Elizabeth Warren Shuts Door On Presidential Run. Draft Warren Groups Kick It Back Open. - WaPo

[WillyT]

Elizabeth Warren shuts door on presidential run. Draft Warren groups kick it back open.
By Greg Sargent - WaPo
January 13 at 3:06 PM

...
...
...

The endless intention lavished on every grammatical iteration of Warren’s denials may seem absurd. But the mere fact that each one of them makes news — as the latest one is now doing — basically ensures that this will only continue.

That’s because, while the primary goal of the Draft Warren movement is obviously to persuade her to run, the secondary goal is also important. The idea is that all of this can only help boost Warren’s visibility, which also boosts her influence within Congress, and over the Democratic Party, as a vehicle for the brand of feisty economic progressivism these groups support. And that, potentially, boosts their influence, or at least the influence of their agenda.

From the point of view of these groups, recent events only vindicate their strategy. Antonio Weiss — a top target of Warren due to his Wall Street connections — has withdrawn from consideration for a top post at the Treasury Department, amid headlines declaring a Warren victory. Progressives lost a round when the measure she opposed that undermines Wall Street reform was included in the big budget deal, but thanks to Warren, the issue probably earned a far higher profile than it might otherwise have. And Draft-Warren officials noted with satisfaction the news accounts that claimed front-runner Hillary Clinton is carefully tailoring her economic message with an eye on the Massachusetts Senator.

As David Dayen details, there is a reason Warren’s brand of populism is ascendant in the Democratic Party: She is articulating a coherent, interlocking set of ideas focused on the economic prospects of the middle class, and a broader critique that explains how and why the economy got to this point, with more passion and specificity than anyone else. There is no reason why these groups would stand down from feeding the dream of a Warren presidential run, as long as the mere possibility continues to generate media attention — no matter how far-fetched that possibility appears, and no matter what Warren herself says about it.

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/01/13/elizabeth-warren-shuts-door-on-presidential-run-draft-warren-groups-kick-it-back-open/

[MineralMan]

1. Warren proponents would do better to find

a new candidate to support. She's not going to run. Continuing to work toward something that will not happen is a waste of time, money and energy. It's time to find a new candidate. Elizabeth Warren will continue to work for us all in the Senate.

[Dawgs]

7. Yes. She is running.

Better to continue to push her.

[Cali_Democrat]

9. When did Warren say she's running?

It's my understanding that she said no....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/13/elizabeth-warren-president_n_6464192.html

[MineralMan]

13. She did. Denial is strong for some people.

It substitutes for actual reality, but very poorly.

[rhett o rick]

48. Again you misunderstand. The poster did not say that Sen Warren said she was running.

Sen Warren made it clear that she isn't running. Que applause from the pro-Clinton-Sachs crowd. In the opinion of the poster and many others, she is currently "running" based on her actions.

As I have said over and over, no one is running right up until they run. Is she lying? Of course not. Not any more than Obama when he said he would close Gitmo.

She may "change her mind". What a concept! Even if she doesn't run, she is still leading the progressive movement that has the conservatives scared. They are repeating over and over that she isn't running, hoping upon hope that she won't.

Of course H. Clinton-Sachs isn't running either, but will use the meme, "At least I'm a little better than Jeb."

[sabrina 1]

20. Hillary supporters might want to do the same thing. Personally I prefer to have Warren where

she is doing a fantastic job of highlighting Third Way policies which have been disastrous for the working class.

And to find more like her, as many as possible so she has as much support as possible to reverse those policies.

But clearly voters want someone like Warren and hopefully the party leadership will listen to the voters this time.

[MineralMan]

26. Some voters want someone like Warren, certainly.

How many? That's uncertain.

[sabrina 1]

43. Enough to cause the right of center policy makers in our party to go all out to try to

smear her. So we know she is a threat to their far-too-long control over this party. They are generally a little more nuanced when they set out to attack 'the Left', not we don't get it, they are not that good. But Warren has caused them to totally lose their cool altogether.

Which means, she IS what the Dem Party voters want, and they said so in two mid terms now. Either the party listens, they have time, or once again deliberately misinterpret the message the voters are sending them. Their choice.

[brooklynite]

63. Name a smear made against Elizabeth Warren

any at all...

[djean111]

2. As a Warren and Bernie supporter, I sincerely hope that Warren does not ask supporters

to turn over money - and enthusiasm - to Hillary. Because I will not.

[Autumn]

4. Hillary proponents would do well to get their would be candidate

to articulate a message like Elizabeth's but I don't think Hillary can do it. I like Hillary, I just don't want her as President, she's almost the last one we need.

a coherent, interlocking set of ideas focused on the economic prospects of the middle class, and a broader critique that explains how and why the economy got to this point, with more passion and specificity than anyone else."

[sabrina 1]

44. I don't she will be allowed. Warren's message is opposed to those who will be funding

Hillary's Campaign. It would be difficult to say the truthful things Warren has said about Wall St corruption when they are your main supporters.

I'm sure they are trying very hard right now to construct 'safe language' for Hillary, it will be difficult, none of us is as naive as we used to be.

[Autumn]

45. You got it right. She's going to have to make sure she doesn't go off script.

If she does the fall will be epic.

[merrily]

27. "That you are not alone. I am here with you." Michael Jackson. nt

[Autumn]

3. Hey Willy, Just posted this in the group

[WillyT]

5. Thank You !!!

[WillyT]

59. Pssst... Hey Autumn... I'm Cracking Up At Some Of The Responses Here... It Looks Like...

Either they just read the subject-line, not the OP, nor the linked article, nor the hyperlinks within the article... or they completely mis-read what Greg is saying here...

He's pretty dialed in... to what is happening in D.C., and with Dems/Liberals/Progressives...

It makes perfect sense to me.... why the cognitive disssonance ???

Warren’s brand of populism is ascendant in the Democratic Party: She is articulating a coherent, interlocking set of ideas focused on the economic prospects of the middle class, and a broader critique that explains how and why the economy got to this point, with more passion and specificity than anyone else. There is no reason why these groups would stand down from feeding the dream of a Warren presidential run, as long as the mere possibility continues to generate media attention — no matter how far-fetched that possibility appears, and no matter what Warren herself says about it.

From OP.

[WillyT]

60. And Then There's The Cognitive-Dissonance... "I've Been Told Hillary Is Un-Beatable..."

Don't that that's true, and...

I don't know if I would consider it a "win" to have another 4 or 8 years of a Democrat that ran on progressive issues and then governed as a __________ .

Y'all fill in the blank.

[Renew Deal]

6. Continuing is a waste of time and more importantly money.

I have to wonder if it's an effort by bad actors to deplete the resources (money and time) from the Democratic cause.

[Dawgs]

8. Is there any other Democrat that has a good chance of becoming President? n/t

[Renew Deal]

10. Yes

Every one that hasn't said no to running has a better chance.

[Dawgs]

11. Wrong. The answer is no. n/t

[Renew Deal]

17. Are you saying that the election is hopeless for the Democratic party?

[Dawgs]

24. It depends on if there's a Democrat that can run and win.

Right now I don't know of any that are thinking of running, so yes it's hopeless.

[Renew Deal]

28. You don't know of any that are thinking of running?

How is that possible? Here is a list off the top of my head:

Jim Webb (Running)
Biden
Hillary
Martin O'Malley
Sanders (not a Democrat, but has signaled he wants to run.)

[Dawgs]

40. Oh, I thought we were talking about Democrats..not just people with D's next to their name.

Sanders is the only that thinks like a Democrat, and he has no chance of winning.

[Renew Deal]

41. Just because you don't acknowledge reality doesn't make it less real.

[Dawgs]

69. Interesting. That was exactly what I was thinking about you. n/t

[Renew Deal]

72. Good. Lets try an exercise

Which people below are members of the Democratic Party?

Jim Webb
Biden
Hillary
Martin O'Malley
Sanders

[MineralMan]

12. What do you mean by "other?"

At the current point, Hillary Clinton has more support by voters than Elizabeth Warren. She's the "other Democrat" who has a good chance of becoming President.

I don't think EW ever had any real chance of winning the nomination. I suspect that she knows that, too, and has chosen not to waste her time in an impossible primary race. She has a powerful position now, and a strong platform to speak from as Senator. Why would she give that up to run an unsuccessful campaign?

I believe that if she did decide to run, she'd be eliminated early in the Primary season, despite the vocal support she has from a small percentage of Democrats. She has decided she won't run. Let her be the Senator. She'll accomplish far more in that role than in the roles as losing Presidential primary candidate.

Same is true for Bernie Sanders. If he were serious, he would have switched parties at the beginning of this Congressional session. He did not do that. He has said that he would only run if he thought he could win. I suspect that he knows that he cannot win, so he probably won't run at all, or will run a token campaign as a third-party candidate.

If people want someone other than Hillary to be the nominee, they're going to need to find someone to support just about yesterday. Who? I have no idea. All of the potential candidates will be supporting Hillary Clinton.

That's my set of predictions. We'll see.

[hootinholler]

15. Hillary's a Democrat?

Could have fooled me.

[MineralMan]

16. You're easily fooled, then.

She's a Democrat. She's very likely to be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016, as well. Those are facts. Your denial doesn't change those facts. The Democratic party will make the decision. That's another fact. The majority rules, not the minority.

[AtomicKitten]

35. A prediction is not a fact. nt

[ablamj]

64. Yes

She's a "Democrat"

[AgingAmerican]

37. So anyone who isn't Hillary shouldn't even bother running?

Sanders didn't do what you demand, so he 'won't bother' running either?

Find someone to support yesterday? Has any Democrat even announced they are running yet? Has Hillary stated she is even running? How do you know she will bother? Don't you think you are a tad bit ahead of yourself here?

[Thinkingabout]

54. Still running the same old nothing, if Sanders plans on entering the Democrat primary, he needs to

be a democrat, ergo Democrat Primary. Hillary has not announced as really others has not announced, so you may be ahead of yourself.

[merrily]

29. For decades people have encouraged candidates to run. Some of them did. Some of them did not.

Why does this primary season have to be so damned different from politics as usual?

[Renew Deal]

31. How many ways does she need to say no?

I hope she runs, but at some point it becomes ridiculous and counter-productive.

[merrily]

34. How about: If you answer the question I asked you previously, I'll answer your newer question.

Why must this primary season be so different from politics as it's been conducted for decades, maybe longer?

[Renew Deal]

36. This is the answer.

It shouldn't. She said no. People should leave her alone.

[merrily]

38. Obama had said no, too. Every single time he was asked. Until he announced.

That is the way, for some reason, most of our politicians have chosen to play the game in recent elections. How many times in the last two years has Romney said he would not run again? Now, he says he might. He did the same thing before the prior election, until he announced.

People should leave her alone.

I think people should do what they want and see what happens, just as they have done for decades.

[Renew Deal]

39. Link to Obama saying flat "no"

Or saying repeatedly that he's not going to run.

[merrily]

46. I saw him on any number of TV shows saying no.

Am I going to try to find Links to those shows from years ago for you? No. Moreoever, I have no idea what you consider a flat no. Would doing his best to convince viewers that he would not be running in 2008 be enough for you? If not, why not, given the context of this discussion?

Do you deny that Romney said no until he announced? Do you deny that many politicians do that? If not,what is the point of demanding a link about Obama?

[Renew Deal]

62. I don't expect you to look for that.

A lot of them say things like "I am not running for president" which is true in the present tense. Few say "I will not run for president" or answer "no" to "are you going to run for president?"

So are you going to run for President?

No

http://fortune.com/2015/01/13/elizabeth-warren-sheila-bair

There this old article where she said she wasn't going to run. http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/15/politics/warren-denies-president

Also keep in mind that she has practically endorsed Hillary:

"You know, all of the women - Democratic women, I should say, of the Senate - urged Hillary Clinton to run, and I hope she does," Senator Warren responded to ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "This Week" Sunday when asked if Clinton was her candidate in 2016.

When Stephanopoulos pushed a second time, asking if Warren would endorse a Clinton 2016 run, Warren responded, "Hillary is terrific."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/2014/0428/Elizabeth-Warren-Almost-an-endorsement-of-Hillary-Clinton-2016-video

[brooklynite]

14. At best, the Draft Warren groups are knocking on the door...

...but I'd say it's pretty much stuck closed.

[Renew Deal]

18. I can't imagine why people would volunteer to bang their heads against the wall.

It's not logical. It makes one wonder what the motives are of those doing this.

[LondonReign2]

19. The motives are quite obvious

It is to get someone more progressive than Corporate Owned Third Way Hillary to run for the nomination.

That said, I didn't think Warren would run before he latest announcement, and I doubt she'll change her mind.

[Renew Deal]

21. I see those as separate issues

It is possible to get someone more "progressive" AND acknowledge the reality of what Warren is saying.

[LondonReign2]

23. Yes, Sanders

And he, unlike Warren, has been giving every indication for some time that he is going to run. Frankly, he has a far more developed and robust platform than Warren as well.

It is easy to understand the appeal of Warren though, as she speaks with such passion about the (lack of) fairness of the economic system. That passion inspires people in a way that Hillary never will, and few speakers can. I just don't think she currently has anywhere near the subject matter depth and passion on the host of other issues though.

[Renew Deal]

25. I like her a lot.

And this is one of the reasons: "She is articulating a coherent, interlocking set of ideas focused on the economic prospects of the middle class, and a broader critique that explains how and why the economy got to this point."

Just read the Fortune magazine article from yesterday where she says she's not running and you see why people like her so much.

My concern with Sanders is that he's not a Democrat, so it's unclear if he can even run in the primary. I also think he has no chance of winning a primary even without Hillary in it.

[merrily]

42. Sanders has said he will run IF he thinks the money and support will be there. So people who want

him to run should not be sitting on their hands or their wallets right now. Because, he has also said that if he doesn't think he can win, he will not run.

[merrily]

32. I agree (if, in this context, "more progressive" means "to Hillary's left").

[Iggo]

22. "I shall not seek, nor will I accept..."

She knows the words.

[LordGlenconner]

30. No is the new YES

[merrily]

33. Maybe, but this might be the time to form an exploratory committee to see if the donors and support

are there.

[Autumn]

51. MoveOn.org and Democracy for America just two groups pushing for her to run.

I think they must feel the support is there. Who knows.

[merrily]

53. I thought earlier that this may be the new vogue.

It seems that, in recent years, playing coy about whether you are going to run or not has become routine. The most any of them say is "I'm thinking about it."


Remember, even before Obama got re-elected, there was that huge push to "Tell Hillary you want her to run." There was another group a few months ago that did the same with Sanders. And these groups with Warren. Maybe it's the new normal? The next logical step after playing coy?

If so, I really don't like it. This is not a prom date that you play hard to get over. But, whaddaya gonna do?

Anyway, what I mean in my prior was that, if indeed Warren is interested, around now might be good for her to start polls, schmoozing the big donors, etc. But, what do I know? Maybe over two years of telling America that no Dem will run against Hillary have made it very hard for anyone to take the traditional exploratory steps.

[Autumn]

55. What do any of us know? Even Obama, "No I'm not going to run"

played coy.

[merrily]

56. Sorry I am wiped out and not expressing myself clearly. I'll try again.

Judging by appearances/past practices, playing coy has been de rigueur for years. However, judging by the "Tell Hillary you want her to run," "Tell Bernie you want him to run," and "Run, Liz Run" kinds of things that have been going on this go round, it may be that amping up coyness is now also de rigueur.

By "amping up coyness," I mean adding to the coyness that we have become used to the additional step of waiting until the public invites you to run (or, more likely, making it look that way. After all, those once ubiquitous "Tell Hillary you want her to run ads didn't spring spontaneously from the head of Zeus.).

[Autumn]

57. It's not you. It's my 4th glass of wine!!!

All I want is for someone, anyone who gives a flying fiddlers fuck about the American people, the poor, the elderly the sick the young who are drowning in poverty to run for President. I want to vote for someone, not against some fucking ass who is a wee bit worse of a fucking ass than our fucking ass.
You are right, we have become used to the step of politicians waiting until the public invites them to run. How fucking stupid is that? Maybe that goes along with that bipartisan shit when they are just doing what they want to do in the first place. It's easier than being a great man or a great woman.

[merrily]

58. LOL Between your wine and my exhaustion, we make a great pair of posters!

I know. What I refer to as the prom date seems so childish to me. Turning it into some game that is about them is sad.

This is what comes from all the campaign strategists and one strategist copying another.

[Renew Deal]

65. You have a point.

I am not running for president. I am not running for president in four years. I am not running for president in 2008."...--Barack Obama, Nov. 3, 2004

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2006/02/obama_in_08_o_y.html

Changed to this pretty quickly...

In January, Obama told NBC that he would not run for president or vice president in 2008.

Asked Sunday about his earlier stance, Obama said, "That was how I was thinking at that time."

"I don't want to be coy about this, given the responses that I've been getting over the last several months," he said. "I have thought about the possibility, but I have not thought about it with the seriousness and depth that I think is required."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/22/obama.presidency

[merrily]

68. Thank you, Renew Deal. Note though, that he was still saying only that he was thinking about it and

not saying that he was going to run.

Hilllary has been saying for years, when asked, that she had it under consideration, but she still has not fessed up to the fact that, not only will she run, but she has been running for years.

So far, that's all SOP for politicians since I've been paying attention. . But, what I was trying to say yesterday was that we now seem to have a whole new level.

This time, we seem to have gone from merely coy/equivocal when inquiries are made, to trying to make it seem as though the candidate is running only (or partly) because the public is demanding that the candidate run, that the initiative or impetus is coming from public demand, rather than from the candidate.

I hope that's clear. (I'm still very tired, so I may not be getting my entire point across.)

As an aside, going back to Obama, I am not sure that 2004 to 2006 was all that fast. Given he was going to announce in 2007, he more or less had to start transitioning from "Absolutely not," to "It's occurred me, but no serious thought yet." (Not exact words.)

Notice, too, in the quote you provided, he did introduce an element of "I didn't really want to, but a lot of people have been asking me, so now it's occurred to me." (Also not an exact quote.) Maybe that kind of statement was the start of, or inspiration for, the "Tell Hillary you want her to run" ads?

BTW, in reality, a lot of people had started asking Obama about being the first African American POTUS at least as far back as when he became the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review. That event got a lot of press and interviewers and others were bringing that possibly up to him. That event and the "buzz" around it was what got him the book deal. And, I would not be surprised if even those interviews were not the first time he had considered it, given his mom

In any event, I do think we do have a new level or layer on the coyness this time.

[djean111]

47. Oh, Yay! A new meme! People are only supporting Warren because they are not Real Democrats and

want to bleed support and money away from Ms. Inevitable!

Continuing is a waste of time and more importantly money.
I have to wonder if it's an effort by bad actors to deplete the resources (money and time) from the Democratic cause.

I can't imagine why people would volunteer to bang their heads against the wall.
It's not logical. It makes one wonder what the motives are of those doing this.

Why, I can almost see that thing I may have mentioned a while back - we will scolded and told that supporting someone other than Hillary wastes time and money.

[rhett o rick]

49. This is a fight for the Democratic Party. H. Clinton has all the money the ruling Oligarchy

can muster to fight the populist movement. How ironic that Citizens United was brought about to defeat H. Clinton-Sachs and now may save her.

[merrily]

52. Yes, I saw that earlier, but I didn't think a reply would be worth the bandwidth.

Besides, as we know, a reply would do nothing. It's not about having authentic discussions.

[Renew Deal]

66. I'm quotable

This really has nothing to do with Hillary. I haven't said anything about supporting anyone else. I do believe that the road to the nomination is easiest for Hillary. (Don't believe me? Map it out yourself for each candidate).

But money talks and in this case MoveOn and DFA see dollar signs. Warren is their best product. She polls at around 12% and there is a lot of excitement about her. They can raise a lot of money for a "draft" campaign. And if she doesn't run, even better because they now have the money. So why not keep it rolling for another year? There will be those willing to throw money away in the hope that she changes her mind.

Without Warren, MoveOn and DFA don't have much to raise money on.

[Major Hogwash]

67. That's really not the point here anymore though.

Warren has said no almost as many times as my ex-wife!!

Respecting another person involves not inferring that she doesn't mean what she says!
Or that she is lying, or simply playing some kind of 3-level mysterious waiting chess game waiting for Hillary to make her announcement, or whatever other sort of pretzel logic it takes to manufacture the singularity outcome of her being an actual candidate!

No means no.
And I can't believe that anyone else posting here would not respect her decision not to run.

[djean111]

71. Such a bunch of solicitous mommies Warren has! Such thought-police concern!

The thing that cracks me up this morning - I have been assured that Obama is playing eleventy-dimensional chess so many many times. That he is craftily setting up multi-dimensional traps and plans and whatever. So - this is the fucking home of pretzel logic.

In any event, for myself only, I do not see the harm in continuing to hope for what I consider a much better candidate than The Inevitable Corporate BFF of Wall St. I am also on the Bernie Team. I am reading about other candidates who have been mentioned, like O'Malley.

Like it or not, the 2016 selection cycle has pretty much been started, for DU, anyway. And - those who do not care for Hillary are going to be doing a lot of looking and hoping elsewhere, and the most that the grimly determined all-hands-on-board the Hillary Train is going to get is a dispirited and grudging oh fuck another lesser evil from some of us, if money and name recognition and Big Dog win out.

I can't believe some are not respecting our decision not to give up hope. Really, it is no skin off your nose or back or whatever. And the constant drip of "are you calling her a liar" and "you do not respect her" has, frankly, passed on from being irritating to getting formulaic and a bit funny. For me, resigned to the dustbin with The List and The Chart.

Right now, my favorites are anyone who does not want the TPP. That is non-negotiable.

[great white snark]

50. She refuses to be a puppet of the fringes.

In 6 or 12 years she will have a full record probably filled with pragmatic decisions. She'll know by then who really supports her and why.

[WillyT]

61. Kick...

[WillyT]

70. Morning Kick !!!