Elizabeth Warren Comes Down Hard Against Global Warming, Separates Herself From Hillary Clinton

[KoKo]

Elizabeth Warren Comes Down Hard Against Global Warming, Separates Herself From Hillary Clinton on Climate Change
by Eric Zuesse

On Friday, December 20th, Democratic U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren finally separated herself clearly from former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, regarding the issue of climate change and global warming.

----snip---------

On December 17th, the Republican House budget chief, Paul Ryan, threatened to drive the U.S. Government into default unless President Obama approves the Keystone XL Pipeline .

President Obama himself is now trying to force the European Union to relax their anti-global-warming regulations so as to permit them to import the Kochs' dirty oil. His agent in this effort is his new U.S. Trade Representative, Michael Froman, from Wall Street.

But on December 20th, Senator Warren signed onto a letter criticizing the Obama Administration's apparent effort to force the European Union to agree to purchase this oil. As the Huffington Post's Kate Sheppard reported, "Six senators and 16 House members, all Democrats, wrote a letter to Froman on Friday asking him to elaborate on his position on the matter. 'If these reports are accurate, USTR's [the U.S. Trade Representative's] actions could undercut the EU's commendable goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its transportation sectors," these 22 Democratic lawmakers wrote.

This is, essentially, a rebellion by 22 progressive congressional Democrats against the Clinton-Obama effort to provide a market for the Kochs' dirty oil. This letter was actually written by Representative Henry Waxman and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, and co-signed by Senators Barbara Boxer, Ed Markey, Dick Durbin, Jeff Merkley, and Elizabeth Warren; and Representatives John Conyers, Jr., Barbara Lee, Raúl M. Grijalva, Rush Holt, Louise M. Slaughter, Jerrold Nadler, Judy Chu, Peter DeFazio, Anna G. Eshoo, Sam Farr, Peter Welch, Alan Lowenthal, Mark Pocan, and Steve Cohen.

What is at issue in the Keystone XL and Alberta tar sands matter is governmental policies that will determine whether the tar-sands oil will undercut the production-costs of normal oil. Right now, normal oil costs far less to mine, process, and get to market (because tar sands oil is so dirty and so land-locked). However, if the Kochs win, then the existing governmental policies will change in ways that will eliminate this cost-advantage of normal oil. The result of that would be increased sales and burning of the tar-sands oil, and thus reduced sales and burning of cleaner oil. That would throw into the atmosphere "more than $70 billion in additional damages associated with climate change over 50 years." However, that added $70 billion would be the added harms to the entire world, not to the owners of the tar sands.

President Obama holds the sole authority to approve or disapprove this project, because it crosses the international border, but he has delayed this decision for years, because he doesn't want to enrage the environmental community, and also because his tipping his hand in that way would be almost entirely a waste if he cannot first get Europe to weaken their environmental standards so as to allow this oil to compete in Europe with normal oil as if it weren't far more damaging to the climate than normal oil is -- just ignore that harm being added to the entire planet.

Thus, Senator Warren has now joined with the progressives on two big issues that arouse intense opposition to her from the aristocrats who finance most political campaigns: She opposes the taxpayer-handouts to Wall Street, and she now also opposes the entire planet's, basically, environmental handouts, to the owners of the most-harmfully polluting corporations, such as Koch Industries. (The other owners of tar-sands oil are Conoco-Phillips, Exxon-Mobil, and Chevron-Texaco.)

This could be a turning-point in Warren's political career. She's no longer at war against only the financial industry corruption that dominates the conservative, Clinton and Obama, establishment within the Democratic Party (and all of the Republican Party) , but she is also at war against their environmental corruption. For yet another example of that corruption: On 2 October 2013, Joe Romm at Think Progress headlined "More Bad News For Fracking: IPCC Warns Methane Traps Much More Heat," and he reported that, "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that methane ... is far more potent a greenhouse gas" than previously known, so bad it "would gut the climate benefits of switching from coal." And then, just five days after that, Jon Campbell in upstate New York headlined "In Oneida County, Hillary Clinton Touts U.S. Oil-and-Gas Production," and he reported that at Hamilton College, Hillary Clinton praised fracking for methane, by saying, "What that means for viable manufacturing and industrialization in this country is enormous." However, if Warren won't be able to get either Wall Street or the oil patch to finance her political campaigns, then how can she even possibly rise within the power-structure?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/12/23-5

[MADem]

1. "Common" Dreams....stirring the pot, they just can't help it.

Some days I wonder if they're working for the other side.

They still can't reconcile themselves with the fact that EW signed the "Run Hill Run" letter.

[rhett o rick]

9. You say "stirring the pot" as if that was a bad thing. It's way past time to stir the pot.

If we dont rid ourselves (the DEmocratic Party) of the corporate conservatives that now run the Party, the lower classes will all be serfs in 10 years.

[MADem]

10. When EW campaigns for HRC, heads are gonna explode up in here.

You got a squirrel in your pocket with that "we" business?

Speak for yourself--you sure don't speak for me (and I worked to get EW elected).

[whatchamacallit]

14. No heads will explode

Maybe the binary conservative mind is incapable of nuance, but most liberals are able to separate issues and support people like EW without having to agree with everything she says and does.

[MADem]

17. Coulda fooled me.

I've seen more "I won't EVER vote for HRC" here than I can shake a stick at.

The "Cut off nose/spite face" is strong hereabouts.

And when Warren campaigns for Clinton, she will probably be called a "traitor" or some other stupid terms, much like Obama has been thrown under the bus by the same people who, back in 08, would brook no disagreement when it came to his candidacy and nomination, because he hasn't given them everything that they think is important.

It's like a grammar school playground at times. Perhaps these uber-liberals are so far to the left that they've come back round to the right...? That would suit your "binary conservative" thesis, I suppose.

[whatchamacallit]

26. I probably won't vote for HRC

and I won't throw EW under the bus if she campaigns for her. Why would I? The lockstep mentality is a projection of party partisans.

[MADem]

30. This is a "party partisan" site, you know.

That's kind of the whole idea, here. There's no requirement for "lockstep" attitudes outside of election season, but the idea is to elect "DEMOCRATS" to office, that's sorta the reason for the site....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

[WowSeriously]

38. Any D will do?

Think much?

[MADem]

45. You're just sooooo coooooool, with all that snark-n-such!

[WowSeriously]

137. Tell me the benefits we had with the Max Baucus D.

Tell me the benefits we had with the Joe Manchin D.

Tell me the benefits we had with the Blanche Lincoln D.

And please, do tell when we can stir the pot. With your "thinking" we don't need the primaries in 2016 because Hillary's a done deal. Just like she was in 2008. Good thing Obama stirred the pot, don't you think?

Laughing avatars are sooooo original.

[MADem]

141. Changing the subject because one can't address the rank unfairness that is the thesis of this

piece of shit screed is "soooooooo original" too.

We don't need the primaries--we'd save a bundle for the general.

That said, bring 'em on. HRC is going to win in a walk.

Here's another of DU's fine avatars:

[WowSeriously]

185. You have said that we need to vote D while simultaneously

Not stirring the pot. What do you mean by that?

[MADem]

187. You can do what you want--vote as you please. Pull the lever for Christie or Rand Paul, for all I

care. Just don't cry if you get what you've asked for.

This article, the one upon which this thread is based, is a load of divisive bullshit. Others in this thread have also complained about how HRC is inserted into the discussion solely for "divide and conquer" purposes.

If you're OK with that kind of editorializing, it says more about you than perhaps you intend to reveal.

[WowSeriously]

205. I'm sorry. I don't understand what you just said.

Can we discuss more than one Democratic candidate at a time or must we fall in behind the declared nominee two years before there's even a primary without being accused of stirring the pot?

Or don't you care to answer? I mean, that's perfectly ok if all you were doing was being divisive. Just say it straight up.

[MADem]

254. "Do what you want" is pretty plain. Don't behave like an aggrieved and put upon voter

because some truths--like the simple, brutal, "Get Off That Horse" truth that Warren isn't running, she's said so two dozen or more times, she hasn't done ANY networking, and she has "pledged" to serve out her term (which ends in 2018)--are self-evident.

The Hillary vs. Elizabeth (or go on and use the diminutive "Betsy"--like her siblings do, whatever...because that's what's being done with this repeated "cage match" or "girl fight" imagery) mud-wrestling articles that are posted on fringe websites are continuously dragged up here for the mandatory 'frothing at the mouth' games over something that just ain't gonna happen.

If anything is "divisive" you might want to start with the OP, instead of crabbing at me for possessing situational awareness of the intentions (or lack thereof) of my Senior Senator.

[WowSeriously]

263. I don't know if you've been reading what I've been writing

But I haven't made any commentary concerning Senator Warren and the prospects of her running or not running. From the beginning I've been trying to ascertain the logic behind not stirring a pot and choosing any D, as if the D is what makes them worthy, and not their policies. You continue to evade and attack, for absolutely no reason other than you are clearly a Hillary shill and a Warren hater.

That's fine. Neither one of them is my first or last choice. But I can assure you of this, if George W. had a D by his name and people wanted Obama to run against him and he said no, you would shill for W. I would not.

And that's why I asked in my very first post whether you think much. Because it takes no thinking to vote for the D, regardless of policy. And this is why the D policy is virtually I distinguishable from the R policy on most core issues.

[MADem]

266. Only someone who hasn't been paying any attention would believe that

"D policy is virtually I distinguishable from the R policy on most core issues"...

I'll assume you mean "indistinguishable."

If that's the case, why are you here? This is Democratic Underground, not "I Think the Parties are Virtually Indistinguishable" Underground.

The person who doesn't "think much" isn't me.

I'm not going to do your homework for you--you can google party platforms as easily as anyone else. Pay particular attention to issues like choice, defense spending, social safety net spending...and then try to insist that these positions are "indistinguishable."

I think you either aren't very well informed on the issues, or you just outed yourself, actually.

[WowSeriously]

270. I'm here to advocate for the policies of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

My question to you is, why are YOU here? All you need to do is wait for the election and then vote party line.

And if you think 75% Bush Tax Theft is really different from 100% Bush Tax Theft then you haven't been paying attention.

And if you think indiscriminate droning is really different from Shock and Awe then you haven't been paying attention.

And if you think ObamaCare is really different from RomneyCare then you haven't been paying attention.

And if you think Chained CPI isn't different from cutting Social Security then you haven't been paying attention.

Or I can summarize it like this: There is more daylight between traditional Democratic policies and today's Democratic Party than there is daylight between today's Democratic Party and today's Republican Party.

So I guess you could say I'm on The DemocraticUnderground website to advocate for Democratic policies, not charlatans with a D next to their name. You know, like Governor Christ, and former Senator Spector, and any of a number of Trojan Horse Democrats that seem to be infesting the Democratic Party.

[bvar22]

273. Excellent!

Please consider re-posting this as an OP with some very minor structural adjustments for context:

I'm here to advocate for the policies of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

My question to you is, why are YOU here? All you need to do is wait for the election and then vote party line.

And if you think 75% Bush Tax Theft is really different from 100% Bush Tax Theft then you haven't been paying attention.

And if you think indiscriminate droning is really different from Shock and Awe then you haven't been paying attention.

And if you think ObamaCare is really different from RomneyCare then you haven't been paying attention.

And if you think Chained CPI isn't different from cutting Social Security then you haven't been paying attention.

Or I can summarize it like this: There is more daylight between traditional Democratic policies and today's Democratic Party than there is daylight between today's Democratic Party and today's Republican Party.

So I guess you could say I'm on The DemocraticUnderground website to advocate for Democratic policies, not charlatans with a D next to their name. You know, like Governor Christ, and former Senator Spector, and any of a number of Trojan Horse Democrats that seem to be infesting the Democratic Party.

If you don't, I may steal it.

[WowSeriously]

306. Wow, thanks! I've never made an original post. But I might give it a go.

And I will rework it to be more discussion oriented than soap box oriented.

[MADem]

284. You've been here for just over a month, and your tone, attitude and demeanor are

to put it politely, divisive and disruptive.

Is this your first time here, or are you here under a different name?

I think what you call "advocating" other people would call name calling, insulting, mocking, deriding, and behaving in an intolerant fashion.

I don't demand that you agree with me, but insinuating that I am a "Bad Democrat" because I don't dance along cheerily behind YOU is probably the most "unprogressive" and "anti-Democratic thing you could possibly do here. The Democratic Party is a big tent, you know. We have a platform--you might read it sometime. I happen to support it.

And FWIW, throwing Christ and Spector at me (a very low and obvious blow, that) is apropos of nothing--I've never advocated for either one of them, so why do you include them in your diatribe in an effort to conflate issues and suggest that I support either one of those people?

That's called a cheap shot and I noticed it.

[WowSeriously]

303. I have not been hear before, and with the exception of

"Think much", I have been far more polite, and far less divisive than you in this discussion.

And being a member of the Democratic Party does not mean sitting on your hands watching it move to the right. Being a member of the Democratic Party means advocating for policies you think reflect Democratic Principles.

While it may appear to be disruptive, it is only disruptive to those who have no problem with the rightward drift of the party.

Oh, and "underground" typically refers to those that are going against the trend. Right now advocating progressive policies within the Democratic Party is most certainly underground. Perhaps I belong here more so than you.

But I don't think anyone member of the Democratic Party should be tossed from this sight, whether they be from the Kucinich camp or the Baucus camp.

Happy trails fellow Democrat.

[MADem]

307. "Underground" doesn't mean what you think it means.

We went "underground" after Gore was robbed and the nation was co-opted by BushCo--you remember him, Al, the guy who won--he had the election stolen from him.

It's why this site was created.

What you call "polite" could use some work, to be blunt. You get personal, not in a nice way, either, and it's noticed.

E.g.

..you would shill for W....

Now THAT is a direct personal insult (on top of the one where you flung the "Think much" at me). Further, it's not true, not in the slightest-- but nice smear, there, Oh Polite One. Not at all in keeping with the site's community standards, which can be found here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus

And why you keep tossing tired old Baucus at me (I'm from Massachusetts, that what the MA is all about) like that's going to cause me to react in some fashion, I have no idea--perhaps that worked elsewhere, goading/baiting some other person, but it just doesn't play with me. He is from an "M" state, but that's MONTANA, not Massachusetts.

My Senators, the ones I worked to elect, are Warren and Markey, thanks much.

And Kucinich? All talk, no walk? He's long gone...he's grabbing a paycheck over at Rupert Murdoch's FauxSnooze. Power to the People, Dennis...

And, let's be clear-- the idea of this site is to work "within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office." It's what I do. I participate in every election--local, state and federal. I bring dozens of people to the polls -- I've brought over a hundred in Presidential election years.

That's in the TOS, that bit about electing more Dems. Go have a look, I'm not making that up:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[WowSeriously]

316. It looks like underground means exactly what I thought it meant.

The Democratic Party was out of power, and its policies would be ignored through traditional means, and there was a need to go "underground" to move the country forward, as it were. Thank you for confirming that.

I've reviewed our email exchanges, no doubt I was the more civil. Small victory for me.

Max Baucus is extremely important. The Democratic Party is larger than the "M" Massachusetts state. When it is argued that more Democrats need to be elected, it means more Democrats than can possibly be elected an a single "M" Maryland state. Democrats like Max Baucus denied Single Payer advocates a seat at the table. Having that Democrat was a net loss.

There are dozens of examples of Baucus like Democrats. You knew that. As for Kucinich, the fact that you mock him with the tiresome laughing avatar is indicative of Third-way Democrats. He did not sway many voters, or legislators. He was a visually unfortunate messenger for an excellent message. Much like FDR would be in today's media hypnotized and shallow public.

As for the TOS, somehow I think electing more Democrats includes the understanding that the Democrat advocates for Democratic policies that reflect Democratic values. Because we, as in you and I, both know that if George W. Bush had been the Democratic nominee 2000, neither one of us would have voted for him. At least I hope that would be the case.

And I've that HRC in a walk once before, circa 2008.

Cheers

[MADem]

317. I have never had any "email exchanges" with you--so I'm not sure what you're on about.

I've never received a DU MAIL from you either.

Plainly you're confusing me with someone else.

And if you think that your comments on this thread have been "civil" I've a bridge to sell you. Asking me if I think much and suggesting I'd cheerlead for Bush are rude and disruptive comments that are both personal and nasty. I note that you reverse that last comment in your most recent post, but you did say it, with a purpose of insulting me.

If you don't like Max Baucus, why don't YOU get your butt out there and work to find an electable candidate to replace him--focus on the word electable. As I said, I keep plenty busy in my "All politics is local" world. It's not my job to travel to Montana and cure what ails them, even if I had the time and resources. It's just not appropriate for you to excoriate me using that guy as an example; and I still don't understand why you kept bringing him up as if his shortcomings were somehow my fault. As for Kucinich, he did not work or play well with others. ALL he did was talk. He didn't sponsor any legislation, he didn't work well--or at all--with his cohorts in the House, he refused to take on ANY legislative administrative duties, and he was a thorn in the side of Dem House leadership. Plus, he was an opportunist who changed his views on choice in order to spend all his time yakking it up on the Can't Win Presidential Trail instead of representing his district. In short, he was a waste of space and this is why he got shoved off the stage when his district disappeared. As I said, ALL talk, NO walk (making him a perfect asset for Rupert Murdoch's media enterprise). He's not missed on the Hill for this reason, even though people who liked watching someone "go off" with words and no damn deeds found him amusing. Anthony Weiner had the same problem--talk, talk, talk--zero action. No sponsored legislation, no administrative effort on the part of him or his staff to get legislation to the floor.

As for the TOS, it is pretty plain--not a grail or an object for interpretation. It is what it is, and I try to abide by it by not calling people Republicans or non-thinkers or other insults.

Have a nice day.

[WowSeriously]

318. Email, texting, blogging, whatever you call this communication.

Reminds me of a scene in Shawshank Redemption and Family Guy and triangles.

I still win.

[MADem]

323. I've never texted or blogged to you, either.

These are posts on a message board, and they are viewable by anyone who visits this page. Emails, PMs, and texts are personal, private communications and when one uses those terms there is a suggestion of off-board communications. These have never happened.

Not sure what you think you've "won" but your attitude is very accurately summed up with your last sentence. It explains it all.

[WowSeriously]

324. Posts

Victory is mine.

[MADem]

336. Yeah, sure it is.

You enjoy your time here, now.

[WowSeriously]

350. I already am!

Success!

[WowSeriously]

417. I don't speak German. And MADem and I have concluded our discussions.

[WowSeriously]

419. Do you have something constructive to contribute?

I'm feeling harassed by someone I don't know jumping into a thread that ended a few days ago.

[WowSeriously]

421. The part of the thread I was speaking about was

My exchange with MADem. And I don't take kindly to being accused of someone who is not me.

I didn't realize the thread was highlighted this morning. I tend to follow new threads, not rehash old threads, particularly when they become personal, as happened with MADem.

[SidDithers]

422. Well, you've had a chance to see the comments...

that's the important thing.

If you were bothered by them, I apologize and will self-delete them. I didn't mean to be a pain in the ass.

Sid

[WowSeriously]

423. No need to sel defeat. And that was a clever

Reference back to coccydynia, an odd, but cool, word.

Well played and no worries.

[SidDithers]

424. And now you're gone again...

come back soon, again.

Sid

[Titonwan]

244. Good one

He prolly defends this NSA spying too, now that Obama's running the show.

[WowSeriously]

252. That's my theory as well.

[whatchamacallit]

39. <Yawn>

"Support" means written communication on this forum. When the primaries are over I will observe the rules and not advocate for a candidate other than the nominee. What I actually do with my vote is another matter. One that no one, on or off this site, can dictate.

[MADem]

44. Do what you want.

Just don't play that this isn't a "party partisan" site, because it is that.

"Yawn."

[whatchamacallit]

49. I didn't play that

I said your assumption that Hillary detractors will go apeshit on EW if she campaigns for her is a projection... and bullshit.

[MADem]

54. Like the Obama partisans didn't throw HIM under the bus, either, when he didn't satisfy their every

hearts' desires?



Yeah, sure. Whatever you say!

[whatchamacallit]

58. Not sure if you can grasp this, but here goes

It is possible for rational adults to disagree with, even criticize, BHO, EW, their neighbors, members of their own families... and still support them. Only blind partisans seem to have trouble with this simple fact of life.

[MADem]

60. Oh, ok--now I'm "stupid"--unable to "grasp" things.

And gotta throw in "blind partisans" too--like the blind partisans who blindly support a woman they never heard of three years ago...and who know nothing about her, either.

Keep digging.

I worked to elect EW--worked damn hard, too. She's my senator, and she's an outstanding one. We'll be keeping her for her full term, though I know that will disappoint many.

If we give her up, it will be so that she can serve as either Treasury Secretary or Fed Chair in the Clinton administration.

[whatchamacallit]

64. If it plays out as you desire

Warren will be a shiny gem in a dull and tarnished crown. I'll be able to appreciate her even if she works for someone I don't appreciate. See how easy it is?

[MADem]

66. Oh, gee, if I keep tryin' real hard, maybe I'll figure it out. It's just so hard an' all, I need

smart folks like you to 'splain it to me...

[whatchamacallit]

68. Glad to help

[MADem]

74. I'm quite sure you are. nt

[WowSeriously]

138. Party Partisan doesn't mean D or Die.

Otherwise, how do you hold your elected officials to account if they, you know, forget to walk the walk?

[MADem]

140. It does mean being fair in one's characterizations, which this hit piece isn't.

Otherwise, the term to use is "hack."

[MrMickeysMom]

147. If the idea were to elect Democrats in name only ...

We'd be half or mostly out of our mind…

I reason that DU bring back the Democratic party to what it's platform originally stood for… unfortunately, that would leave out agreeing with many Democrats in office.

And THAT'S the truth… Ruth…

[MADem]

150. The TOS is pretty clear.

And if HRC is a "DINO," then it stands to reason her old HILLPAC--where she went out and beat the bushes to get money to help get Dems elected-- when she was in the Senate would support DINOS like herself, too....you know, like Tammy Duckworth, and Sheldon Whitehouse and Bernie Sanders....yeah, all a buncha DINOs....to whom she donated PAC money. So many came, liberal, moderate, and even conservative Dems, and they had their hand out, and she helped them get elected.

But hey, facts can be troublesome things. The Democratic Party is a big tent, everywhere but in some segments of DU, it would seem.

[MrMickeysMom]

152. This isn't the kind of money raised for the progressive….

It's about if the progressive get into office… That's more important to me and to most Democrats, if you were to ask me.

Study the number of true progressives who actually get into the White House or are Kingmakers, and the facts emerge.

[MADem]

156. The candidates who -- with the exception of Al Gore, who wuz robbed-- get the most votes

usually go to the White House. Not always, but usually.

[bvar22]

274. AFIC, supporting Democrats

.... means supporting those who work to advance these traditional Democratic Party Values that I grew up with.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established[font siz3=3] for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

--FDR, SOTU, 1944

Please note that FDR specified the above as Fundamental Human Rights,
and NOT Commodities to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.

If someone is NOT working to advance these values,
I don't consider that person a Democrat.


[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[MADem]

278. FDR had no problem violating the Constitutional rights of US citizens based on their race.

And it took his haberdasher of a Veep, bless his heart, to desegregate the Armed Forces.

He was a strong supporter of Woodrow Wilson, another very imperfect "progressive"--but that's how FDR managed to get ahead by getting a gig as his Asst SECNAV. Do you suppose FDR agreed with the Palmer Raids? Or Wilson's rather obscenely racist views about black people, or slavery (not morally wrong, simply economically unviable)?

Even idols have weak spots and that whole race thing was a pretty big 'un. Particularly if you are a member of one of those unfortunate races that got the short end of the FDR stick. I suppose if you weren't, then everything was coming up roses for you--but where you stand depends on where you happen to sit, and if you're sitting in some shithole camp in the middle of nowhere, imprisoned because of your heritage, or on a bench labeled "Colored," your view might be a bit jaundiced.

I guess some of those "fundamental human rights" you're such a fan of applied to some Americans more than others, could that be it?

Just saying.

Though FDR hit that speech outta the park, even a horrible President says high-minded shit during a SOTU. I'm sure you could find some soaring hyperbole in a Bush or Nixon speech if you picked through them.

Now, I'm certainly not saying that the sum total of FDR's many terms didn't benefit our nation overall, but my point here is you can pick anyone's record apart and beat 'em up on this issue or that. You can even try to claim that a stance on a particular issue is a "deal breaker" and just "so awful" that no one might countenance it. The upshot is that trying to play the "Bad Democrat" game based on single issues --even more so where the politician isn't acting as their own agent but is subordinate to a POTUS -- is, well, cheap and cheesy, and it speaks more to the motivations of the detractor than the actual record of the politician under discussion.

[NYC_SKP]

282. The article isn't about Hillary. It's really about Warren versus the establishment.

Sad to see this thread go sideways, and like you, it will be hard to vote for Hillary or anyone else so wrapped up with the 1%.

I see a LOT of replies that seem to object to this OP as a Hillary hit piece or a "cat fight" meme. I don't know, maybe, it's still a good article and....

First, the OP subject line is the thread title. No foul on KoKo's part there.

Second, Hillary is arguably the single most representative person in the Democratic party who may have an influence in the next decade.

So.

It's really about Warren versus the establishment.

It's not about Hillary.

Not everything has to be about Hillary.

Peace.

[whatchamacallit]

290. Good take

[MADem]

295. Yeah, that's why the title of the article is

Elizabeth Warren Comes Down Hard Against Global Warming, Separates Herself From Hillary Clinton on Climate Change

If everything isn't about HRC, you might ask the author of that screed why HE is fixated on her to the extent he has to put her in the headline.

But oh, it's not about her...

Yeah. Right.

[NYC_SKP]

301. Hillary is arguably the single most representative person in the Democratic establishment.

I don't know if the author has an axe to grind or not; but Hillary represents the core leadership, sad to say.

Also, she's got oil on her hands, apparently, from how her state department handled energy matters:

Secretary Clinton's State Department thus allowed the environmental impact statement on the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline to be performed by a petroleum industry contractor that was chosen by the company that was proposing to build and own the pipeline, TransCanada. That contractor had no climatologist, and their resulting report failed even at its basic job of estimating the number of degrees by which the Earth's climate would be additionally heated if this pipeline is built and operated. Their report ignored that question, and instead evaluated the impact that climate change would have on the pipeline, which was estimated to be none.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/State-Department-s-Keyston-by-Eric-Zuesse-130326-371.html

It is what it is.

[MADem]

344. Well, that's POTUS's State Department, if we're going to get technical.

She was HIS SecState, she wasn't an independent actor, voicing her own opinion, on the world stage. She wasn't "allowing" anything that POTUS took issue with.

And your link (crappy source too) is from that same ax-grinding "'Dr.' Zeuesse" (that's a joke, he has no doctorate that he lists in his CV) Hillary-hating guy who is quoted in the OP. He'll even shill for Chris Christie, he hates her so much....! He makes over-the-top comparisons (Rupert Murdoch is Hitler, e.g.) and is published in fringe internet outlets like OpEd News, Business Insider, and Huffpo. A bit of a poseur, I would say--we're not talking about someone who is going to get an hour on PBS or a Harvard teaching fellowship any time soon.

If he sees a bad movie or eats a lousy meal in a restaurant, he'll find a way to blame HRC for it. He's childishly fixated on her, in unhealthy ways, apparently--he's got nothing better to do than write about her. It's obvious he's shopping an agenda. He isn't even subtle. Thing is, he's not very good at what he does, either--his dislike trips him up.

[NYC_SKP]

345. No doubt there. Sadly, Hillary and Obama have more in common with each other than they do...

...with Senator Warren on a number of important matters.

[MADem]

347. I don't know about that. I think they're closer than some here want to admit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024231754#post346

[TheKentuckian]

34. Are you really going to argue that environmental stewardship is some radical far left position that

far left that it makes one far right?

That is goofy and stinks of a desperate straw grab just to be able to spew a little venom and toe the line at the same time.

The entire line of argument is silly, virtually nobody is even far left enough to be serious communist much less flying past the bend back to the Divine Right of Kings or whatever nonsense you're pretending to argue.

Protecting our habitat is fucking common sense and utterly and truly pragmatic rather than what is being substituted in the vernacular of the "Centrists" which means essentially what is least offensive to the wealthy and least effort for politicians hired to do heavy lifting.

[MADem]

37. No - I am "arguing" that this article is pure horseshit.

It's sets up a fake "Hillary versus Liz" mudwrestling match for the perverse and stupid to imagine.

It has no basis in reality.

[KoKo]

82. BUT in TRUTH it DOES...or you wouldn't be trying to diffuse the Facts....

And so....to declare Hillary as the Given Candidate for 2016 and possibly to tamp down dissent that there might be other choices for 2016?

It's kind of Classic "Attack the Messenger" rather than discuss what the Messenger revealed. Ya' Think?

[MADem]

86. What "facts?" That HRC isn't in public life now, that she was subordinate to the POTUS and

didn't make energy policy?

The only "fact" that matters here is that this lame-ass editorial was written by a schmuck with a grudge and an agenda and was published in an online fringe publication that trades in out-of-the-mainstream shit stirring.

The 'messenger' revealed nothing--he tried to pretend HRC was POTUS and had decision making authority over these issues, and she doesn't.

But he was hoping that people--eager to stand on the sidelines with the GOP and eagerly watch the Girl Cat Fight--wouldn't notice...Ya' Think?

[KoKo]

92. "...subordinate to the POTUS and didn't make energy policy?"

QUOTE FROM YOU!

Hillary was a "SUBORDINATE" to Obama on Energy Policy? Are you trying to say she was "co-opted" to "heel under to Obama's Wishes."

Sheesh...I don't know what to think of this post from you?

Are you saying she was a "Good Soldier" for Obama and Now she's a huge environmentalist when the facts are she is NOT....or are you saying she was a "Female who couldn't Resist his Charms and the money from the PACS?

Seriously....your post is inredibly ...Incredible..

Where does Hillary Stand on the Pipeline and on Environmental Issues is the question and the article and others seems to say she wants the Keystone XL to go forward and she's in favor of the TPP.

You know as well as I do (because you READ) that the "Third Way (former DLC) wants all of this and yet you question "Sources" as not sound or corrupt or RW ...when you know very well that "Common Dreams" and their views are not WELCOMING OF RW SOURCES.

What's the game here? HILLARY IS A GIVEN FOR 2016 ....SO GIVE IT UP you DEMOCRATS!

Or...are you playing the "Devil's Advocate?"

[MADem]

99. Only someone who doesn't "get" how it works would think that a SECSTATE isn't subordinate to their

POTUS.

You do know that if Obama tells Kerry to deliver a message, that's what Kerry will do?

[KoKo]

192. Hillary is a strong Woman she survived Monica Gate...her Husband was President

and you are saying that PBO told her what to do and she complied with it? That defies everything about her...but, if what you think is true...then why would we want her for President if she "subjects herself" to a "Power that Be...or Powers that be" because they tell her what to do?

HUH....do you hear what you are saying about her? Why would anyone vote for a President who listens not to their OWN inner conscience, guidance, life experience ...but to some Outside Group or Individual Influence..be it: Power Person, PAC, Influence Group, Think Tank, Wall Street, MIC or whatever.

Have we not had enough of this kind of President?

[MADem]

194. If you don't understand that the job of cabinet officials is to execute the POTUS's policy, I can't

help you.

It's the OBAMA Administration--not the SECSTATE Clinton Administration.

When HRC is POTUS, she'll get to tell HER SECSTATE what to do.

That's how it works. That's how it has ALWAYS worked.

[Number23]

238. You deserve a freaking medal. Good Lord, just READING this hysterical exchange has made me tired

and very, very, VERY sad for some of the folks that frequent this web site. But damn, if it doesn't explain a whole lot of the storm und drang here for the last 5 years, I don't know what does.

[MADem]

264. Ha--thanks!

It is kind of sad, how many people just slept through Civics class in junior high, or whatever! I guess the younger ones went to wee or poop during "Schoolhouse Rock" too.

I do think a lot of people here have vaguely "liberal" attitudes (notwithstanding the undercover wingnut trolls that throw out outrageous bullshit for the sole purpose of getting a reaction), but a few don't have a fucking CLUE how their government works. They have this idea that the President rules by decree. They think that someone who captures their imagination, like Barack in 08, or Liz in 2013, somehow agrees with them on all things because they agree with them on one or two things. Invariably, they're disappointed and they'll turn on their heroes with savage fury. Barack didn't have the Congress to let him do everything he wanted to do, so now he's labeled eeeeeevil and a (waaah) corporatist; I can't imagine what will happen when more of them start to learn that Liz actually LIKES the military (oooooooh, noooooooo!) and doesn't see corporations as the enemy--she can parse the difference between excess and commerce. It's not surprising--she WAS a Republican (remember, she liked Reagan's approach to markets "better&quot before she became a Democrat.

And for a group that should know better, they refuse to accept that Senator Warren has said NO over two dozen times and has pledged to serve out her term. You'd think they'd "get" that NO means NO! I always thought it was GOP types who had difficulty with that concept....

[wildbilln864]

385. um....

[MADem]

387. You gotta do better than that....ooooh the "Utah Minutemen!!!"

I'll bet that's what their wives say....

[rhett o rick]

259. Interesting that they are trying to sell Clinton as "eight more years of the status quo". nm

[karynnj]

275. Yes and no - in diplomacy with other countries, he has to make offers acceptable (and pre approved)

by Obama. (The reason for pre approved is that if he ever made an offer, it was accepted - and Obama rescinded it, he would lose credibility as a negotiator.)

In addition, it would be wrong if he wrote an op-ed on some issue taking a position against Obama's position. As he himself said - I think to the London embassy staff - he, like everyone at the embassy works for Obama - and there is no more "I", but "we". (rough paraphrase)

However, a Secretary of State CAN advise the President and privately disagree. A very significant example is that George Marshall, one of the best SoS the US had, advised and lobbied the President not to support the partition that led to Israel - the President instead led the US to be one of the first countries to recognize Israel. (Consider that VP Biden disagreed with Obama on the surge in Afghanistan - an issue at least as important. We know Clinton wanted a larger surge.)

Kerry, as a Senator, voted against Keystone - so we know his personal opinion. He also has avoided accepting the flawed state department study - giving time for more negatives to come out. The EPA has already advised Obama against the pipeline. The actual approval really rests with Obama, who could approve it with or without Kerry.

I doubt that Kerry would resign over the issue because he then gives up the chance to continue working to make the world more peaceful.

[merrily]

174. Keystone

Yes, I understand subordination to the Chief Executive, but I don't think Hillary is an environmentalist, at least not when it comes to oil. Subordination and Hillary's own views are two different issues.

[MADem]

181. You'll have to wait until she selects her cabinet to know, I suppose. nt

[merrily]

183. No, I know now.

[MADem]

190. Time will reveal all.... nt

[rhett o rick]

260. And I assume you would support her no matter who she selected for her cabinet.

That's the ultimate in blind FAITH. Pick a leader and support them irregardless of what they do. That's not a liberal characteristic. Do you consider yourself liberal?

[MADem]

268. I do think she'll make good choices, but I'd not be afraid to criticize a bad pick.

You, OTOH, are just so damned EAGER for me to say "Ewwww, yes, I will have blind faith in her" because your dislike for the woman rivals that of the RNC leadership. I can smell it coming off you from a mile away. It affects your ability to speak reasonably.

I'm the ultimate liberal, sorry to disappoint you--I've worked on campaigns for/voted for more liberals than most people in my lifetime. The liberals I work for, contribute to, and vote for tend to get elected, too. I'm from the Bay State, and we grow good ones here. Winners--not pipe dreamers.

Poor you--you have to play the "J'accuse" game because that's all you seem to have going!

"Are you now, or have you ever been....a LIBERAL!!!??? Answer correctly, or be pilloried!!!!!"

You have some growing up to do, I think. I think "liberal" means guys like Teddy Kennedy. I think "moderate" means politicians like Liz Warren. I liked him and I like her, too--they do the "Senior Senator" seat proud.

You apparently have a different definition of the term, or you haven't been paying attention to what people say.

[rhett o rick]

280. Yes if you think Clinton is liberal then we disagree on the definition.

I believe that liberals dont support the Patriot Act, or domestic spying, or allowing the big banks to run rampant. A liberal would not support the TPP or NAFTA or CAFTA. I dont think a liberal would appoint Penny Pritzker, or Ben Bernanke or Larry Summers.

Sen Warren isnt the perfect savior but at least she is speaking truth to power. Clinton giving speeches to Goldman Sachs for $400,000.

[MADem]

286. I think she's a moderate--like Elizabeth Warren is--on most issues, and liberal on others.

If you're going to beat people up for supporting the Patriot Act, let's dig up the corpses of Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone, and you can give them a few whacks, too, while you're at it. And quick like a bunny now, why don't you grab a piece of pipe and kneecap SECSTATE Kerry and shove him under that sanctimonious bus, because he voted YEA, too!

And let's beat up every single one of the other 94 senators, aside from those four, who voted for it as well--or perhaps your memory of that vote is a bit weak?

Or maybe you think HRC is so powerful that she used her "wiles" to persuade 97 other senators to vote the way she did? Why do you single her out for a PATRIOT ACT vote and not expect anyone to notice?





Naaaah, let's just hold HRC to account for that vote--just her, and no one else.

And if you think Warren wouldn't have voted YEA as well, you don't know her at ALL. She has three brothers and a son who served in the military, she's not a swords into plowshares type. She's for a sensible and effective national defense, as most of us in the Democratic Party are.

And as for this steaming load:

A liberal would not support the TPP or NAFTA or CAFTA. I dont think a liberal would appoint Penny Pritzker, or Ben Bernanke or Larry Summers.

I think you are confusing a middle aged white woman who was originally from IL with a biracial gentleman who was born in HI and moved to IL before he became POTUS.

Stop CONFLATING. It's tiresome and obvious. HRC hasn't "appointed" ANYONE and she used to work for the guy who made those decisions.

But hey, thanks for making it easy.

[rhett o rick]

292. I will be glad to "whack" anyone that supports the Patriot Act. Why do I single her out?

BECAUSE SHE IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

You must forgive me if I confuse one centrist for another centrist. They all seem to be connected with Goldman Sachs and Robert Rubins, Larry Summers, and Ben Bernanke. And Goldman Sachs has jumped in early to give HRC $400,000 which goes into her personal pocket, not a campaign contribution.

Clinton is a moderate??? She wasnt when she gave her soul to George Bush. Go ahead and list the other traitors that bowed down to the Dim-Son and gave him the power to wage war. They can all go to hell.

[MADem]

294. Well get busy, then--you've got 97 more souls to beat to a pulp.

Be a dear and rebury Teddy Kennedy and Paul Wellstone after you give them what-for, now.



There's a link in the post to the vote, that's what the blue writing and the underline is all about--just click on it and all is revealed.

[rhett o rick]

296. They are not running for president, but Goldman-Sachs-Clinton is running for president.

A lot of good people sold their souls to the devil and supported George Bush's war, but only one is running for president.

[MADem]

308. Well, you said you'd be glad to whack them, and now you change your mind and single out just one.

If you revert to your initial braggadocio, do make sure you give Joe Biden a good thwack, too, while you're at it. He was in the Senate back then as well.

Throw the bulk of the Democratic Senate caucus under the bus, now!

Yeah, that's the ticket....

[rhett o rick]

311. You keep changing the focus. But I will gladly clear up how I feel about the

Democrats that sold out their constituents, their country, our soldiers, and the poor Iraqi people. They were afraid that they might look bad if they didnt support our president and 100,000 Iraqis died, over 4,000 of our soldiers died and tens of thousands severely wounded. And the result of their votes has economically broke the back of our economy. The Republicans are slimey money grubbing, war profiteers. But Democrats were supposed to try to check them. We were betrayed and I will not forget nor forgive.

There is a class war and the centrists side with the 1%.

[MADem]

321. No, not really, I just posted a list of everyone in the Senate during the vote in question.

So line 'em up (or dig them up, in the cases of Liberal Lions Teddy Kennedy and Paul Wellstone) and knock 'em down, why doncha?

All 98 of 'em....

[rhett o rick]

328. Kennedy and Wellstone both voted NO. They didnt bow down to King Georgie and kiss his ring.

29 people of the Lieberman/Zell Miller Wing did. When they get to the Golden Gates, they will have some explaining to do.

Maybe you can forgive them, but I can not.

[MADem]

330. No they did not. Go to the link and have a look at the YEA beside their names.

98 Senators voted YEA to authorize the Patriot Act.

Russ Feingold voted no, and Mary Landrieu didn't show up.

[rhett o rick]

338. Sorry I was talking about the vote to authorize the war. Somewhere we

got off track. I am tired of trying to convince you to support the Sen Warren Wing and not the Lieberman Wing.

Have a good new year.

[MADem]

339. Well, there's another false characterization of me. Why do you do that?

It's very rude.

I think Joe LIEberman was--operative word, there, WAS--a fucking tool.

I support EW wholeheartedly, as MA Senator and as a leader of the Banking Committee. I think she's in a perfect spot to Get Shit Done.

I think she'd be eaten alive as a POTUS candidate--and so does she, that's why she is not running. You apparently didn't follow her Senate run--it was brutal and vicious. Cruel, even. I can't imagine that kind of thing across fifty states.

The woman is smart. Would that her fans were half as sharp as she is. She's also extraordinarily effective, right where she is.

The only way she could be more effective is as the chair of the Fed. And no Republican President is gonna put her in that job.

[rhett o rick]

341. I agree it was rude. I try to not slip into that.

My frustration gets the best of me. I do not want another 8 years of Wall Street domination and I strongly believe we will get that with Clinton.

[TheKentuckian]

276. It would seem there is daylight there on the issue, seems to some in critical areas

I don't see where the rabid protest of this observation is required.

In any event the issue towers over any couple of mortals, the issue is what matters and again, Warren is on the right side and Hillary by all indications sides with suicidal entropy for the sake of profits. It is the sides on these issues that distinguishes them from each other, doesn't matter if they are literally real world best friends just like sisters. The personalities are transient and only act as proxy for principle, ideas, convictions, and ideals. The rest is the stuff of popularity contests.

Policy positions cannot run for office so some crazy folks have the idea that they will support and push for the person they find best fits them and will actually champion them and oppose folks who do not.

[MADem]

287. Well, that's just not true, but good effort, there.

"By all indications?" What indications? She's been carrying out the foreign policy of the POTUS these last several years. It's not her job to weigh in publicly with her own opinions, it's her job to carry water for the POTUS and execute HIS foreign policy.

I think that EW and HRC are closer on many issues than most people here want to admit or believe. I will, though, agree with you that the whole "popularity contest" aspect emanating from her fans does color their attitudes. They dearly want a "hen peck cat fight" where Elizabeth "beats up" Hillary, and pissy little articles like the one linked in the OP give them just what they need to get their blood boiling.

EW is a "new face" who is making waves in very particular ways, so people aren't looking too closely at the whole package (a package which is just fine and dandy with me, BTW--she's a superb Senator for the Bay State and she's told us she's completing her term, which her constituents, like myself, appreciate after enduring five new senators in the brief period since Ted died).

They did the same thing with President Obama, fell MADLY in love with the fresh face, the Hope, the Change, and became bitter and angry when he didn't feel the exact same way they did on each and every near-and-dear issue.
It's like a teen idol contest around here, with middle aged idols. All Warren has to do is start building her record, in time, she'll disappoint, and plenty of her fans will get all acerbic and nasty about her, and say "Awww, I knew it all along."

It's lather, rinse, repeat.

[TheKentuckian]

297. You really think plausible deniablity is going to fly with someone as well known as Hillary Clinton?

Are we really going to play the game where we assured a pleasant surprise but we'll have to wait until we unwrap the package? We are venturing into the area of religion here.

Who is going to buy this "good soldier" routine, especially when she does nothing to dispel what most would at least admit to be reasonable conjecture? This is someone who has been a powerful public figure for more than a generation and who is approaching seventy. She has been a US Senator and run for President, her positions are as well established as she has had any intention of establishing them, any confusion on our part would be due to willfully distorting them. Few individuals in the history of the world have had so much of a platform for such a period of years.

Now, are there areas where I don't know where Warren stands? Undoubtedly, which is why I'm not all up on the bandwagon but what I do know, I like and where I am hearing what I like I can't even say it is remotely believable that there is strong commonality between the two figures unless you are saying one is a con - artist.

There very well may be areas where these two are peas in a pod but not where Warren is making waves, that isn't credible.

[MADem]

300. Throw Joe Biden under the bus, too, then. How dare HE be a "good soldier!"

You need to stop confusing Hillary--the Senator--with Bill, the former President.

And that is what you are doing.

I think you'll be surprised, as time goes on, to learn how similar these two women are. I'll look forward to hearing your comments when EW campaigns for HRC.

[TheKentuckian]

313. I said not a word about Biden but I don't much think we are debating his positions

He has been a Senator or Vice President for over forty straight years and has run for President himself more than once.

Mostly, no one is trying to sell Biden as someone that seems to conflict with that long public record or at all really for that matter.

Hillary Clinton just ran for President, who was she playing good soldier for then? What is it that is such a surprise here? If your argument is that Warren is a con then get on with it but if your argument is that Hillary Clinton has similar views on financial regulations and oversight, consumer protection, bank regulation, Wall Street accountability, and protection of the environment as Warren presents then I continue to contend that it plainly is not credible as evidenced by you repeatedly pointing to a "feeling" set in the future as justification along with pointing out the distinctive persons that are Bill and Hillary Clinton. Well, fucking BULLY! Yay! I don't believe Ron Christie is Dick Cheney, I'm sure there are items of disagreement but overall the distinction is not substantively different.

If folks don't know the "real" Hillary then that is on her not me. Seriously, and again...she just fucking ran for President and I'm gonna say she failed to distance herself from The Turd Way, in fact she openly embraced it as you'd expect from an associate of "The Family" and a founder of the DLC.

C'MON MAN!

This is some old jive, arrogant jive. Jive that tells the audience that you think they are dumber than dogshit in the most sneering way possible.

As for your eagerness to see my response to Warren campaigning for Clinton, I'm not clear on why this would be a point of high drama when that is almost always what happens. The opposite would be the shocker.

You are vehemently arguing a big ol nothing burger with extra cheese. Fast forward a few years and you'll be going on about how President Clinton never campaigned on _______ and has always been openly and proudly Centrist, besides would you be happier with President (insert boogieman of the day here) and we have an election coming up that is the most important in history and that Supreme Court is in the balance and if we don't want hell on Earth then we'd best get in line. Rinse repeat ad nauseum forever.

I feel like I am arguing with someone who cares not what they argue for or against or which argument is engaged as long as they win and winning can mean both sides and the middle.

[MADem]

322. Biden was on that stage with both HRC and POTUS--how soon we forget!

And you're crabbing about how HRC "recently" (hello? That was two elections ago--a LIFETIME in political terms) ran for the Presidency....and if you think back, hard, now, you'll note that most pundits said the race was more about style than substance, that there was little daylight between the two candidates (three, if you want to include Biden--so there's where he comes in...and he's still working for POTUS, unlike HRC). Now you're pretending there's a huge gulf, there. Cough, horsepooey, cough.

Oooooh, Hillary (not Bill, Hillary) "founded the DLC." No, she didn't. What horseshit. Nice try, though--tell me, do you always ascribe the work of politicians to their spouses? Or is it just Hillary who gets this treatment? And your vague associations with "The Family" sound like shit ripped from the pages of Newsmax. The guy that runs that C street outfit is, in essence, a religious lobbyist, and that group has been associated with every administration since Eisenhower's. He's an influencer, and he knows a LOT of people. He runs the odd prayer group and that annual breakfast, which has had speakers from Bono to Mother Teresa (who, BTW, ripped both Clintons a new one for being pro-choice) at it. That doesn't mean that people who associate with these prayer groups or the annual breakfast are married to the organization.

If you don't want to get eye-rolls, don't say stuff that merits 'em. And stuff like that merits 'em. So yeah, C'MON MAN. Indeed.

And you clearly haven't been reading what I've written (AT ALL) if you think that I think that "Warren is a con." Where you got that, I've NO idea but it is straight outta thin air. Gee--I feel like I'm arguing with someone just like you describe in your last paragraph--you don't even bother to read what I say, and it shows. I have bothered to read what you've written, and I feel as though I am wasting my time, to put it bluntly.

Let me make my views on EW entirely clear to you, since you keep missing my point. She's my Senator and I worked to get her elected.

We like her and we intend to keep her. We've had six senators (Kerry, Kirk, Brown, Cowan, Warren, Markey) since Ted died, and we deserve a little stability. She's pledged to complete her term. She's said NO over two dozen times. She's not raising money, she's not meeting with national strategists or state operatives, she's refusing invitations to Beauty Contests like the Harkin Steak Fry, she's ducking the Sunday talkers and avoiding interviews unless they are about HER issues, and reporters from MA have the best shot at getting any of her time. So, in sum, I don't think she's a liar. I think NO means NO. Go find some other "savior" because she ain't it, she has said as much, and you'll just have to "get over it."

[TheKentuckian]

326. You are veering into distortion, you brought up Biden and are now bringing up Obama

while manufacturing an assertion of a gulf between these politicians that I sure as hell did not state.
I didn't pretend shit, you erected a fucking strawman from your own imagination to try and beat up when it is you who introduced the comparisons.

You need to stop putting your less in my mouth. I said absolutely nothing about Biden or Obama here nor anything about any fucking gulf in their policies, that is a fabrication you want to beat up on but not what came from me.

Don't put words in my fucking mouth.

[MADem]

327. No I'm not.

HRC was in the Senate at the same time as those two, and their stances on issues were like peas in a pod. Now, in the OP, HRC--who has nothing to do with anything, being in private life now, after never having a vote on anything while working in the Cabinet--is being falsely put in a "compare and contrast" environment with EW, for the purposes of creating division amongst Democrats by some loser who writes lame editorials.

You might want to read the whole thread if you want to participate in it, and ease back on the hot-breathed anger. Or don't--your choice. This is a discussion board--if you don't want to discuss, fine-- just go away and stop yelling the "F" word like an internet tough guy at me. If you do want to discuss, do so instead of attempting to "lecture" me with fucking this and fucking that.

It doesn't play well with me at all.

[TheKentuckian]

363. So what? I still didn't mention them and I am angry because of your distortions and putting words in

in my mouth which doesn't impress me beyond all possible comparison and no I don't give a damn about the entire thread because there is nothing that could ever be found that allows you to put words in my fucking mouth and you'll avoid lectures when you correct your bullshit.

Who the fuck do you think you are? Why do you think you can just make up shit and get a pass? A lecture? Fucking A, at minimum.

[MADem]

370. Wow, what a run-on ramble that was, too! FULL of personal insult, too!

Your first paragraph, and your subject line, are a hard-to-read sentence. I guess you're er, upset, or something. The internet shouldn't have that kind of power over people--it's not healthy.

I'd say you should look in the mirror and repeat your last, nasty, invective-laced paragraph to yourself--and then ask yourself why you'd want to talk like that to a complete stranger on your computer.

And I also think that once you start talking like that, you've gone long past the point where you lost the argument....as well as any or all perspective. Hope you find some because it's clear you have a need.

[rhett o rick]

342. Good posts. It is interesting that people are trying to sell Clinton as "possibly not as bad

as you might think" when we know her very well. Makes me wonder why they are trying to sell her in this manner. Are they in some kind of wishful denial? Or do they fully accept her as the proven corporatist she is, but are trying to "fool" others?

Some other techniques include the "ignore 2016 because (insert ridiculous reason here)". And of course the Sen Warren isnt running (so therefore you are bound to support Clinton-Sachs).

The left desperately needs a candidate for 2016. It may not be Sen Warren, but we must have one. Currently Clinton is dancing with Godlman-Sachs and thumbing her nose at the left. I think it is a mistake. If the Republicans run someone moderate that isnt a whacko, they will pull a lot of the New-Democrats back to the fold and it may be a close race if the left doesnt support her. In 2012 Obama knew he didnt have to woo the left because he knew a lot would vote for him irregardless. That may not be true with Clinton. I think the left is getting weary of the lesser of evils bullshit.

[MADem]

351. People like to lie about HRC. The Paulbot crowd, especially, gets rabid about her.

It's not a question, really, of "not as bad," it's that people believe half-truths, they perpetrate them, and they ascribe nasty motives without basis in fact. People who believe that shit don't "know her very well" at all.

The left is not going to win this election. Go ahead and pull out your gun (everyone in America has one, it seems) and shoot the messenger, but that's the truth. The best anyone can hope for is a left-leaning centrist, because the USA is not a "left" nation. In fact, the country is usually described as "center-right," mostly because of the whole "religion wars" issues (which don't really affect most peoples' daily lives, unless the religious people start fucking with choice--but that is a different issue entirely).

Clinton is not "dancing with Goldman Sachs" nor is she "thumbing her nose at the left" but those catch-phrases are real groovy to rile up the beansprout brigade. People like HRC for the reasons you see in the videos I've offered--she speaks plainly to real people with everyday issues. Lower taxes on the middle class, raise them on the rich, health care for all, affordable higher education...these are things that she can deliver on. These are things people want.

[rhett o rick]

364. She accepted $400,000 from Goldman-Sachs and she isnt even running yet. HMMM.

In her speech she sympathized with the bankers re. the criticism they have had to deal with. Tell me that isnt "thumbing her nose at the left." What has she said that makes us feel she is on our side?

[MADem]

367. You still haven't provided any links.

Like I'm going to trust your word, with your obvious bias...?

I think the Mayor of NYC--the new one, not the outgoing one--has good judgment as well as "progressive" bona fides. He is a good friend of HRC, she is a very good friend to him, she helped to get him elected by raising all that money you hate, and her husband, that guy Bill who used to be POTUS way back when, is gonna swear the guy in.

So...whatever. Haters gonna hate.

[rhett o rick]

373. So you've resorted to name calling. I guess by calling those you disagree with "haters" you

hope to "encourage" them into going along with your way.

Links? It's all over the internetz. But as you want:

http://jonathanturley.org/2013/11/01/goldman-sachs-gives-hillary-clinton-almost-half-a-million-dollars-in-less-than-a-week/

"From Goldman Sachs to the Carlyle group, business interests are lining up to give huge amounts of cash to the Clintons personally for such speeches."

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-speeches-2013-10

"It’s the latest paid speaking gig for Clinton, who has also made visits to an investors conference held by private equity firm KKR, and to the Carlyle Group."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-98958.html#ixzz2oyMBRxNr

You mention that I hate money. You are partially correct. I hate money in politics. Clinton goes to a meeting with Goldman-Sachs and they give her $200,000 for her personal account. They look at it as an investment that they can get a good return on in the future. I look at it as corruption.

[MADem]

374. If the shoe fits, you go wear it.

You said they "gave" her the money--like a campaign contribution.

In fact, she "earned" the money for two speeches. That was a PAYCHECK, not a donation. Now, if you don't think she doesn't deserve that kind of cash for a speech, but GOP men like Reagan, Powell, Bush, etc. did, well...

So, haters gonna hate--or make shit up. Or "insinuate."

But hey, whatever--thanks for proving my point.

[rhett o rick]

375. Ah man. It's graft when any of them do it. Speeches by politicians are a common and

well known way to transfer money (without campaign limits) from corporations to candidates. And they expect, and usually get, a handsome return on their money.

I am a hater. I hate graft and corruption in politics. Some choose to pretend it doesnt exist. At least for their candidates.

[MADem]

376. Funny how you only protest when SOME do it, though.....

Shake your fist at Howard Dean, why doncha? His paymaster is rather interesting too...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/11/hillary-clinton-isnt-alone-former-politicians-rake-it-in-on-speaker-circuit/

How about this fellah, charging $55K to talk about poverty?

http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2007/05/21/edwards-charges-55000-to-speak-to-uc-davis-students-about-poverty/

And you can always hire this guy to speak--the nerve of him, to take advantage of an opportunity to make some easy dough! Why isn't he in sack cloth and ashes?

http://www.harrywalker.com/speaker/Jimmy-Carter.cfm?Spea_ID=71

Even my new Senior Senator has taken money to speak. See honararia, lectures and consulting -- she ranks 21st in the Senate for "outside income." THEY ALL DO IT.

In fact, my senior senator is quite a wealthy woman, and good thing--it's not easy for a poor person to run for the Senate and win; it takes too much out of them:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/elizabeth-warren-financial-disclosure-report-advice

I mean, come on, GET REAL. This is SOP, even if you want to single out one and ignore the others (the others, who can't command a "big" honoraria because they aren't as popular a draw) --it's a way to pay the bills for some, a way to fill the campaign coffers for others.

For you to act all "Shocked, shocked" that someone would be willing to take the dough that suckers want to give them for "value received"--i.e., work, i.e. a speech, a Q and A, on whatever topic--is just stupid and naive.

What's easier? A couple of hundred rubber chicken dinners, saying the same shit, over and over and over, or a one-hit, big money take? Why you seem to think it's a "good thing" or a more "virtuous" use of time for a person to slog away, like an underpaid and ineffective nitwit, when they can get in, get out and get the money, is just stupid.

Yeah, it would be NICE if we had public financing of campaigns. But here's the bottom line--we DON'T. And campaigns don't run on love and pale moonlight, now, do they?

Life was much sweeter and simpler when cars didn't clog freeways--but we're not going back to those days, either. This is how a politician HAS to play it--they have to grab the money as efficiently as they can, so they can buy that high priced air time and get their perspective out there. Criticizing someone for a) Being smart, and B) Being POPULAR enough to be able to command HUGE numbers for speaking fees, is just whiney, sour grapes foolishness.

[TheKentuckian]

362. I'm thinking weirdo con job, a lame attempt to coral the left without doing or even saying anything.

Silliness.

[Ken Burch]

85. She won't campaign for HRC in the primary.

Why would she, when HRC is sharply to her right on every major issue.

Elizabeth Warren would be the only true feminist candidate in the race-since feminism isn't compatible with being militarist and pro-corporate dominance.

[MADem]

98. If there's a primary, at least one of any consequence.

Most Democrats don't "campaign in the primary" unless they have a longstanding association with their candidate and are serving in some capacity on their campaign -- as an organizer, a fundraiser, or something of that nature.

It is far more common for politicians to hold their endorsements for the general, than not.


Your last paragraph was just a word scramble. "Only true feminist?" Whatever.

You do know that EW favors a strong military? She's not stupid--she knows what kinds of industries are sited in the state she represents...or maybe you don't?


http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=news&id=227

Two months after she joined other Massachusetts legislators to support federal funding for the WIN-T battlefield communications system, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren visited Taunton to see the equipment first-hand.

"It's a great part of the national defense effort," said Warren, who toured defense contractor General Dynamics' Taunton facility Thursday.

General Dynamics produces the WIN-T battlefield communications system for the Army at its Taunton facility. The WIN-T system contains embedded high-speed intranet components in military vehicles and allows soldiers and commanders to transmit data, including communications and live video feeds, to and from the front lines while on the move.

The WIN-T equipment, Warren said, helps keep U.S. troops safer in the battlefield.

Since her brothers served in uniform, she's a strong advocate for military families, active duty servicemembers, vets and retirees, to include disabled vets.

Those of us who served appreciate her for this:

http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=246



The woman to the right of EW is David Petraus's wife, Holly.

[Ken Burch]

108. support for military families is a separate issue from supporting a big war budget.

We no longer need a Cold War-sized war machine, and it goes without saying that war can never again liberate women(the only time it ever did was during World War II, and that was largely by accident, with the politicians and the business sector pretty much ending all the temporary liberation right after VJ Day. That situation will never be repeated, and no U.S. intervention in the Middle East can ever benefit women).

[MADem]

113. You can favor a strong military and not be an endorser of waste...

I've always despised military "stupid spending" and I spent decades in the military. I also think that--as is already happening--drawdowns make sense in the absence of war. This is, you know, why we rely on the reserves much more than we did twenty and thirty years ago--we can wind 'em up and draw them down far easier, and we don't have to pare an active force quite so much (though that can't be avoided entirely, and, if you have been paying attention, you'll see that the process is already underway and has been for some time).

I guess you are saying that Warren isn't a feminist, either, if "war can never be feminist."

Which, to my ear, sounds very much like a sexist statement, but whatever.

I think your comment will come as a surprise to all the women in uniform who have served over the last decade and then some.

[Ken Burch]

130. Yes they have served, and served well, but this didn't serve feminist ends.

I'm glad those women got a chance to do what they wanted, but being part of the war machine doesn't really serve any larger agenda of human liberation...war, especially war led by major powers, can't liberate anyone anymore. All it can do is temporarily sort of a situation by killing some people. It can't cause freedom and it can't change power relations to the benefit of anyone on the bottom anymore.

No offence intended to the service members...it's the institution of war that is obsolete and the problem.

[MADem]

143. Yes, "those women." I wonder if they're any relation to the "You people" I'm often

associated with? Many of 'em could pass for my sistahs!

I think you don't really quite realize that the person(s)--regardless of gender--who "like" war least, or indeed, who despise it best, are the warriors. We understand that we're what happens when deterrence fails...or a Republican is in office, these days.

The cheerleaders for war, and the people who start them, tend to be the chickenhawks who sit at home on the sidelines telling those of us doing the heavy lifting how to Yee Haw and Hoo Rah.

That said, if we hammered our swords into plowshares and decided to get rid of our military, we'd be well advised to learn Russian or Chinese, because they don't have the same idea in mind.

[Ken Burch]

236. I meant nothing at all like "you people"-it was simply a way to denote a group. No slur at all.

I favor enough of a military to protect our territory from external attack...we can do that with a far smaller defense budget than we have now.
We no longer need a Cold War size nuclear stockpile in Russia(the Russian defenses are meant defensively...Putin is not trying to take over the world)and I doubt the Chinese are either(they need the world order as it exists to keep existing in order to keep trading with it). We have no reason to maintain the status quo on military policy...especially the antiquated insistence on being prepared to fight a two-front war.

And of course soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen(sorry for the gender-specific term for enlisted USAF personnel, but "airpeople" just sounds weird)don't cheerlead for war. I wasn't saying they did.

What's wrong with using much of the money devoted to the MIC for life-affirming purposes instead? And what's wrong with giving those service people a role to play in life that isn't about eternally preparing for an orgy of death-which, while few of them want it, is, in the end, the purpose of the military. It has no progressive purpose, no hopeful purpose, and no ability to improve the human condition in any meaningful way. It can stop some bad people...but that isn't the sole purpose for governance(of which the military is meant to be a part).

[MADem]

258. But "those women" can't be feminists, you've declared.

I think you'd better poll them before you make pronouncements like that.

You stuck your foot in it.

I can repeat it all day, no one despises war more than the warrior. And that doesn't matter if the warrior is a male or a female warrior.

If you want to crab about the MIC, direct your ire at the fat, rich, corporate basstids sipping scotch, who have never gone in harm's way even once. They're the ones who pull the strings, cause the chaos, and create the bullshit, not the people in uniform who are all too often the targets of invective from people who just don't get how the system works.

If you think that China will give up their military if we do, you're just not thinking rationally. It's their biggest employment program. In fact, it's the biggest military in the world. They've got more cannon fodder than nations have cannon. They lost thousands of people in their "Vietnam War"--the one most Americans never even heard of; they've had a number of military actions we in the west don't even cover (which leads to a false impression that they are "peaceniks" who don't ever fight--nothing could be further from the truth); they're ready to go to war if anyone interferes with what they regard as a vital interest (e.g. a border dispute):

The PLA is the world's largest military force, with a strength of approximately 2,250,000 personnel (about 0.18% of the country's population). The PLA comprises five main service branches, consisting of the PLA Ground Force, PLA Navy (PLAN), PLA Air Force (PLAAF), Second Artillery Corps (strategic missile force), and the PLA Reserve Force. In war times, armed police is a service branch of PLA. Military service is compulsory, in theory, for all men who attain the age of 18; women may register for duty in the medical, veterinary, and other technical services at ages as young as 14. However, a draft in China has never been enforced due to large numbers of volunteers from China's huge population. Demobilized servicemen are carried in a ready reserve, which is reinforced by a standby reserve of veterans and by the militia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army

As for our military, you're getting your wish--a drawdown is well underway. This has been in the news for some time, now.

What was supposed to be a four-year process to cut the Army’s end strength by as many as 80,000 soldiers, inactivate 10 BCTs and reorganize the remaining BCTs will now be compressed into two years, according to a report in the Army Times.

...The BCT reorganization is one of the Army’s largest organizational changes since World War II. It not only will cut 10 BCTs from the Army but also result in the inactivation of almost 200 smaller units. The Army will reorganize most of its remaining BCTs by adding a third maneuver battalion to its armored and infantry brigades, Army Times noted.

Not just the Army either--USMC has started the process as well.

The Marine Corps’ personnel drawdown plan for the year ahead has taken shape, but a lingering threat of steeper cuts leaves open the possibility that these carefully laid efforts could be upended.

At present, the Corps is on pace to whittle its active-duty force to 174,000 Marines by the end of 2017, eliminating approximately 5,000 positions a year and relying heavily on voluntary, incentive-based measures to get there. But there’s a fat, ugly elephant in the room: Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s bleak predication in August that the spending caps known as sequestration could drive Marine end strength as low as 150,000. And now, under the deal Congress struck Oct. 17 to end the 16-day government shutdown, it looks like sequestration is here to stay.

The USN and to a lesser extent USAF have been in drawdown mode for the last decade, but even they aren't "done" yet.

There is nothing "wrong" with diverting DOD funds to other purposes, in fact, it's what Democrats do best. Bill Clinton was the guy who got stuck managing the drawdown that resulted from Reagan's six hundred ship Navy/Star Wars/Spend-Spend-Spend adventures, and that was a rough ride for the people managing it--painful and deep cuts were made--by a DEMOCRAT. As is happening again with the current drawdown--and again, by a DEMOCRAT.

This is a cycle that repeats regularly; the GOP ramps up for war, spends like drunken Sailors and hires like mad and makes promises they can't keep, and the Democrats are left to pay the bills and trim the ranks (which very often results in hurt feelings and disrupted lives).

I'm sick and tired of this bullshit, lazy conflation that "they're all the same" because they aren't. Democrats do drawdowns, pay off the bills, and END conflicts; Republicans run up the credit card and start wars. And that is the simple truth.

Oh, and there are feminist women in uniform--go ask some of them; they'll tell you.

[Ken Burch]

265. I wasn't calling soldiers warmongers and you know it.

And I wasn't saying military women aren't personally feminists...what I was and am saying is that war itself can't be feminist. The only time it ever was was in World War II, and that was by accident.

[MADem]

267. I hear beeping.

You're backing up from your initial comments.

Look, your words are there for people to read and make their own determination. I know how they came across to me, which is why I responded the way I did.

[merrily]

202. I am not sure they are all that separate.

[rhett o rick]

88. I am aware that the conservatives of the Party have control and I suspect that Clinton will win the

nomination. After all she will have all the Wall Street money behind her. Clinton vs. Christie is win-win for corporate America and a deadly blow to the lower classes.

By the way, which issues of the "uber left" do you disagree with?

[MADem]

105. I don't support people who create dramas and fake catfights amongst hardworking Democratic

politicians, particularly female ones, to put eyes on their shitty little online articles.

That kind of shit is as nasty as the junk coming out of Brietbart or Townhall.

And when Clinton wins that nomination, Elizabeth Warren will be supporting her.

[Ken Burch]

111. You sound arrogantly certain that it will be HRC. Why?

She has nothing to offer that the rest can't offer. And her candidacy is STILL going to be based on the assumption that the Democratic nominee HAS to be the right of most Democrats.

[MADem]

115. "Arrogantly certain?" Well, that's getting off on the right foot, there!

I read the papers.

I listen to the news.

I keep my ear to the ground.

I notice how much money PACS are raising.

I pay attention to the polls which have her so far out in front that she has no actual competition.

Now, if I add all that up and come to what any sane person would call a "logical conclusion" (but you characterize as "arrogant certainty&quot I can't help you.

You have a nice day, now!

[rhett o rick]

365. She knows that the big money is on Clinton. Clinton/Christie or Christie/Clinton the banksters

dont care which. Goldman-Sachs has already given her $400,000 dollars. How ironic that Citizens United may be to her advantage this time around.

[MADem]

368. There you go again! nt

[rhett o rick]

112. I dont doubt for a minute that Sen Warren will support the Democratic nominee.

You mention the "uber left" and I was wondering what issues they support that you dont.

[MADem]

117. I answered that question--do you want me to cut and paste my answer? nt

[rhett o rick]

119. Yes plez. I apparently missed it. nm

[MADem]

121. Here you go.

I don't support people who create dramas and fake catfights amongst hardworking Democratic politicians, particularly female ones, to put eyes on their shitty little online articles.

That kind of shit is as nasty as the junk coming out of Brietbart or Townhall.

And when Clinton wins that nomination, Elizabeth Warren will be supporting her.

[merrily]

177. Pot stirring is a journalistic speciality, not a leftist "issue."

The right can stir pots as well as anyone. So can centrists.

Protest is, of course, a hallmark of not having your view represented. So, of course, if your view is the one held by the establishment, you have less reason to protest.

P.S. "You" is not used in this post to mean MADem, but rather is used collectively, to mean everyone.

[Kelvin Mace]

170. I can undestand that as a political decision

I rather expect it. My head won't explode, but it will take quite a bit to get me to vote for another center-Right Democrat.

[MADem]

172. Well, if you think you'll get a better deal from her opponent, go on ahead and withhold that vote.

No one's going to force you to vote for her.

[Kelvin Mace]

245. Nope,

not under that delusion.

Some of us are just pretty tired voting for the lesser of evils. If folks are ok with that great, but I refuse to accept that voting for HRC will any kind of noble endeavor that will improve the country. The rich will still get richer, the oil companies will still pillage the environment, civil rights (specifically the 1st and 4th Amendment) will still be null and void and we will still be poring a trillion a year into war mongering. The best we can hope for with HRC is a slowing of the trend.

Between peak oil and global climate change, our death warrant is pretty much signed. Then there is the refusal to reform the financial sector, which guarantees another economic implosion in the future.

[MADem]

246. You've laid out what she's "not" going to do before she has even taken the oath.

Interesting.

[Kelvin Mace]

248. The Clinton track record of center-right political

triangulation is pretty much established. Why would it suddenly change?

[MADem]

250. How amusing (and telling) that you conflate her husband's record with hers...

But hey, it's all of a piece, I suppose, you're thinking? Which, in itself, doesn't recommend your opinion.

She's got a damn fine record in the Senate, if you ask the citizens of NY. And she served admirably and well as SECSTATE.

Your prejudices are both apparent and noted. No sense in going on--we get it, you don't like the woman.

[Kelvin Mace]

426. The Clintons,

BOTH of them, are very cozy with Wall Street. I would also point out that HRC sat on the board of Wal-Mart at one time.

HRC will be the next president, yet again the lesser of two evils, just as Obama was.

[JDPriestly]

239. Do you think that Hillary cares at all about the environment?

I doubt it.

Same for the excesses of the banks. Hillary does not care. She does not care about the middle class. Elizabeth Warren does.

Every time that Hillary speaks to a group of bankers or very wealthy people, she positions herself against the middle class.

[MADem]

269. Yes, I do.

We'll have to wait and see who ends up on her cabinet to prove or disprove her bona fides in that regard.

Your vague last sentence -- uncited, just a blanket indictment--is meaningless. If she really positions herself against the middle class she wouldn't have so much support from the middle class.

What was her position on tax cuts for the middle class, and tax increases for the weathy, again? Hmmm?

But never mind those pesky facts. Facts can get in the way of a good "off the top of your head" rant, can't they?

[JDPriestly]

277. What is her position on reigning in Wall Street's excesses?

That is the test. How a candidate comes down on that issue determines their real attitude toward the 99%.

[MADem]

279. That would be "reining" and we'll have to wait and see who she appoints as Treasury Secretary and

Fed Chair to have a fulsome picture of her views in that regard.

I think Elizabeth Warren would do well in either position. I'd like to see her start at Treasury and fleet up to Chair of the FR.

[JDPriestly]

299. But Hillary would never appoint Elizabeth Warren.

Hillary, like Bill before her, will turn to Wall Street for recommendations.

She and Bill have completely sold out. The sad thing is that I doubt that either of them has considered that is what they have done.

"It takes a village" has become "it takes Wall Street" . . . .

As a nation, at this point in history, we have to return our economic engine to Main Street and move away from Wall Street.

Hillary cannot do that. It is not in her to do that. She does not even see the error in her ways.

Watch the video at post # 3 on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024234233#post32

It is great, and it explains why Hillary is a no go for 2016. She and Bill were part of the history that has enabled the destruction of the middle class. Nobody want a repeat on that. Or if they think they do now, they won't by 2016.

[MADem]

305. So glad you've got the "inside scoop" on what HRC might do. She told you this, I suppose?

I don't think you quite realize how creepily personal your words come across when you describe her. Bitter, angry, ascribing motives, scolding--"She can't see the ERROR of her WAYS!" Like she's a sinner to be brought in line! "It's not IN HER to do that!"

Like you know her, and her capabilities.

Clearly you don't.

Where do you get these attitudes? It sounds like the garbage that one finds at wingnut sites.

And if you think I am going to watch a one hour and twenty five minute video to get some oddball take away from it that you regard as special, I've got a bridge for sale. You do know that most political ads are fifteen to thirty seconds? Don't be coy--if there's a point to make, make it.

Look, she's a strong woman. I know this can upset some people.

Get used to it, though.

Here, let me give YOU a link--it doesn't go on for ninety minutes, but it makes the point quite clearly:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/194044-christie-clinton-tied-again-in-new-presidential-poll

And here's a picture that illustrates where she sits in the D-pack--and she's the leader by a country mile:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

[DisgustipatedinCA]

331. Creepy and personal?

You've made an accusation. Be specific, especially when you're the poster who sounds "creepy and personal". Fully half of the responses in this thread belong to you, and a good many of those responses sound desperate, angry, confrontational. Maybe you're not the right person to be preaching the ills of creepy and personal behavior.

[MADem]

334. Do you always "ride to the rescue?" Or are you making a 'personal' exception, here?

Do you want me to cut and paste what I said, again, because you didn't read it the first time? Go back and read my post, and the quotes that I found rather creepy and personal--like Hillary cannot do that. It is not in her to do that. She does not even see the error in her ways. That sounds "creepy and personal" to me.

"Fully half of the responses in this thread" belong to me because I was challenged. You know, sort of like YOU are doing, right now--jumping into a conversation between me and another poster. What, I'm not supposed to respond, because YOU might not like it? Please.

And as for "desperate and angry," I think you need to look in the mirror. I'm not the one foaming at the mouth and making up falsehoods about HRC's stances on the issues, but I see plenty of that throughout this thread.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

337. I really don't need a re-pasting of what I already commented on.

And no, I don't normally ride to the rescue--I don't even know the other poster. But I do know low-hanging fruit when I see it. And of course, if you don't like people commenting on your posts, there are remedies available to you.

[MADem]

340. Since you didn't apparently read it the first time, I think you might. At least go back and re-read

your attempt at snark. If you recall, just moments ago, you were the one snarking at ME about my responses in this thread--so you might want to at least remember what you said before you try to make ill-advised comments about "low hanging fruit" and post comments.

Your posts don't bother me at all--they aren't really shedding any light on the topic, but they do speak to your character.

[KoKo]

11. Way past time to "stir the pot." Agree...

[Phlem]

133. Agreed.

But the guy doesn't want to give us the SPOON! He'd rather whack us over the head with it, cause he knows all.



-p

[daleanime]

19. "Stirring"?

I'm beating on it like a drum. Beyond tired of the same old corporation candidates.

[Phlem]

134. But don't cha know

We've got to go right to go left.

-p

[Enthusiast]

56. Yes.

We reached a crisis some time ago. That's why the electorate turned out as they did in 2006 and 2008.

Since then, millions have been just a tad discouraged.

[rhett o rick]

89. I dont see that the lower classes have a chance. Ironically Citizen's United will

probably get Clinton the nomination if not the presidency. It will be a huge win for the corporate fascists. But some here are ok with corporate fascism as long as it's wrapped in a Democratic flag.

[merrily]

173. I wonder what Hillary will do under Citizens United that she did not do in 2008,

before the SCOTUS decided Citizen's United (ironically, a SCOTUS case about a film knocking Hillary)?

[rhett o rick]

195. I think the big money would rather see Clinton as the nominee than others.

That's why I said irony.

[merrily]

200. Maybe, but that is a different from the point I was trying to make.

My question went more to how much Citizens' United changed actual fundraising practices.

For example, Hillary raised a lot of foreign money in 2008, which was supposed to be a big change allowed by Citizens' United.

Obama and Romney both raised only slightly more after Citizens United than Obama raised in 2008, before Citizens' United. (And Obama had originally pledged to abide by McCain Feingold, which promise he broke--as did McCain!).

So, I am wondering it the decision wasn't made a shibboleth, at least to some degree.

In general, it works for politicians to focus us more on the SCOTUS, which we can do precious little about, than to leave us focus on them. That the SCOTUS says a certain action does not violate the Constitution does not mean a politician must engage in it. For example, the Constitution does not prohibit ordinary murder by one private citizen of another.

If people want to focus on Citizens' United, that's fine. But we could simple refuse to vote for people who use Citizens United as a convenient excuse.

[rhett o rick]

206. "But we could simple refuse to vote for people who use Citizens United as a convenient excuse. "

Big campaign money can sway voters. That's why it's spent. Most big money goes to negative ads. Whoever dares run against Clinton will most likely be bombarded.

[merrily]

215. I agree about campaign money swaying voters, but that was true before Citizens United as well.

[treestar]

253. If you really believe that

then Warren could not win the nomination, and you should be against her for still being in the party.

Which proves you exaggerate.

[rhett o rick]

256. Does "stirring the pot" challenge your precious status quo?

"Vote for Clinton, she wont stir the pot. Eight more years of the decline of the middle class. Eight more years of kowtowing to Wall Street. Eight more years of NSA spying." Is that your battle cry?

Why are conservative Democrats afraid to discuss their principles?

[bobduca]

262. Discussing principles implies they have them...

"Why are conservative Democrats afraid to discuss their principles?"

Because they have none other than diluting the liberal policies of the democratic base with more corporate friendly candidates.

Third Way / Fifth Column democrats are necessarily tight-lipped about their true intentions and principles.

[rhett o rick]

283. Conservative Democrats were Republicans before the Party left them. nm

[treestar]

291. Why do you miss the point?

Take down your avatar. Warren is a member of the Democratic Party. She was even elected to the more elite of the two houses. As a member of the Democratic Party. You know, that entity run by the banks? Why don't you throw her under the bus for that association? Find someone better.

[rhett o rick]

293. Not all Democrats are on the side of the lower classes. The Lieberman Wing

(or Clinton Wing) woo Wall Street, support the TPP and the Patriot Act. They support the NSA and unrestricted domestic spying. They support indefinite detention for anyone that the President wants. They support fracking, the XL Pipeline, and giving BP a break. The Lieberman Wing supports the 1%.

Which wing do you support?

[Autumn]

41. Sometimes, the pot must be stirred,

or one is left with inedible garbage.

[MADem]

42. Well, the writer of that piece of crap put garbage in a pot.

Where his faux "girl fight" article belongs, IMO, is in the trash.

[Autumn]

43. Thank goodness for trash thread. Try it, you might like it.

One persons trash is another's treasure. 76 people like it so far.

[MADem]

55. Sounds like YOU might be more in need of it than I am....

Just sayin....

[Autumn]

63. I think the article is absolutely great. It hit's on all cylinders with me.

Just sayin....

[MADem]

65. It "hit's" (?) on a desire by some people--for reasons which are not always magnanimous--

to create a false impression that there is a rift between EW and HRC.

Such a rift, were it to exist, might benefit one political party.

Here's the news flash--it's not the Democratic Party that would benefit.

I look forward to seeing EW campaign for HRC--she'll be very effective. This will disappoint the cheerleaders and pot-stirrers at the nonexistent HRC v. EW Cage Match, but not everyone can get what they want.

[Autumn]

69. Two strong, smart women with differences. Not a bit of harm in

people discussing those differences. And here is a news flash for you, Hillary hasn't said shes running yet.

[MADem]

76. She hasn't said she's not running, either.

And if you think she's not running, I have a bridge for sale.

Her friends have raised MILLIONS.

You think she'd let her friends work so hard, so long, in cities across the country, only to disappoint them and flush all their hard work down the pan?

HRC has good friends because she IS a good friend. If she didn't intend to run, she'd have waved her friends off the PAC fundraising efforts.


https://www.readyforhillary.com/

[Autumn]

77. Well when she does announce, people can get behind her.

Until then people can discuss the differences between them.

[MADem]

79. The people trashing HRC on this thread have no intention of getting behind her.

The goal is a tear-down, not a discussion of any imagined policy differences.

That "editorial" is a hit piece.

[bobduca]

251. A trashed thread can't be derailed

I'm sure many are convinced of HRC's inevitability now due to the many many kicks it received from one very enthusiastic HRC backer.

[Enthusiast]

52. Odd that so many of us disagree with your sentiments.

To each their own.

[MADem]

53. Ahhh, Might (on a single thread the day after Xmas) makes Right, you're saying?

To each their own, indeed!

[Enthusiast]

57. Putting words in my mouth?

I never believe might makes right. But sometimes the majority sentiment is a leading indicator, a way to determine trends.

[MADem]

59. You're the one that brought up numbers--not me.

"So many of US" (your words--are you saying they aren't coming from you now?) are against YOU, is the sense you delivered unto me--you're saying that's not what you meant? That because my "team" (because shit here is a team sport, sadly) hasn't "weighed in" with "Yeah!" and "+1!!" and "Right on!" that my sentiment has no validity? Because "the crowd" has made my opinion invalid?

Sure sounds like you're saying might makes right to me. Or "The majority sentiment is a leading indicator," to mush it round a bit and make it a bit less hard-edged...but it's the same damn thing.

I'm looking forward to EW campaigning for HRC--I know she'll be a tremendous asset.

[sulphurdunn]

81. I will never again support

any fake Democrat for any political office anymore than I will support a genuine Republican. The only real Democrats are liberals and socialists, and that doesn't include HRC. Maybe you'd be mollified if the name of this site were changed to DINO Underground.

[MADem]

107. So, you're levying a personal insult at me, and calling ME --who worked to get Warren elected--

a DINO?

Who in hell do you think you are? Have you even glanced at the site TOS?

I guess you won't be around when EW endorses HRC for the Presidency. You'll probably blow a gasket if HRC nominates EW for a cabinet or cabinet-level post.

[merrily]

175. Working to get Warren, rather than Brown, elected Senator does not mean one

is not a DINO. Not saying you are a DINO, just saying that argument is flawed.

[MADem]

179. Well, gee, part of Brown's "schtick" was his "crossover appeal" to DINOs and Indys.

And if you don't think that EW had a very TOUGH battle here, against a racist, sexist and incompetent opponent, I'll sell you the Zakim Bridge.

It was neck-and-neck most of the way. Every vote was hard won. She only started to pull away at the very end, when the Indian jokes and the bigoted nastiness got to be just too damned much for even people who harbor prejudices.

Even now, when you see a comment after a newspaper article that is disparaging towards EW, there will often be a "Pocahontas" or "Minnie-Ha-Ha" reference. If you can stomach it, do a little googling, your eyes will be opened.

People think she cruised to victory--she didn't. She had to fight the whole way, for every damned vote.

And I helped.

[merrily]

182. Your reply doesn't refute the content of my post.

[MADem]

209. The content of your post doesn't apply to me. How can I "refute" a suggestion, slyly made and

withdrawn, that appears crafted to impugn and malign?

[merrily]

212. Huh?

[MADem]

221. Go back and read your words in 175. Not sayin'...but just sayin'.... nt

[merrily]

224. Because saying your argument is flawed does not = saying you are a DINO.

And I wanted to underscore that.

Maybe you are the one who needs to read my words again.

[MADem]

230. What argument? That I worked to elect EW to the Senate?

That's not an argument, that's fact.

But you're not saying I'm a DINO.

OK, sure, whatever.

[merrily]

232. A Democrat working to elect any other Democrat does not necessarily

mean that Democrat is left, right or center. It can mean simply that he or she is a loyal Democrat.

If a Democrat endorses and campaigns for a Democratic Presidential candidate, it does not necessarily mean that Baucus is exactly aligned on the political spectrum with that candidate. It could just mean that the Democrat is a loyal, unconditional Democrat. So, saying you worked to elect Warren, in and of itself, does not necessarily mean that you are left, right or center. It could mean only that you are a Democrat who campaigns for Democrats. On the other hand, it does not disprove anything either.

That is all my post meant. So, no, I was not saying you are a DINO. I don't know enough about you to say that--or to say that you are a liberal or a centrist. I was saying only that telling us you worked for the Democratic candidate in Massachusetts doesn't prove anything about where you are on the spectrum.

But, if you want to read something else into my post, no matter what pains I took to try to prevent you and other possible readers from doing that, I obviously can't stop you despite this being my third attempt.

So, yeah, whatever.

[MADem]

233. And saying I worked to get EW elected wasn't an argument...so there we are. nt

[sulphurdunn]

257. I didn't call you anything, but

I am happy to call out your obnoxious and bullying demeanor throughout this thread. I don't care if you helped Jesus get elected Son of God. The Democratic Party is controlled by corporate shills like Clinton and you should wake up to that fact, unless it doesn't matter to you. Regardless, you need to learn some manners.

[MADem]

261. Sure you did--let me quote you, just so everyone is clear:

Maybe you'd be mollified if the name of this site were changed to DINO Underground.

Seems to me that whoever smelt it, dealt it--you think it's "OK" to call people DINOs when you don't agree with them. That's not acceptable conduct.

I could come up with a few names for you, too, if I really wanted to be a bully--what you're whining about is that I don't see things YOUR way--too bad for you; you haven't made your case, now, have you? I guess no one ever taught you that insulting people isn't the way to convince people of the rightness of your cause.

It's called a DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. If you seriously think you're being bullied (wailing childishly while you toss "DINO" insults) maybe you need a break. You sure as hell lack perspective or a mature outlook, to put it as kindly as I can manage.

[rhett o rick]

91. Clinton supporters can be smug because they side with the big money. She has

already embraced Wall Street.

[MADem]

101. Well, when EW supports Clinton, will you throw her under the bus? nt

[rhett o rick]

118. If Clinton loses to Christie, who will you blame? Ralph Nader? nm

[MADem]

122. She won't lose. nt

[rhett o rick]

129. In 2012 Obama ditched the left to woo the moderate conservatives (Centrists, The Third Way'ers, etc.

It was a good move for him. However, if Christie wins the nomination then those moderate conservatives will switch back to voting Republican and make a race for Clinton.

It will be interesting who the corporate fascists back in a Clinton vs. Christie race. I'm betting they back both.

You are smug because you know that big money will win and you chose big money.

[MADem]

165. Christie is a vengeful bully. He'll have to beat back Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, too.

IF he decides to run, that is. He's still a young man--he could wait ten years, easily, until all this bullying business recedes, if he wanted; maybe get some more "statesman-like" cred--he'd need to find a high-viz gig, though.

This was a nasty little comment on your part--are you proud of this?

You are smug because you know that big money will win and you chose big money.

You should check out the "Big Money" at Ready For Hillary. All private donations from small donors; no corporate money allowed.

https://www.readyforhillary.com/about

But hey....that doesn't fit the meme. No facts required to say stuff like that, I guess!

[rhett o rick]

203. Nasty comment? To say that you side with the big money? Clinton is the BIG MONEY Democratic

candidate. Clinton is the apple of the eye of BIG MONEY. You're not trying to sell us that she is a populist candidate, are you? Just last week she was smooching up to the banksters.

If you dont think Clinton will attract big money, you are living in denial.

[MADem]

231. Cinton is the candidate with the most support. Most of her supporters, sorry to break this to you,

aren't "big money" donors. They're five and ten dollar contributors. Regular people. Ordinary, hard working people.

I know this warps your POV of her, but that's your issue.

She can attract "big money" all the live - long day (winners get that kind of attention), but the bulk of her supporters aren't rich. They're middle class and they're sick of being ignored.

[rhett o rick]

90. Yes some choose Wall Street and some choose the 99%. nm

[MADem]

103. So, when EW supports Clinton's run for the Presidency, what percentage will she be supporting?

And will you push EW under the bus for supporting Hillary?

[rhett o rick]

116. She would be supporting the Democratic nominee and, sorry, but I wont throw her under the

bus. But it will be a happy day for Wall Street if they get a Clinton vs. Christie race.

A populace candidate has no chance against the big Corporate money.

[MADem]

120. Don't be sorry--that's nice, that you will continue to support her and her choices. nt

[rhett o rick]

123. Sen Warren has a Party obligation to support Clinton, I dont. nm

[MADem]

151. So she has a gun to her head then? Like she did when she signed the Senate Women's letter?

Ohhh Kay...!

[rhett o rick]

153. I didnt say that. Those are your words. Do you think Clinton will be tough on

the banksters, or do you care?

[MADem]

154. You implied it with your words.

I think Clinton will appoint EW as either Treasury Secretary or Fed Chair at some point during her tenure. I hope it's the latter--that's an independent position. Or maybe she'll start out at Treasury, and fleet up.

Think that'll be tough enough on those "banksters?"

[rhett o rick]

159. You think that Clinton, friend of Wall Street will appoint Sen Warren to

Treasury Secretary? or the Fed Chair? Not Larry Summers? Her corporate sponsors would not allow that.

[MADem]

161. Time will tell.

Do you think HRC would give money to Bernie Sanders for his war chest?

Answer: She did.

Don't ever assume that she follows anything or anyone but her own heart and her own very smart self.

It's not "corporate sponsors" that are running READY FOR HILLARY, either, you know. It's all small donations they're taking in, too--none of those "corporate sponsors" allowed.

Kinda ruins the meme, that little fact, I suppose.

[rhett o rick]

164. Oh please! Like READY FOR HILLARY is going to fund her campaign. Just last week she sympathized

with the banksters about getting picked on. How does she stand on the TPP?

"Don't ever assume that she follows anything or anyone but her own heart and her own very smart self. " So was she following her own heart when she gave Georgie Bush the go ahead to kill Iraqi children? She had a responsibility to the American people, our soldiers, the Iraqi people and the people of the world.

[MADem]

171. They're a great start--and they don't just represent cash, they represent committed voters.

Committed donors who are willing to make small donations, and those kinds of people will donate again and again.

When you start using hyperbolic, bullshit phrases like she gave Georgie Bush the go ahead to kill Iraqi children I know you've lost the bubble--and so do you, if you're honest with yourself.

Elizabeth Warren supports a strong military, too...but for some reason a large number of people here seem to think she's a hippy dippy anti-war peacenik. Her brothers were military, so was her son. Ooops.

Don't believe me, look at what the rude and disparaging folks at antiwar.com have to say about her: http://antiwar.com/blog/2011/10/17/elizabeth-warren-bomb-bomb-iran/

Another one "under the bus," I guess--because around these parts, No One is "Pure Enough!"

[rhett o rick]

199. If holding her accountable for her support of Georgie Bush's war means I've lost the

bubble, then I would agree. A bubble of denial that some seem to love.

I am not claiming that Sen Warren is our savior but I am saying that eight more years of conservative rule will finish off the middle class.

[MADem]

219. I think the middle class will get a far better deal with ANY Dem than they will a Republican.

And speaking of "saviors," no POTUS is a savior. All a POTUS can do is set the tone and perhaps propose an agenda.

Without a House, where all appropriations originate, and a Senate, where advise-and-consent determines who serves in the Cabinet and on the benches in the Halls of Justice, even that's just wishin' and hopin'.

Too many people here on DU regard POTUS as king, and that attitude, in and of itself, is problematic. People here also have this perverse attitude that a senator or representative doesn't have any responsibility to actually....errr...REPRESENT the people who elected them, to respond to their wishes, and to ...what's the word...yes, there it is again...REPRESENT their views by their votes in Congress. Such a concept. If a state has a lot of defense workers (Raytheon and General Dynamics, for example, in MA), then gee, the people representing that state are going to be interested in those sectors. I don't expect a Senator from Colorado to be terribly wrapped up in commercial fishing issues, but I do expect Senators Warren and Markey to be very interested in these matters because of the fishing fleets out of New Bedford, Gloucester, Marblehead , Cape Cod, etc.

Like Tip O'Neill said, all politics is local. HRC knows this. You should know it, too.

[sheshe2]

126. Crickets~

[merrily]

188. I will not. EW owes a lot to the Democratic Party.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

289. many others do agree with MADem's sentiments

which is why it is good we are all here. Otherwise, some of you would morph into a single ball of rage that ineffectually took the same side on every issue and got nothing done.

[Comrade Grumpy]

87. There is a tiny nugget of news wrapped in all that politicized verbiage:

Sen. Warren joined five senators and 16 congressmen in signing a letter against Keystone.

The rest of it is just, I dunno, so much ax-grinding.

[billhicks76]

211. Common Dreams Is The Best By Far

But I wish Hillary would just go away and let someone who actually cares about us all step up instead of pursuing her selfish career goals.

[fadedrose]

372. Maybe EW believed the hype that HC was in first place

until she found out that everyone did not want HC.

She's maybe going to give us a choice. Wise woman, that EW

[MADem]

377. Signs point to NO on that one, sorry.

EW ain't running. She's not raising money, she's not meeting with organizers, she's not putting her face out there on national tv.

She's not going to give you a choice. She's going to keep doing good work on behalf of the people of the Commonwealth and those with an interest in the issues she has raised from her position in the Senate, because she has pledged to finish out her term, which ends in 2018.

[fadedrose]

378. You say you are sorry?

why? I would not be sorry if HC didn't run, but I'd admit it.

too busy for this stuff now....

[MADem]

379. I am saying, politely as I can manage, that you are mistaken.

I'm citing facts to back up my assertion.

But you wanna snark, despite claiming that you're "too busy" to so do... so have at it.

It won't change the end result.

Before too long you'll probably be angry at EW for something, too. It's what happens when we forget that politicians are human.

But hey, happy holidays and all that...

[fadedrose]

380. Thank you for the lovely picture

Was it made for a card? Were you lucky enough to get one? I'm jealous.

[MADem]

381. It was part of a thank you/constituent mailer. Mine is on the fridge.

[fadedrose]

382. So you DO like Warren?

Just not as much HC?

[MADem]

386. Do you think I would have busted my ass for her if I didn't?

Look, I KNOW EW isn't running for POTUS...and I think it is likely that HRC will. I also think it's likely EW will campaign for HRC.

We are well overdue for a female President, and she is the best qualified woman in the land, bar NONE. She has the smarts AND the experience, plus, she's respected and admired. In fact, she is the "most admired" again for the 12th year in a row (and 18th time, total).

She's The One.

[fadedrose]

389. No reflection on you or others who support her

But no one has said a word about the platform that will be put forth at the convention, or what she feels about things now.

Social Security cuts, Medicare cuts, Welfare cuts, Food Stamp cuts, Unemployment benefit cuts, the Pipeline that will not help in cutting down use of oil both here and in Europe, where they expect to sell all this oil, the TPP which will hurt people the same as NAFTA did and does, Union rights, perks for billionaires, raising minimum wage, and helping businesses that include lower taxes, environment law relaxation, and again, unions...spying, Snowden, the Pope's remarks on capitalism.

And a former employee of their unitive says they are using the fund's money for other than charity. But former employees "can't" be trusted....

The only thing that she's come out with (a week after Biden) is her stance on gay rights.

I fail to see why you don't understand why the progressives don't want her. We really don't know her, and as you said, she's been everything and everywhere but the only things we know about her aren't democratic in their appeal.

If some of the things I brought up could be explained, not kept secret like the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain, she could make friends on our side, there's plenty of time. But this "haters" stuff is too much for me because I don't hate anybody but like some peoples' ideas more than others.

You are a rare person who likes both of these candidates, or potential candidates, neither has announced yet. We need to know more about the kind of government you want that would be satisfied with either of these women..

Not feeling so hot today, no mood to argue...

[MADem]

390. You're just not gonna get your way on this.

If you want change on those issues, the thing to do is elect people who will sit in the place where LAWS ARE MADE. The Executive Branch does not have "power" over those things, save the power of veto. EW is exactly where she needs to be. She could use a few like-minded friends, in the Senate AND the House (where all appropriations are initiated).

I hate to tell you this, but I am not all that "rare." In fact, I'm the norm. I don't know a SOUL out here in the real world who doesn't adore both women, and who doesn't understand what they both bring to the table. They like OBAMA too.

And these not-so-rare folks, they contribute to campaigns, they precinct walk, they smile and dial for candidates, they GOTV, and they vote.

But Warren isn't running. She's said so, dozens of times, and she has promised her constituents she will finish out her term. She's not a "potential candidate." At least not in 2016.

[XRubicon]

392. Indeed nt

[MADem]

394. No they aren't.

They're sloppy, they source poorly, and they use some questionable "talent."

They're the flip side of shit sites like Breitbart. They feed the already converted.


You've been here for what--LESS than a DAY, mere HOURS--and you've already figured out ignore? Wow, fast learner! And you're already fighting with people and questioning their bona fides! You might want to stop posting for a sec and read the TOS...that's if you're new.

If you are not new, you've been here before under another handle. If that's the case, why not let us know who you were, so we have some sense of your attitudes?

[MADem]

399. It's not my opinion.

It's an objective analysis down the years--their stuff is poorly sourced and their writers aren't good.

So, since I'm not on IGNORE, despite your promise, are you going to tell us who you were in your past life? Or is this your first visit to DU?

It took me eons to find IGNORE. It took me forever to figure out how to put something in my sig line, too.

Calling me "immediately suspect" is a bit uncivil, you know. I've been here awhile, people know my views on most issues, I am very forthcoming.

[MADem]

403. Nothing funny at all.

The facts are that CD is sloppy written and poorly sourced, and that's not an opinion.

[MADem]

405. It's not an "outstanding liberal site" though.

Unless you mean it stands outside the realm of serious and credible discourse, that is.

Don't keep making promises, now! Enjoy your stay!

[MADem]

407. No, it's not.

Any more than it's my "opinion" that grass is green and the ocean is salty.

[MADem]

409. CYA is what you should have done before you started down this road. nt

[SidDithers]

410. Come back soon, again...nt

Sid

[MADem]

411. Ha ha ha!!! I'll bet he just got those socks outta the dryer, too! nt

[hrmjustin]

395. Wow your ignore list is getting big.

[hrmjustin]

398. I have never put people on ignore. Makes life boring.

[MADem]

412. Well, you won't have to worry about that fellah.

That stinky sock has gone off to the hamper!

[hrmjustin]

413. Yes we nuked him in mirt.

[MADem]

414. Happy New Year and many thanks to all you fine MIRTers!

Taking out the trash is a tough job, and it IS appreciated!

[hrmjustin]

415. And a great new year to you my friend.

the new term starts later this month and I have to stand down. It was an interesting 6 months.

You should consider doing it. It really is an experience.

[G_j]

2. how dare she

take strong positions on the issues that will most effect our future?

[immoderate]

3. I'm glad there's SOMEBODY in government minding the environment.

Sheesh!

--imm

[RC]

4. Again Elizabeth Warren is on the correct side.

[doc03]

5. With all this global warming just how much has the sea level risen in the last

hundred years?

[truebluegreen]

36. Totally the biggest issue, eh?

[doc03]

72. I hear about the polar ice caps melting and how the sea levels

are going to raise several feet by the end of the century. Well just how much have the sea levels gone up in the last century? I think that is a legitimate question. Is there any evidence
supporting that claim? What does it accomplish to shut down coal fired power plants in the USA when they are starting a new one in China every week using our coal with no environmental laws?

[truebluegreen]

166. Yes, there's a ton of flippin' evidence that sea levels are rising,

if you were actually interested in it it's easy to find.

And BTW melting the (floating) arctic ice is not a big driver; it is melting land-based ice sheets like Greenland and the Antarctic, along with "thermal expansion" from warmer oceans that are the problem.

And it's always a great argument that so-and-so is being stupid so let's be stupid too. Fyi guess who the leader in pushing solar technology is these days? Here's a hint: it isn't us.

That said, my life's too short to be having this conversation AGAIN, with you or anyone. Have a nice life.

[merrily]

191. What is your point?

Even Newt Gingrich has agreed that global warming exists, which he agreed to many years ago. Many years ago, though, he did not admit that global warming is being caused, or greatly accelerated, by human activity.

As far as sea level, that is only one indicium. However, our seashores are indeed narrower than they used to be. Even photographs of the same beach from the 1930s or 1940s show that, as do maps of coastlines years ago and recently that have been done.

As far as China, that is what international treaties are for.

Besides, whatever other nations do only accelerates the problem, especially a nation as large as the US. Not that we are all that industrial anymore, thanks to RW policies of both of the largest political parties.

[hatrack]

255. NOAA - Not quite a foot since 1900, but that's a global average, with regional variations

There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.

While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.

The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900.

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.

This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

[Marr]

333. You've got to be kidding. /nt

[NickB79]

67. Plenty of AGW effects are more dangerous than sea level rise

At least in the shorter term (the next century).

So far, sea levels have risen 8" in the past 150 years. For most of that time, it was rising at a rate of 1.7mm/yr, with the rate accelerating to 3.3mm/yr in the past decade. If the seas "only" rise 1-2 ft by 2100, civilization could adapt to that.

If the other effects of AGW turn out to be as bad as the best estimates project (ocean acidification, massive heatwaves, droughts, crop failures, spread of tropical diseases, famine, the wars and mass migrations from said famines, etc), those are enough to devastate global civilization.

Focusing only on sea level rise as the other effects of AGW rage around us is a red herring.

[truebluegreen]

167. Thank you. You have way more patience than I do.

[villager]

6. Must make it tough for the apologists on this site to reconcilce their support of the biosphere's

...destruction, by their unhesitating applause for politicos who pursue such policies, as long as they're in the "right" party...

[malthaussen]

7. The names Sanders and Grayson are prominently missing...

... from the signatories. Wonder why.

-- Mal

[mimi85]

28. That is interesting

I'd like to know as well.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

145. Yes, that line-up

numerically speaking, is pitiful, especially on the House side. Sheldon Whitehouse has proven himself to be very much on top of this and should enjoy a helluva lot more support.

[bahrbearian]

8. K&R

[Beartracks]

12. Only $70 bil in global damages over 50 years??

Can't we just forgo a couple of fighter jets and put that money in an escrow account?

Oh, wait, I'm sorry, that would be like decimating our nation's defenses!! How silly of me to think we can afford to be accountable for environmental stuff.

==============

[Enthusiast]

48. + A shit load! nt

[Scuba]

13. Climate science: check.

[ErikJ]

15. Can a real populist beat a semi-corporatist?

I sure hope so.

[NorthCarolina]

83. Me too.

But "semi-" seems a bit overly-generous to me. Is that your holiday spirit shining through?

[Utopian Leftist]

16. No one seems to believe me but:

pretty much all Warren needs to do, in order to become a formidable national challenge to the disturbing Clinton centrism, is to continue taking on the banks. If she is eventually able to hold them accountable and/or ward off another financial collapse, she is going to quickly topple Hilary Clinton for most popular woman in the country. I'm talking ticker-tape parades. Americans will easily elect a woman as President, if she can earn their perception of her as a populist hero. And the progressive left now OWNS the populist message! Tax the rich! Get the money out of politics! People first, profit later! These should be and to everyone's utter astonishment (it seems), ARE becoming very popular memes. Now if only enough Democrats will stand up and espouse them....

[daleanime]

20. +1

[druidity33]

71. + 2...

true, true...

K&R, despite MADems protesting.

[bobduca]

247. Protesting? more like a tantrum

Hyper-partisans don't do 'protest', they throw tantrums and then rofl-waffle with their clique.

[Titonwan]

249. That dude is a frothing maniac for $hillary n/t

[rhett o rick]

95. Looks to me like Clinton has considered her options and chosen to side with the Wall Street

money. It will be hard for a populist candidate to win against unlimited spending.

[NYC_SKP]

110. +1 (nt)

[KoKo]

148. +1,000! We don't know where "EW" is and how long she will stand

to the LEFT ...but she's REFRESHING in her RHETORIC...and for that I as an FDR/New Deal Democrat..am Greatful for her voice.

All our Lefty Sounding Dems let us down...but, I'm hoping that ONE OF THEM...will end up being TRUE.

So...for now I love her voice as I do Bernie Sanders and Grayson. 2016 is far Away...and I deal with the one we went out and "Re-Elected" as HE will be the one we either support policies of...or draw away in his FAILURE..

It's YET to be Determined. But, I'm fighting for the PROGRESSIVE DEMS and NOT THE DLC or the THIRD WAY as I've been Co-Opted by their "SIREN SONGS" for TOO LONG.

's

[merrily]

210. To topple Hillary, Warren would also have to run for Pres. Not sure she will.

[peoli]

18. My God. I hope this woman becomes President.

[mimi85]

29. I adore her also

however I think we really need to concentrate on 2014 first.

[asjr]

21. Elizabeth Warren is our treasure. She does not

mince words about her views. I hope she speaks louder and louder and is able to drown out the many who are in office because they kissed so many rear ends. It's no wonder why millions are wary of them.

[hootinholler]

22. Since when is doing the right thing being at war?

Oh, nevermind.

[mountain grammy]

23. Tar sands crude is being refined even as we speak

arriving at refineries in America by truck and train. It's caustic and corrosive and should never be transported through pipelines, in fact, it shouldn't be transported at all.
My son works in the Delaware refinery where tar sands crude is refined. He says the stuff is a nightmare. Too bad only 22 of our representatives have taken this stand. I'll be contacting mine.

[Enthusiast]

47. +1 a whole bunch.......nt

[Paper Roses]

24. Keep it up Elizabeth, there are not many we can count on any more.

You are my Senator and my best hope for the future.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

25. And another Inter-Democratic Party battle begins between Progressives and Corporatist DINOs.

Despite a long and cherished history as a fan of Hillary (she was my First Lady in Arkansas during the first gubernatorial term of Big Dawg, and a personal acquaintance in those days) whom I've admired for 30 years, I am in the Progressive camp and want to see Elizabeth Warren be our nominee for 2016.

Hillary has served her nation well for a very long time. We need a Progressive in office NOW, not later. We need someone who will turn the tide from the corporate control of our society back to the people and who will highlight women and minority rights, and who will strike fear into the heart of Banksters.

I first felt like I'd like to see Sen Warren become president way back when Charlie Rose did his first interview with her. Even then, before all she has accomplished since, she was presidential material. And I haven't missed a presidential prediction this far out from the election since Carter, with the exception of Al Gore, who had his win stolen from him. So, really, I'm batting a thousand since Carter. And, yes, I did predict Bush would win 2004 because the Neocons still had their bloody hands in the voting systems and they weren't finished plundering Afghanistan of it's poppies nor Iraq of it's oil. And with Nader fouling up the works, I figured Kerry didn't stand a chance. I was, however, pleased that he did so well. If it hadn't been for the Ohio cheating, he would have won. And I would have missed that prediction. I predict Elizabeth Warren will become president - if she runs. I also think she will run if she is convinced by Progressives that we want her and that she can possibly win.

I wish I had more time to make my case. But, alas, there will be plenty of time between now and 11/16 as this latest battle within the Democratic Party begins in earnest. Just what we need AGAIN! A divided party. Sigh!

[rhett o rick]

93. Sen Warren would have a tough battle against the big money of the corporate fascists. nm

[ChisolmTrailDem]

97. That hasn't stopped her yet.

If she becomes popular enough to get the nomination, there will be no better reason for those who would oppose the corporate fascists to get and be behind her and push back against that machine and defeat it.

Recent polls suggest that a majority of the U.S. population has had enough of being ripped off and held down by The Company. Elizabeth Warren will fit right in for those who want federal minimum wage raised and those who have been victimized by The Banksters.

I am not worried. And I predict that if she runs, she will win. I also predict here and now that she will run, if not in 2013 then against Hillary in 2020. I hope it's the former.

[polichick]

27. Wow - just in case anyone wondered where Obama stands on the environment...

Good on EW!

"However, if Warren won't be able to get either Wall Street or the oil patch to finance her political campaigns, then how can she even possibly rise within the power-structure?"

She'd have to turn to THE PEOPLE - through the internet and social media.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

31. that is a completely unfair and biased article

but what do you expect from Common Dreams?

[G_j]

32. in what ways? nt

[99Forever]

114. Yeah, shoot the messenger. That'll change the facts.

Bwahahahahahahah.

[bobduca]

272. I expect Common Dreams pisses you off

They tend to piss off the "Pragmatic underground"

[Pretzel_Warrior]

288. no. I tend to laugh at their hackneyed and vitriolic (amateur) writing and analysis

[totodeinhere]

33. In October Senator Warren did sign on to a letter encouraging Hillary Clinton

to run for president in 2016. And if Hillary does run I suspect that Senator Warren will enthusiastically support her. Of course that doesn't mean that they will completely agree on every issue. Civil disagreements over policy are healthy for the party.

[MADem]

73. SHHHHH!!!!!! Don't SAY things like that!!!

The truth is not an accepted commodity in this thread!

The theme is that these two women HATE each other! It's gotta be a cat-fight, mud-wrestling, "diminutive" soap opera "b-wordy women" themes, you see--that, at the end of the day, reduce the stature of both politicians. And cui bono...?

THAT's the goal of articles like this, which are full of supposition and string together unrelated facts to form a weak chain of fiction. Common Dreams shops this kind of crap often. They don't help discourse, and the people who like to flog these themes aren't terribly interested in "civil disagreements over policy." They want a beat-down, so they can cheer for a victor and jeer at a loser.

So much hate, here:

[KoKo]

96. The Clintons are Charming People...are you warning us that Warren is just another Clinton

"dark horse" and so therefore we are being CONNED?

Are you the messenger of that. That we are co-opted from the "get go" and Warren is just another Clinton/DLC/Third Way?

That those who love her message are being deceived as we were with other Democratic Candidates for President?

Okay...if that's what you are saying...I could see some sense of WARNING.

SO.......WHO DO YOU SUPPORT for 2016 rather than Playing Games on this Thread?

Huh?

I ask because you are either FOR HILLARY or AGAINST HER in this DEM PARTY ACTIVIST AGE...So FESS UP! WHO IS YOUR CANDIDATE! Mine is NOT HILLARY. I'm being honest...so ..be Honest with ME.

WHO?

[MADem]

100. Elizabeth Warren is a wonderful Senator for my state and she has pledged to complete her term.

Her term ends in 2018.

She has said, dozens of times, that she's not running. Right around Thanksgiving she said it on three local Boston shows in one day. See, she's never lied to those of us who supported her Senate run, so why would we think she's lying to us now?

I am supporting HRC in 2016...as I have no doubt EW is, too. Nothing to "fess" there--I've always made it clear that I support her candidacy.

[KoKo]

142. You have the INSIDER SCOOP....And, Thanks for your reply

about where you are coming from..

I LOVE THE HONESTY! TRULY (Not Snark) ...but, there are "Others of us Crashing against the Gates...so I hope you will be respectful of those of us who have a very different agenda.

Peace!

[MADem]

144. It's not the "INSIDER SCOOP." Truly.

This stuff has been on television. You can find it on the internet.

It's not a secret. EW has been very clear on the topic, she's avoided the DC Sunday talkers, she comes HOME on the weekends and attends to her constituents. She isn't networking with national strategists, getting her face on national television, raising any money at all, talking to potential state operatives--none of that stuff. She didn't even go to Tom Harkin's Steak Fry Beauty Contest, which is mandatory for a potential candidate.

What's especially notable about her is that she even attends to those in the sparsely populated western part of the state, where she can't "make hay" in terms of media coverage.

It's not about playing to the cameras with her, it's about serving the citizens of the Bay State.

[KoKo]

160. I don't watch Network or Cable TV...and THANKS for your Honesty!

Obviously you have some hopes for her. That's an encouraging thing...coming as you do from Massachusetts that you see her as viable..but cautious about how far she can go. I am cautious, also. But, I love her Message to Dems not happy with Hillary...and we shall see how this goes.

[sheshe2]

131. The article is about divide and conquer.

Stir the pot and weaken both women in any way that they can. Make them both look catty and ineffectual. Oh, let me guess, yup it was written by a man. Surprise.

Happy Holidays, MADem~

[MADem]

149. Tell me about it. That's it, exactly.

All the "sexism" threads I've trashed this past week don't hold a candle to this pile of steaming bigotry, dressed up as snide (and poorly articulated) political commentary.

I'm surprised it isn't accompanied by a cheesy, overblown cartoon of both women in bikinis in a swimming pool of jello, mud or chocolate pudding, wrestling like something out of a PLAYBOY fantasy.

Season's greetings backatcha!

[sheshe2]

155. We are both from Mass...

and unequivocally supported Elizabeth Warren. She is one phenomenal Senator and will do amazing things in that role. She already has.

Yet, there is this intense campaign for her to run for President, though she said she will not. It's like Warren has become a shiny object that is being reached for. Why would you want to pull her away from a job that she is damn good at, hmmm?

Think about it, and I know you have, the GOP did their best to destroy her before. They blocked her and tried to beat her into submission. Funny thing is they lost that fight and now we have Senator Warren. She is kicking Wall Street and GOP ass. Ya think that someone might just be trying to sabotage that effort?

[MADem]

157. They want to drag her onto a national stage and start playing the "war whoop" game all over again.

They're pigs, they fight dirty and they have no honor.

She's not stupid, though--she knows what her areas of interest are. She knows how to kick ass and take names. She knows where her skills will do the most good, too.

[merrily]

189. Focusing on a person, rather than on issues, is for the Bieber crowd.

[sheshe2]

197. merrily I say... you are correct!

Elizabeth Warren Comes Down Hard Against Global Warming, Separates Herself From Hillary Clinton

hmmmm....the Op's focus~ this



The Bieder Crowd...


you cracked me up merrily~

[merrily]

201. That is the title of the Common Dreams article.

However, I think focus on either Warren or Clinton is subject to the same criticism.

I am not one for hero worship in politics, regardless of the identity of the hero.

[sheshe2]

213. I am not the one on DU focusing on Warren or Clinton.

I seldom reply to the threads.

I also do not display...



That graphic was not from the title of the article at Common Dreams.

I, as a resident in Mass voted for Warren as our State Senator. She is going to rock Washington. That is why we voted for her. However the ones that are doing the hero worship are the ones that continuously call for her to run when she said she will not.

Why exactly are you projecting on me, merrily?

[MADem]

198. Gee, maybe the writer of that shitstain of an article cited in the OP should have taken that advice!

Instead, he portrayed the two politicians in a cartoonish and sexist "cat fight" manner. No shame. No talent, either!

[merrily]

204. It's good advice for everyone.

I think Democrats in particular seem to seek a savior.

[MannyGoldstein]

169. Can you provide a link to the letter?

Much appreciated, thanks in advance!

[merrily]

186. The letter that was supposed to remain secret? That would be hard.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/10/in-secret-letter-senate-democratic-women-rally-behind-hillary-clinton/

I don't know if the text of the letter has been made public. However, the existence and gist of the letter was made public and I don't think that any of the 16 female Senators who supposedly signed it issued a clarifying or denying statement about it.

That said, I will not be voting for Hillary.

[MannyGoldstein]

220. A *secret* letter. Interesting.

Why would anyone want to keep it a secret?

[merrily]

222. Beats me. All I know is what I read in the funny papers.

Someone said that, but I don't remember who.

[totodeinhere]

314. The actual letter has still not emerged publicly but there are multiple

sources confirming its existence. One such source appears to be Kay Hagan.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2013/10/8535171/emilys-list-event-no-doubt-about-hillary-2016

[bullwinkle428]

35. "We have no idea where she stands on anything aside from banking/Wall Street!!1!"

Well, I guess we do now!

[MADem]

109. She also favors a strong military, and is an advocate for military personnel and their families.

Something those of us who served appreciate greatly.

[KoKo]

162. Yes...I've read that she supports maybe more Military than I would vote for...

but...it remains to be seen what her "True" feelings are (parsed out over definitive policy beliefs) if she did decide to run.

I am hopeful of her Push Back over "Third Way" Crap...though. (as I have said before in this thread).

[Dustlawyer]

40. It would be great (keep dreaming, I know) if we could stick the Koch suckers no outlet for their

dirty oil! They are willing to sacrifice every man, woman, and child on earth to continue to pollute with impunity now! They will be dead by the time it would have any effect on them, so it's time to party like its 1999! SAD THING IS, THEY ARE SO OLD AND RICH IT DOESNT MEAN A FUCKING THING TO THEM EXCEPT TO BE ABLE TO FUCK US ALL AND LAUGH ABOUT IT. TALK ABOUT A POWER TRIP!!!

[Enthusiast]

46. I'm not too bright. But I suspect Elizabeth Warren

is running for president.

I will fight to the death to keep Old Third Way Hillary out.

[Hubert Flottz]

50. "Separates Herself From Hillary Clinton"

I can't much blame Senator Warren for doing that. I did it a long time ago.

[lumberjack_jeff]

51. The thing that is important right now is the thing that gets her elected.

Big oil is a good rhetorical target, but there be (political) monsters in the policy minutia around this issue.

Populism, populism, populism.

[msanthrope]

61. More fake stories about 2.strong Democratic women highlighting a split

that simply doesn't exist. who benefits from that? it's not the Democratic Party.

[MADem]

62. And whoooop--there it is!

You got it in one!

[OKNancy]

70. I agree. This is an editorial, not an article

Besides Keystone, she has an excellent record on the environment. She hasn't spoken that I know of on Keystone for several years, so who knows what her opinion is at this time.
There is no split between Warren and Clinton.
I like both of them, but Mrs. Clinton will be the one running for President.

[sheshe2]

158. Divide and Conquer...yes it is!

You are correct, the Democratic party are not the winners here. The GOP has their greedy paws in this mess!

Stirring the pot!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

75. I hope Warren and the progressive dems prevail.

I hope they make their message clear to President Obama.

[BrotherIvan]

78. Why is the target HRC when it says clearly that Obama is paving the way for approval NOW

This needs to fought against NOW, not 2016. It could be a done deal by then.

[KoKo]

84. As you point out...that got lost in the discussion.....and thanks

for the reminder that the topic is Hillary, Obama, DLC/ThirdWay...and those Democrats who don't want "that way" anymore. And want a Discussion about it all. But "attack the messenger, website and whatever to diffuse the message that Obama REALLY WANTS this PIPELINE and the TPP.

He will get it if we don't stop him. And we are VOTING DEMS who are concerned.

So...thanks for bringing back the "Topic.'

[cthulu2016]

80. Wow! What bullshit this headline is

[KoKo]

94. Always read what's UNDER THE HEADLINE....Makes one Literate.

And...you know that!... so what's up with what you say?

[CreekDog]

102. I undid my rec of this story. I absolutely like Warren and her position on this is excellent.

I'm unrecommending now because the title of the story is more about trying to create an actual fight or actual positioning of Warren against Clinton, as if Warren took the position in order to publicly oppose Clinton directly.

She didn't.

I feel like that framing is overwrought and misleading.

[99Forever]

124. There is an "actual fight" in the Democratic Party.

Just in case you haven't been paying attention.

Progressives have had their fill of DINOs, Turd Wayers, blue dogs and assorted other Republican Lite Pretenders and we fully intend to take OUR party back.

[CreekDog]

125. Speaking of misquoting, don't even say that I was denying the fight between liberals and centrists

read what I wrote again.

what the headline implies which is not happening is that Warren took a position to publicly oppose Hillary, directly, on this issue.

[99Forever]

127. I'm okay with that. A misread on my part.

What I had to say however, stands.

[CreekDog]

132. thanks for saying.

[Phlem]

139. Spot on!

-p

[KoKo]

168. Indeed...and it's early for 2016 since we don't know ..yet how Obama will

turn out. Right now he's having his problems...but those pushing a Hillary vs. Christie Race are trying to get the funders on board and lining up the DUCKS for Clean Sweep.

Clintons have baggage and legacy....and Christie still has miles to go.

We Progressive Left Dems have been though much and given through much for YEARS in Tempering or Suppressing our values to get any Democrat Elected...for a long time now. We are watching...but, we are now at a point we want to throw our support to those who "Speak our Talk and Walk our Walk" and if they are not truthful in their "Teasings"..we are savvy enough to figure it out at this point after so many "False Promises."

Just Saying....as a Fed Up Dem who is working hard in Home State (believing that all politics is more LOCAL THAN EVER....but, with the eye on the prize...but, figuring we get what we gets given the money thrown in by MIC, Wall St. and other Special Interests.

[Divernan]

304. Indeed, so VERY much baggage, growing monthly w/every corporate "contribution"/bribe

to the Clinton Foundation, or to Bill Clinton personally. I was talking with my 50-something, female, married, dental hygenist about the problem with fracking in Pennsylvania, and the state politicians from governor on down who have been bought and paid for by Big Energy. Then we talked about corporate lobbyists and I pointed out that, according to the New York Times, Bill Clinton has accumulated well over $50 million in PERSONAL wealth since leaving the White House, mostly from exorbitant/outrageous speaking fees from corporate sponsors.

As I said to her, corporations don't fork over that kind of money without demanding major quid pro quo, with a high profit margin on their investment, and in this case, it's on the possibility that Mrs. Bill Clinton will end up in the White House. Dental hygenist exploded that she would NEVER vote for Hilary, having nothing but contempt for Hilary's decades long enabling of Bill's infidelities. Her stated opinion was that Hillary sold out her self-respect to stay married to a cheating, lying sex addict, because of the perks and trappings of power, when she clearly had the education and intelligence to make it quite comfortably as a divorced woman and give herself a chance to find a man she could trust.

[KoKo]

146. "Creek Dog" ..what do you have a problem with in the article?

If you have a problem please express whether it's Obama's approval of Trans Pacific Pipeline/TPX or the other points in the article.

How can you "retract" a REC without reason?

[merrily]

184. You unrecc'd Koko's DU post because of Eric Zuesse's Common Dreams title?

Guess that will show him.



I wish I could unrecc posters who don't read past the title of a thread.

[CreekDog]

214. Are you saying i didn't read beyond the headline?

Why?

[merrily]

217. Not at all. As to you, I said (implied strongly) only that I don't understand

the logic of your unrec.

As to posters in general, I made a second point: namely that some posters seem to be reacting to the title of the Common Dreams article than to the environmental issue. And that, in general, a lot of posts--not only on this thread--seem to react more to the title of an article or thread than to the full article or OP.

[CreekDog]

234. I think it's acceptable to unrec based on the wording of the headline vs. the article

but I had an issue with the characterization of the headline AND the article, certainly the way it opened the topic.

I think it mischaracterized Warren's actions as being pointedly against Clinton, as in directly aimed at her stance or her position as she runs for President. But Warren hasn't done things that way.

[merrily]

237. Obviously, you think that because you said you unrec'd based on the title.

For me, the issue for a DU rec is whether a post is worth reading and commenting on, regardless of whether I strongly agree with the article or strongly disagree with the article. I do not view a rec as agreeing with the article--unless maybe I were commenting to the author of the article himself.

Sometimes, it's important to know what people are saying and why. As to agreeing or disagreeing with the article or the approach taken by the original author, that is what comments are for.

That is my view, anyway. I know many here disagree with it, but I don't understand unreccing a post just because you disagree with the original article, let alone the title of the original article.

Just as a secondary point and a more general one. I used to do layout for a publication. No matter who wrote the article, I wrote all the headlines, for better or worse. I tried to make the headline fit the article, but, being the last person to touch the copy before the printer, I had very little time. I also had space restrictions. And I was supposed to make the headline attention-grabbing, if I could.

I sometimes get frustrated because some headline writers do such a poor job. On the other hand, I totally get why a great job is not always possible in reality.

[WillyT]

104. K & R !!!

[Uncle Joe]

106. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, KoKo.

[Zorra]

128. Uh-oh! Despite the denials, could we be looking at a Warren/Sanders, or Sanders/Warren ticket?

Yes. please!

[Phlem]

136. You know that's the end of the Democratic party as we know it.

It's eleventy seven dimensional chess. We must go right to left even though we end up further right.



-p

[dflprincess]

180. Ending the party as we currenty know it would not be a bad thing

I'd like to see the Democratic party stop the putting Wall Street ahead of the rest of us and return to more New Deal rather than "New Democrat" (aka Third Way/DLC) values.

[merrily]

207. Who was the last liberal head of the Democratic National Committee?

Dean? Have you heard him speak lately?

Name a liberal Democratic think tank (as opposed to a think tank described as "liberal" simply because it is run by Democrats rather than Republicans).

IMO, ending the the Third Way influence in the Democratic Party anytime soon is not very likely. I don't think anyone of influence within the party structure is even heading in that direction. '

I don't like that, even a little. I just think that is the reality.

[KoKo]

176. That would Shake Up the Money Trees for Sure!

[merrily]

193. Anything is possible, but I'd have a Plan B, just in case that

does never happen.

[Phlem]

227. Why couldn't we have a plan B, C, D, E, F, G....

If half the people here spent half as much time coming with plans to move the party left, than bitching about take what you can get even though it's a right pull for the party, we'd be on to something.



-p

[merrily]

228. The more plans the better. I just wouldn't make moving the party left in the

near future my only plan. That is all I that I said and all that I meant.

I never suggest that whatever is, is good or that we should accept whatever is.

[Phlem]

229. Sorry I wasn't replying directly towards your content.

I would just try not to say "never", because things can change. Life is Change.



-p

[tularetom]

135. If there is a candidate that I can enthusiastically vote for I will do it

I voted enthusiastically for Clinton in 1992, for John Kerry in 2004 and for Obama in 2008. At this point I believe I could vote enthusiastically for Elizabeth Warren in 2016.

If I have to vote for the lesser of two evils I will decide which candidate fits that role and vote for him or her.

This is why I voted for Clinton in 1996, for Al Gore in 2000 and for Obama in 2012.

In 2016, if there is no candidate I feel positive about, I will decide which candidate is the less evil and vote for him or her. If Clinton runs and secures the nomination, that could be her.

[joshcryer]

163. Warren is definitely not running.

The US is slated to be energy self sufficient in a few decades and that's because of our massive build out of fossil fuel infrastructure, renewables, and exporting fossils to subsidize the build out of wind and solar.

[KoKo]

178. So ...you believe Fracking and Heavy Tar Sands through Pipelines

pose no danger...even when the energy used to produce oil through this Heavy Crude of Tar Sands has been proven to be dangerous to our habitat, climate and therefore our environment? And, BTW...we will be selling this CRUDE after it's refined to China and other countries to increase our exports. How do you feel about giving away the LAST of North America's underground Oil Supplies to Other Countries to decrease our Trade Imbalance?

You read nothing about the Environmental Damage?

Energy Independent? At what Cost since PBO wants to do the Trans Pacific Trade Agreement (TPP) shipping more jobs overseas and putting more restrictions on Average Americans at the Cost of Globilization/Privatization for those countries participating.

WHY do you support all these issues...as a Democrat? Why are you not a Republican, then?

[merrily]

196. You could ask that same question of most Democrats in office today.

The reality is that, either the Democratic Party has changed. Either that, or maybe the New Deal and the Great Society were not as people saw them on the surface.

[joshcryer]

216. The corporate lobby is too powerful.

Think about this scenario. Some lobbyist for fracking comes to a Senator's office and says "Fracking is responsible for 1.2 million jobs." It doesn't matter if it's true or not but if it's true on the surface, that Senator isn't going to be for killing those jobs.

[merrily]

218. And whose fault is that?

The corporate lobby is only as powerful as legislators make it.

As far as believing everything lobbyists tell them, I simply do not believe that is what has been happening. And if it is, that, too, is a disgrace to the legislators.

[joshcryer]

223. What legislation would reduce the power in this situation?

Legislating forbidding the lobby from giving a study to a Congress person? Oh wait the wind and solar industries also submit studies and get grants.

Energy self-sufficiency is definitely a goal progressives would want, but not at the cost of higher environmental damage.

[merrily]

225. I replied to the post you originally made to me.

about Democrats being as they are because, according to you, lobbies are too powerful.

I never said a thing about people not being able to submit studies. You made something up, then mocked what you made up. Sorry, I don't feel like playing that posting game right now.

[joshcryer]

226. I posed that as a possible piece of legislation.

It was based on my original contention that the lobby is too powerful because they can use studies they paid for to convince Congress people to be for them. If the lobby was prevented from submitting said studies that would reduce their power.

I never said you said that and I don't know where that is coming from.

[joshcryer]

208. No, why would you think that?

Where do I say I support any of that?

Why don't you go read my post. That's the US's energy roadmap. It will not and cannot change for political and technological reasons.

Warren is not stupid. By coming out against Keystone she is assuring that she will be politically inviable for a run in 2016.

Am I happy with that? No. I am only stating facts.

[blkmusclmachine]

235. Nothing screams STATUS QUO! quite like a Clinton.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

240. Easy for EW to separate from Hillary the Corporatist DINO who pretends to look out for the little people while pocketin $300k+/speech from corporate fatcats.

Think Hillary owes anyone any favors? Never ceases to amaze how some people here, of all places, can support her R-lite policies. We need a true progressive to lead the way, not a phoney who lines her pockets with corporate cash.

[anti partisan]

241. Not just any corporate cash. Goldman Sachs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2482262/Hillary-Clinton-nets-400K-2-speeches-Goldman-Sachs.html

How do we realistically expect her to accomplish any significant financial reform? The financial industry, along with the R's and Third Way Bill, is THE leading cause of the trickle-up process that's been happening the past few decades.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

243. Yup, you are spot on. Hillary is a corporate sellout, plain and simple. Surely, we can do better.

[woo me with science]

242. 121 Recs and a lot of corporate whining. Good to see DU

standing strongly to end Third Way corruption of our party.

[bvar22]

285. Eye Popping

The Conservatives and 3rd Wayers here are desperately clutching at Warren
trying to minimize the vast difference between Warren & Hillary on Economic Policy.
It would be hilarious..... if it wasn't so pathetically sad.

[MADem]

298. You're in the crowd that is "desperately clutching at Warren..."

Desperate to convince yourselves that she's going to run, despite the fact that she's said on two dozen occasions she's not, and she's pledged to finish out her term (which ends in 2018).

Pathetically sad, indeed. When EW campaigns for HRC, I'll be eager to hear your take on that.

[tiredtoo]

302. MADem

Yes you are correct in your assessment of this situation. why did the title not say Barbara Boxer breaks free of Hillary or Durbin breaks free of Hillary? EW supporters are grasping at straws here. (I do like Warren but, she is not running or ready to be President)!!!

[bvar22]

309. ALL you need to know about Hillary:

OTOH: Senator Warren is fighting to RAISE Social Security benefits.

Elizabeth Warren Fires Back at Centrist Dems on Social Security
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/12/elizabeth-warren-expand-social-security-third-way


Now THAT is a DEMOCRAT I can vote for with PRIDE.

[MADem]

319. Wait a minute, you're using an Obama For President advocacy video to put down HRC?

Really? A seven year old campaign video from HRC's opponent and future boss?

Don't you throw Obama, whose ancient supporter's video you're cadging, here, under the bus with regularity? Haven't you been so doing that kind of thing since 2007? (Ironically, that's back when that video was posted.)

Why would you trust anything coming from his team, his supporters, his fans, since you expressed your dislike for the man waaaaay back then in favor of...who? John "Who's that videographer with ya, Johnny?" Edwards?

Enemy of my enemy approach, or what?

I mean, come on, let's get real. Edwards was a "DEMOCRAT" you could vote for with "PRIDE" too--until one looked closely at his personal life, his sketchy and criminal campaign finances, that pig-mess of a "Carolina White House" he built with the helo pad, the way he had the NERVE to initially try to play the candidates for a veep slot while he KNEW--he frigging KNEW--he had a bun in the oven and was lying to his wife?

No offense, but you haven't had the best track record of picking winners down the years. You're swayed by words that just aren't backed up with deeds.

How long before you're kicking my beloved (and she is beloved, and we want to keep her, thanks anyway) senior Senator under the bus, too, because she's done something that makes her human and a pragmatist, but that raises your ire because she fails some litmus test of your invention? Whatever you do, don't look too closely at EW's relationship with the military, or her support for servicemembers and their families. You might find something to not like.

[bvar22]

325. ....aaannnnnd, not a word about Hillary's advocacy for the Top 6%,

and rejection of the concept of raising taxes on the RICH.
Do you really believe Hillary has changed that much in 6 years?
You haven't; why do you believe she has?

Hillary told us all we need to know in 2008.
If you want another President that represents Big Money and the Top 6%,
then she is "your gal".

Unlike you, I've never approached politics with building a track record for "picking winners", like it is some kind of sport.
I've always been a supporter of good policy, and a strong advocate for the Working Class and the Poor,
so you can see why I have trouble with "New Democrats", Reagan Democrats, and other "Centrists".

I understand why some people support conservatives, like Hillary, the only 2008 candidate more conservative than Obama.
You should be able to understand why many of us here prefer candidates who have a better track record of supporting the Working Class and Organized LABOR.
Our lives depend on it.

[MADem]

329. Aaaaaand....not a word about how the OP is a steaming load.

To say nothing of your false characterization of her stance on taxes (hint--you can find that on the internet, ya know). The only people she wanted to raise taxes on WERE the rich. Clean out your ears. Nice diversion. No sale. The only people who would "whine" about HRC raising taxes were those in the Quarter Million Dollar Club. So why are you griping?

You're just so anxious to "nail" Clinton with imagined "crimes" that it's pathological--what a curious agenda you have. Then you slap fake "conservative" labels on her, like that's supposed to make folks jump back and say "Oooooooh."

Don't, whatever you do, look too hard at EW touring the MA General Dynamics plant--it might harsh your mellow. You might be using that "conservative" label on her one day, too! That's fine with me--I think she's grand no matter what you call her, we here in MA like her, and labels are for jars, anyway...or whatever. Might as well throw in a commercial for a worthy cause, since this conversation is a nonstarter!

You may claim it's not about picking winners, but you've already decided who is a loser, using phony, invented 'conservative' labels and information from a partisan video that is seven years old. Oh, and 'all-capping' words like LABOR.

And we're to believe you, is that it? Because you say so? Your stellar judgment of candidates isn't too confidence-inspiring.

Have you scraped the Edwards sticker off the car yet?

Absolutely no tax increase on people earning under $250K

Q: Can you make an absolute, read-my-lips pledge that there will be no tax increases of any kind for anyone earning under $200,000 a year?
CLINTON: I will let the taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year go back to the rates that they were paying in the 1990s.
Q: Even if the economy is weak?
CLINTON: Yes. And here’s why: #1, I do not believe that it will detrimentally affect the economy by doing that. We used that tool during the 1990s to very good effect and I think we can do so again I am absolutely committed to not raising a single tax on middle class Americans, people making less than $250,000 a year. In fact, I have a very specific plan of $100 billion in tax cuts.
Q: An absolute commitment, no middle-class tax increases of any kind.
CLINTON: No, that’s right. That is my commitment.
Q: Senator Obama, would you take the same pledge? No tax increases on people under $250,000?
OBAMA: Well, it depends on how you calculate it. But it would be between $200,000 and $250,000.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

[bvar22]

332. She rejected raising FICA taxes on those making over $97,000/year, her base.

Here it is.
Watch it yourself.
If you have a problem with this,
take it up with her.

VIDEO IS FOREVER:

[MADem]

335. You know you're grasping at straws. Here's an easily read link for you.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/taxes/a/Hillary-Clintons-Position-On-Taxes-And-The-Middle-Class.htm

Awwww, darn--HRC doesn't hate the middle class, and you want her to, so badly!

[bvar22]

343. Video is FOREVER!

If you are having problems.
take it up with Hillary.

[MADem]

346. Yes, it is.

[bvar22]

352. Like Obama, she also pledged to Renegotiate NAFTA.

Hillary's (and your) big problem is that
We already KNOW who Hillary is, and WHO she represents.

I would have more respect for you if you would honestly acknowledge that Hillary IS a Free Trading,
Conservative, Wall Street, Pro-WAR, Free Market, Big Business Democrat,
and THEN explain WHY you think that is GOOD for America,
instead of trying (and failing) to repackage Hillary as some kind of Populist, Working Class hero.
She isn't.
You know it.
I know it.
EVERYBODY already knows it.
You harm to your credibility by trying to argue that the False is True.

So tell us WHY we should support another Big Business Democrat
who is even MORE Conservative than Obama.

We're listening.

[MADem]

353. Psst--she didn't get elected, so how's she supposed to do that?

Now you're blaming her for not doing things that weren't in her charge to do.

This comment is terribly embarrassing to you, and I am starting to fear you don't even understand why:

bvar22
352. Like Obama, she also pledged to Renegotiate NAFTA.

Well, the nerve of her...and him!!!! Why, I oughta....!

You're showing us your "stuff" when you get annoyed with her like that. It's not a good look for you, FWIW.

Time for you to go back and see who has the power to enact, abrogate or revise treaties. Let me help; I will direct you to the United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 2 (that's the Advise and Consent bit).

It goes like this:

Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Not a word in there about Secretaries of State getting to whip up a treaty, or change one, or dump one; not a word about former Senators or former First Ladies getting the go-ahead to do that kind of thing, either.

So what would you have her do?

And so long as your handing out excoriation, do provide all of us with a list of the "two thirds" that will "advise" and "consent to" this NAFTA treaty renegotiation. Please--we're waiting. Write down 67 names that will vote YEA so Obama can sign this renegotiated NAFTA treaty you are demanding, and post them here, please--and then we all can all gin up a petition to those 67, and demand that those senators push this issue to the front of the legislative agenda...OK? How's that for a solution?

We're listening--indeed. But you might want to listen to this and do so carefully; you don't have a right to ascribe authorities to public figures without the imprimatur of the United States Constitution and then BLAME them when things don't go the way you pipe-dream them.

I think you've overreached, to put it as politely as I can manage.

[rhett o rick]

348. Wow, what a tap dance. The issue here was what did Clinton say? She said she didnt want to raise

the cap because it would "hurt" people (the top 6%). That was Clinton then, and there has been nothing to make us think she has changed.

Your attempts to distract by belittling the poster, saying that Clinton would later work for Obama, look over there at Edwards, and other stuff are laughable.

This is about Clinton. She didnt want to "hurt" the wealthy then and she accepts $400,000 from Goldman-Sachs now.

[MADem]

349. Yes, what DOES she say about helping the middle class?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024231754#post346

I'm not "belittling" anyone--but let's get a complete picture of what HRC feels when it comes to helping ordinary people, shall we?

[KoKo]

310. She may not run...she may throw support to Hillary if she's the Nominee...

But, her stand on issues we care about on the Left is important enough that just her speaking out...gives us a voice to back up our own issues. And for that she and Bernie and Grayson are helping us by drawing distinctions in the Democratic Party which need to be made.

So...for us it's good but it doesn't make the Thirdway/DLC Contingency happy at all. So all we hear is "They aren't running...so shut up and accept Hillary as the Best We Can Do...and She will Win!"

I think that Warren, Sanders and Grayson will continue to draw the battle lines. I'm comfortable with that. We on the Left don't have "Think Tank Power." And once other Dems wake up to who is running the party and drowning out their own supporters there may be an awakening. It's long past due...

And you know that....

[think]

312. Some are beginning to think even without the tanks though....

http://boldprogressives.org/

https://secure.actblue.com/directory

[MADem]

320. You mention Bernie....

You do know HRC's PAC donated to Bernie's race? She played a role in getting him to the Senate.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&type=C&cid=N00000528&newMem=N&recs=20

Look for "HILLPAC."

Just saying...

There's a lot I "know"--and some of those things I know include alliances across the spectrum.

There is a tendency by people here on DU to morph the occasional policy difference into cage match/mudslinging fights. Let me put it this way--HRC would not refuse to take Bernie's call, nor would he refuse to take hers. They would be more than cordial to one another. I suppose that might disturb some people because it doesn't suit an image of violent hatred or opposition. People don't forget others who help them.

And I wouldn't object to HRC (who sent her husband to help EW win HER race) nominating EW as Fed Chair--in fact, I'd be thrilled if she did that. Pick the best person for the job, why not? But she can't have her until EW does what she promised--finish out her term. So that's 2018.

As for not having "Think Tank Power"--you might be surprised to learn that most people who work at think tanks lean towards the Democratic Party.

This isn't surprising to me--we have the best ideas.

[KoKo]

354. Oh...indeed I know about "HillPAC" and for years donated to "Emily's List"

And...I know that you are wired in somewhere there in the loop of Dem Insiders.

So...I don't have you on ignore.

Still....She should have strong competition...because I refuse to believe in Annointed Ones so far away from General Election...even though I see how that can work...what we got was flawed. What we might always get is flawed.

But, this time...as always...I want to work for IDEOLOGY and thoroughly parse the candidates Rhetoric down to the last nuance and Hillary does have a long record ripe for scrutiny unlike PBO. So it should be an interesting time ahead. And, what Democracy IS and what it was SUPPOSED TO BE....In Concept!

I will work against the Past...because it proved to be Rhetoric that was written by Think Tanks...and look to the candidates of the future...who have Push Back from our young and older RENEGADES.

Peace!

[MADem]

355. Peace back at you.

I would only note that Hillary Clinton is VERY responsible for the election of the Mayor of NYC--VERY responsible. He's no "corporate shill." He was HRC's campaign manager in NY way back when. They go back a ways.

I think that the fact that he's asked Bill Clinton to swear him in is telling. In a good way, mind you.

[Beacool]

315. Hear, hear!!!

They are delusional, but that's all they got. Three more years of clamoring for a person who has zero interest in running for president.

[KoKo]

356. Ahhh....but we have MORE FACTS at our fingertips and a long history...

of involvement and observance.

Why are you worried and afraid of Newcomers Message. It's the MESSAGE...not the MESSENGER that is what Moves Policy in the Political Circuits.. Isn't it? If you have a charismatic MESSENGER you RULE]...until the people wake up and Fact Check. But don't deny the Charismatic Messengers who are now Out There ...who ALSO CAN SWAY THE PUBLIC. BACK ATTCHA.. The "PEOPLE/DISILLUSIONED" will Parse it out..as they LEARN.

That's why we are where we are...but folks are WAKING UP...and that is disturbing to the Think Tank Mentality. Which is causing a "disturbance in the force."

[MADem]

361. EW is gonna make a big difference in this world, and she's already started.

She's NOT going to do it as President, though.

She's said so.

She's parlaying the interest people have in her as the "Flavor of the Month" into clout to pursue her own agenda, and that is a good thing. I think that she has much work to do, but she won't be doing it from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. She might be doing it from close by, say Constitution Ave NW...!

AFTER she finishes the term she pledged to complete, mind!

[KoKo]

383. well....I can understand what you are saying with this...

You Say:

She's said so.

She's parlaying the interest people have in her as the "Flavor of the Month" into clout to pursue her own agenda, and that is a good thing. I think that she has much work to do, but she won't be doing it from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. She might be doing it from close by, say Constitution Ave NW...!

AFTER she finishes the term she pledged to complete, mind!

==========

But, remember that "Beggers Can't be Choosers" ...and even the Beggers can have foresight to manage to "Use the Messenger"...to Get "Across OUR MESSAGE."

It works "Both Ways that Way."

and a for PEACE!

[MADem]

384. I have no problem with that at all.

But she's not running!! I'm quite sure of this!

[KoKo]

388. Still...her Voice for Plain Speak and Honesty...is a Vision

for us on the Left. And, that's her worth. Hopefully others will pick up her message behind her whatever she does.

She's almost like the New Pope! A Vision for the Future of what the Democratic Politician and party Could BE!

Peace!

[MADem]

391. What people need to do is give her a few friends in the Senate and the House.

She -- just like Obama or any POTUS -- can't get shit done without the votes in the legislature. She can propose legislation, she can advocate for issues, but unless most of the 435 in the House and the 100 in the Senate agree with her, her 'vision' remains clouded.

What's needed is more EWs in the LEGISLATURE. Taking them out of the legislature and throwing them in the White House is just taking a vote for progress away.

All the POTUS can do is veto shitty legislation. He or she cannot "decree" good legislation; the occasional "executive order" is possible, but those are limited in both scope and they can have an expiration date.

We need better laws, and we need better legislators if we want to get those.

I think EW is a superb legislator, but I don't think she's the New Pope. That's a bit disturbing, that image...!

[Rex]

357. Wow. I go off to finish the War on Christmas and this is what happens when I get back?

I need more eggnog.

[KoKo]

358. GEEZE....Fox News is still pushing that "Old Meme?"

It's so old and STALE as a message. It was cool back when to attack them for that...but, they've done worse overall.

It gets sick when they think the fish will bite a bait they don't see as interesting to them.

Baiting Democrats with "FAUX NEWS" just isn't going to work, anymore.

Do you agree?

[Rex]

359. Anyone that believes an ounce of what Foxnews pedals, well you know what I think Koko.

I've had to be punished for being condescending to the people I consider less evolved primates...so without a hide I will leave it at that. I don't pay attention to memes anymore, they are such old news.

I will vote for our candidate, I think we all know how old memes go toward swaying us old yellow dogs.

I wish we had a Sanders ticket, I would be all onboard.

Then again I think the next POTUS should be a woman, so I am odd man out imo.

[KoKo]

360. Sorry...that was a rude snark at you on my part.

Last edited Mon Dec 30, 2013, 11:05 AM - Edit history (2)

My apologies.

----------

Well...there's a HillPac waiting for you donation according to some DU'ers ..so

Go For It. At least you aren't "into Faux News."

[Rex]

366. No thanks, I don't agree with PACs.

I think they have helped make America suck.

[MADem]

369. Uh, HILLPAC was disestablished. That was her PAC as a SENATOR, that she created to help

other Senators--like Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown--and legislators in the House of Representatives--like Tammy Duckworth--run for office.

She hasn't been a Senator for awhile, as you know. The PAC gave away what they had left and closed up shop.

It's interesting to see how mad/snarky people get when they don't even have the story straight...telling, too.

[fadedrose]

371. Might be time to send Warren a teeny donation

This is big news - Boxer was/is a Clinton supporter I thought and this would help Warren. Barbara Lee in my mind can do no wrong......and the other suporters are among my favs too.

Obama needed a show of support. To my knowledge (very limited I admit) he has never said anything about the pipeline except that he needs to study it more...

I think I sent Act Blue something for her when she was running against Scott Brown or maybe they have my name from something else. At any rate, the website opens to their asking $3 to help beat Brown so that they probably aren't expecting big bucks and that alone makes me like Act Blue.

https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/warrendraft?refcode=dkos-1

Anybody else have a better place to send...it might be time for everybody to send $3 - she han't announced yet, but this OP is so encouraging...

[Laelth]

401. k&r for Elizabeth Warren. n/t

-Laelth

[ananda]

425. I appreciate she is coming down hard against big oil ...

... which would indeed irritate the denialists and propaganda
manipulators to the extreme, I imagine.