placed political pressure on Iran, as well as vigorous diplomacy to try to resolve the situation through negotiations," Warren wrote. "Like the president, I believe the United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon -- but also that careless talk of rushing to war is unhelpful."


As for Warren's 41 vote, Hillary was chair of the Wellesley Young Republicans and attended the '68 GOP Convention. I guess we've all made our mistakes. Forgive and forget, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:18 AM

15. see

 

I am not trying to tear down Warren, whom I like as Senator and wish her to be senator, health permitting for 3 to 4 terms, 18 to 24 years.

the old 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon is so boring.
Some people actually hate the great Zbig B.(Jimmy Carter's admin.) because of some antiquidated link.

very silly.

Lots of people attended the democratic convention in 1968 and some sure didn't have the long range democratic interests at heart, being that the great LBJ was sold down the river earlier and an inferior candidate running on the baggage and without the advantages was nominated, and it directly led to a major loss.

the 1960s were like so yesterday, and totally irrelvant in 2013 anyhow.By 2016, it will be 50 years ago.

So vis a vis indeed, both are one and the same, Hillary and Warren.

and note in the above speech, she said war is a go after other avenues are exhausted.

but again vis a vis they are one and the same except for some small stuff, but Hillary has far vast experience and resume. Thankfully both are on Team Obama to coin a phrase. Which is my point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #15)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:56 AM

22. Ok. We can agree on some of this. But, foreign policy record matters, anyway. A lot.

But, my larger point is I still foresee that Hillary will run up against much greater opposition with the party, and the electorate, than you seem to anticipate. We can disagree about that.

I agree that she's probably the leading Democratic candidate at this point, but so she was in 2005, as well.

BTW: Aside from Vietnam, I thought LBJ was overall a very good President and conscientious. I also know that his mistakes agonized him, as they did Mac and most of the rest. They all thought they and America were omnipotent, and the contrary reality hit them very hard. This photo says it all for me:



And, he seemed to enjoy life a lot more, later, when he let his hair grow out.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:03 AM

24. John V. Lindsay was one of the greatest liberals of all time. True populist.

 

He ran for the democratic nomination in 1972, receiving MORE votes than McGovern did in the primaries he ran in before stopping the run.

HIllary in her Wellesley years was a major supporter of JVL who also was the #1 union
supporter ever in public office.

So I don't consider that a mistake.

Mayor John Lindsay was the singular best mayor of NYC ever.
(though of course he had haters, every great person does. And its because of the haters that makes it hard for any democratic person to take such a major pro-union stance, being that JVL was vilified for decades afterwards, though his reputation has recovered.

One thing is for sure- NYC was the only major city not to burn in the race riots and that was singularly becuase of JVL being so popular

again, the six degrees of separation is something I do not subscribe to.

It leaves out all nuance, and nuance is what sets people apart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #24)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:40 AM

27. John Lindsay and Jacob Javits wouldn't recognize today's GOP, which has become Wallace Democrats

Last edited Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:55 PM - Edit history (1)

LBJ predicted as much himself when he said just before the Voting Rights Act was passed that the South would go GOP for half a century and the Democrats would spend the next 50 years trying to woo them back. He was very right, but did it anyway. History regards him highly for that act of principle over partisan expedience.

On cil rights and progressive policy, I heartily agree about Lindsay, as well, except that parts of the South Bronx and some of Harlem burned toward the end of Lindsay's tenure. In the mid-'70s I was invited by a co-worker who lived in the South Bronx, and that neighborhood was still like Dresden. There was only one apartment house still standing and inhabited on that block.

Lindsay, Javits, like Connecticut Senator Lowell Weicker were lonely survivors of the Party of Lincoln, within which still walks the brain dead Party of Ronald Reagan and the zombie Strom Thurman-George Wallace Dixiecrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:20 PM

30. Warren had zero political record before she ran for the Senate.

So what track record could she have?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDebbieDee (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:47 AM

3. Hillary did not vote for "the invasion".

Watch her senate speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:43 AM

28. When Bush decided to invade she supported his decision over weapon inspectors who reported

that military force was not needed. She could have chosen to side with Kerry who also voted for the IWR, but, sided with weapon inspectors' findings and spoke out publicly against use of military force.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDebbieDee (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:19 PM

29. Obama gave a speech about it, didn't do much more.

In 2004 Tim Russert interviewed him. Obama admitted that he didn't really know how he would have voted had he been in the Senate at the time. Talk is cheap, voting one's conscience is hard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #29)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:43 PM

33. There's that old chestnut again.

He said that ONE TIME and explains why: He was butt-covering for the Democratic Party's complicity in the invasion of Iraq.

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.


He has otherwise been consistent all along. At approximately 1:18 in this video he was asked straightup in 2004 as Senator-Elect if would have voted against the IWR:

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

A: "Yes."




Peddling this as anything else is an attempt to provide cover for someone who was eager to jump on the war bandwagon and to this day does not regret that vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:54 AM

4. Why do people fabricate strawman arguments in GD?

Could it be to create divisiveness where none previously existed?

Nothing I have seen indicates any favoritism of one over the other here at DU, although some do prefer one to the other for various legitimate reasons.

But let's argue about it even if it has no bearing on any current events anyways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:29 AM

8. Actually, the opposite

 

some here think Elizabeth should give up her current job to run for President.

Where HIllary is so much more able to win and qualified.

The two are on the same side.

So how is it divisive, when in actuality, the two are amazingly alike.
(give or take a wedge issue, but 99% the same)

Personally, I do wonder who would take the job Warren now has and that has never been answered.

(and Iraq is no concern to me, that is yesterday's news.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:45 AM

19. Of course neither Clinton nor Obama 'gave up their current job' to run for President. Both remained

in the Senate and never gave up the seat until the next job was theirs. So I highly doubt that anyone supporting a Warren run for the nomination is suggesting she give up her seat to do so. McCain did not give up his seat. Biden did not give up his, Dodd, again, kept his seat while he ran, they all keep the current job while running for the next one...
In terms of who would take her seat if she became President, again that was not answered until after the election for Obama, nor for Clinton, nor for Biden. Why you would hold Warren to standards no other Senator has ever honored is understood, but it is nonetheless inaccurate and inconsistent as a tactic for promoting Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:56 AM

21. 2016 is not 2008 which was a revolution. 2016 is for a continuation

 

2016 is not 2008 which was a revolution. 2016 is for a continuation of the President Obama agenda.

Who would want a counter revolution to the revolution when that would put Jeb Bush right back in office, which was exactly what the Obama revolution got rid of.

If you are saying she won't give up her seat, then that means she wouldn't win, because the senate seat is 6 years, and the election is 4 years.

But supposedly she is a singular person to get her issue done.
Running for president does not allow that.

Sure she could slack off for 3 years, but I have higher hopes for Elizabeth Warren than slacking off for 3 years. Because though one can come back and vote on all the important votes, Warren is not just there to vote. She is there to get legislation, and highly partisian legislation passed. For her to stop it and then run, everyone will say all she did was want to be president, which then takes what makes her different from other current senators away.

Hillary didn't run in 2004 because she made a vow to serve her entire first term and did.
Elizabeth Warren won't run in 2016 for the same reason.

See?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:24 AM

6. Iraq invasion which is a hot topic this week, was supported by Hillary's vote while Obama said

it was a stupid war which he did not support. So obviously Warren would agree with one of them, as the two had opposite views of that invasion. Because of that, this OP makes no sense at all. Warren is more likely to have agreed with Obama, for while she is not a dove, she's also not easily fooled by idiots presenting falsehoods with great conviction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:28 AM

7. Same trick Dean pulled: get angry on TV, and progressives fall for you

Doesn't matter what your actual policies are, if you get angry on TV a significant number of activists will swoon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:30 AM

10. Yup. and Dean was Dukakissed.

 

Meanwhile, Dean and Obama worked together in 2008

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:30 AM

9. LOLOLOLOLOL!

 



If you don't see the difference between the two, then you've got a serious problem with your political perceptions.

Of course I'm saying this to a person who idolizes a president who killed millions of innocents, LBJ(Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today!).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:34 AM

11. Disagree. All 3 are on the same page.except for a wedge or two,which everyone has.

 

Again, time and again, Warren said EVERYTHING is on the table with Iran.
and I take that to include drones.

I really do not think the vast majority of people know much about Warren whatsoever.

Same as people yesterday had no idea who Ed Markey is, and he has had a job in politics for 30 years.

If people on a political board don't know, ask 320 million people in the USA and how would one expect 90% of them to have any clue?

Whereas no one doesn't know President Obama or Hillary Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:00 AM

23. LBJ is hard to describe.

He signed landmark civil rights legislation and then sent tons of young people to war. Medicare and Medicaid are his legacies and yet I will never understand his views on Vietnam.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:04 AM

13. It is more of a difference in style rather than policy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:22 AM

16. Why do I bother reading these posts?

What makes me think they will ever be any better than any of the others?

Why do I keep doing this?

When did I stop beating my wife?

Where am I?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:27 AM

17. HRC kept her head down early on during her senate time

She was looking forward and wanted to be seen as a work-horse....one who curried favor with both sides.

Elizabeth Warren RAN on her record of outspokenness about the flaws in our banking/economic systems. It's her milieu, and what got her elected. For her to remain a silent newbie/back-bencher would make a mockery of her election, and negate the reason for even being there. She came to shake things up.. Hillary went to the senate to get credentials to run for the presidency. She did a great job as a senator and almost became president, but she did not go to the senate to shake things up..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalDem (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:34 AM

18. no, you got that all wrong

 

Hillary and Elizabeth both are doing the same thing

Work horse is a decent title.

Warren is NOT running to the microphone, much the same, Hillary did not curry publicity.

The microphones are following the live procedings and reporting on it.

There is a major difference in that both did the same.

Whereas the tea party people run to the microphones to spin.

There is no Warren spin, it is unfiltered, same as Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:49 AM

20. Hillary is playing it safe for a presidential run, Liz Warren is right where she wants to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #20)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:04 AM

26. Personally i hope Hillary doesn't get involved in any wedge issue from now til then.

 

Let the surrogates and other democratic office holders do all the that stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:26 PM

31. Or Rahm Emanuel's? Or Andrew Cuomo's? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:27 PM

32. They are both strong and wonderful women to have on our side.

I am sure their views are different. As is their demeanor. So what. Why do you feel it necessary to make them out to be ideologically the same. Hillary is very centrist on many issues. I think the party would be well served if Warren ends up being a much more progressive voice.

There is room in the party for both of these wonderful people and I see no reason that you and others are trying to do this comparison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:53 PM

34. In the best of both worlds we may have both.

One as president and the other one in the Senate. Warren has the potential to become a great senator. Hillary has the name brand, popularity and capacity to raise large quantities of money. All needed in a presidential run. 2016 is not going to be a walk in the park for any Democrat. After 8 years of a Democrat holding the WH, it will be hard to get voters to vote a Democrat in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:54 PM

35. Who are these "people of which you speak?

the only group or class of "people" who would think that are multinational corporations who will do any/everything in their power to break down Warren's chance at the presidency. Clinton is a corporatist- they got nothing but love for her.

I've read some memes in the press lately that say Warren and Clinton are at loggerheads. Of course the Corporations own the press so it's obvious who's behind it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:56 PM

36. As much as I dislike her foreign policy, Hilary has always backed unions

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread