Elizabeth Warren: I'm not running for president

[onehandle]

Source: Fortune

So are you going to run for President?

No.

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

[benz380]

1. Her eyes say yes. n/t

[djean111]

2. I think the real issue is - IMO, of course - people who want Warren to run

are looking for an alternative to Hillary. Warren is symbolic of that. Hillary is not a viable second choice.

I would be thrilled to support Warren, if she ran - and I am thrilled to be supporting Bernie Sanders right now.

[randys1]

4. I am a Bernie person, but would go with Liz or Hillary...per my other post here though

I wonder if Liz can wait 8 years to run, how old is she now?

I think age matters regardless of whether it is a Woman or not.

[Beacool]

7. She would be too old in 8 years.

She's only 18 months younger than Hillary.

[randys1]

11. That is what I thought...I think she makes a big mistake not running, even if she

doesnt get the nom, she provides tremendous benefit to all of us by running

[Beacool]

13. I get the feeling that she honestly has no interest in running.

Many people are pushing her, but she doesn't strike me as the type of person who plays at being coy. If she had been interested I think that she would have given clues to that effect long ago.

In reality she's an economist, not a politician. She's only been in politics a short time. It takes tremendous fortitude, stamina and "fire in the belly" to run for president. Aside from needing to raise huge sums of money. It's not for everyone. Sen. Warren may feel that she can make her mark from her Senate seat.

[Cosmic Kitten]

21. It takes tremendous fortitude...

stamina and "fire in the belly" to run for president.

So why would anyone want Hillary to run?
She lacks ALL of those qualities.

[Beacool]

28. Fortunately, that's not the opinion of the majority of Democrats.

[Cosmic Kitten]

61. The majority of Democrats LOL

Who are these people of which you speak?

The 500 people who respond to pollsters based on name recognition?
...out of which 200-300 know who Hillary married?
HA HA

[brooklynite]

72. Right! The handful of people responding to a DU post are MUCH more representative...

[Cosmic Kitten]

74. Where did that come from?

When the Hillary cheerleaders come out with
meaningless polls results, that's all it is meaningless polls.

In the "real world" we talk with one another...
in person, through social media, etc.

The "majority of democrats" regularly trotted
out as proof of Hilary's inevitable coronation
simply don't exist amongst the people on Main st.

The guys at the bait and tackle shop don't want or care for Hillary.
The guys at the barbershop don't want Hillary anywhere near Dee Cee.
The guys and girls at the local watering hole bar don't want Hillary for anything
except... to go away. These people ARE representative of average Democrats.
Maybe Hillary need to go on another "listening tour"?

So NO, those anonymous people sitting around wasting their time
answering poll questions DON'T represent the average
working class Democrat on Main St.
They remember Bill & Monica, NAFTA, and Hillary being "dead broke"
and resent them.

[brooklynite]

77. Just like the Presidential Polls in 2012 mistakenly indicated that Obama would win...

Good thing the Romney campaign and the Republicans didn't fall for that.

[Cosmic Kitten]

81. What exactly are you espousing?

That polls of 1000 people half of which are republicans
are the tell-tale for Hilary's inevitability?

That out of 1000 people surveyed,
Hillary is in a virtual dead heat,
before the swift-boating begins?

WOW!

[geek tragedy]

104. You're claiming HILLARY doesn't have the fire in the

belly necessary to run for President but Warren does?

That is delusional. Say what you will about Hillary, but she fought like hell in 2008 when many were calling for her to stand down.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren doesn't want the job.

[JDPriestly]

52. In other words, Elizabeth Warren is too honest and humble to run.

She was too honest and humble to go to a big-name school when she started college. Instead she went to a community college that charged only $50 per semester.

She was too honest and humble to run for the Senate until she was quite mature and had taught law for many years, finally at Harvard.

She will run. Because the clamor for her candidacy will become so loud that she has no choice. She is the voice of the people for 2016. Many of us will help her and get her to run. She already has major political groups supporting her and trying to persuade her to run.

The article quoted in the OP is yet another very clear statement of her views on what America is about and the kinds of reform we need. Conservatives, liberals and progressives all will line up behind her ideas. I think there will be an enormous wave of pressure placed upon her to run and that she will make an excellent, honest, although not perfect since no one is perfect, president.

I think she will follow the Teddy Roosevelt model and get a big broom to clean out Washington, D.C. Did you see her speech to the AFL-CIO conference on wages recently? That is a stump speech if I ever heard one.

I've been listening to and watching politics since I was nine. That's 62 years. Elizabeth Warren is very likely to run. She may not realize it yet, but she already is.

[Cal33]

84. You expressed very well what I've been feeling. If enough Americans

can make Elizabeth realize and feel that her abilities and qualities are really
needed at this time to prevent disaster from falling on our country, her
sense of responsibility and love of country will help to make her change her
mind, even if the job of the presidency isn't especially appealing to her.

And she has the type of personality that, whatever she undertakes, she will
make a good job of it.

[MADem]

89. She is HONEST, but what's with the "humble" stuff?

She's a millionaire. They don't pay Harvard Professors in the dark, you know. She made a tidy sum in that gig, and her net worth is around 14 million, give or take.

http://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/income-and-net-worth/

Now, I don't consider ANY of the information at that link to be an "indictment." Frankly, someone of her intellectual acumen, doing the work she has done, publishing the material she has published, and taking on the tasks she has taken on, if they HAVEN'T made any money down the years, they're stupid or poor money managers--and she's neither.

And she went to a community college not because she was "humble"--she was POOR. If she could have afforded a top-of-the-line Ivy League school, she would have been off like a shot. She had a sketchy first marriage that didn't go well (to that Warren guy). Her second marriage (she's Mrs. Mann when off duty) is much more successful.

Money, of course, helps. It usually does. She has plenty of it, and she owns nice homes and lives a nice life as a consequence of it. And good for her--she's earned it.

[JDPriestly]

93. Humble can mean poor. But I meant it to mean a person who has humility.

Humble has more than one meaning. I do not doubt that she and her husband are wealthy. I believe, however, that she has not forgotten what it was to be poor. That is the important thing. Georg Soros is another person who has not forgotten what it was to be poor. There are many others.

In her case, I was referring to her personality and the fact that she is not too overconfident when I used the word humble.

I know she is wealthy.

I don't think anyone begrudges wealth or dislikes wealthy people because they have money. Wealth is a problem with a candidate who sells herself to people who, in the pursuit of wealth, take from others. And that is not uncommon on Wall Street and in the banking sector.

The anger is at the fact that the wealthy rig the game so that only they can get ahead. If you read Elizabeth Warren's interview, you will understand that she is one of the few who can explain how the system gets rigged and is suggesting what to do about it.

She is my candidate. I love that interview.

[MADem]

96. I don't think she has an excess of humility, frankly.

She's pretty confident, actually. She knows her own value, and she doesn't play false modesty games. She was a rather demanding professor, if you believe her students (and I do). She doesn't suffer fools, and she doesn't take shit.

She doesn't behave like a humble person--she behaves like someone who has a role to play, and has probably a better understanding of her purpose than some of her fans. She also has a clear understanding of the meaning of NO.

[JDPriestly]

99. Compared to Hillary, she is humble.

[MADem]

100. I don't agree. I think they are both confident women who don't shy away from challenges.

Neither one is self-effacing; that's not a good quality in political life.

[VanillaRhapsody]

62. been saying that about her all along...

She doesnt mince words or waffle on any subject. Ehy dont they believe her about this?

[MADem]

91. She's a FIGHTER!!!!!

Why, then, is she not "fighting" for the slot at the top of the national ticket?

Could it be that she Does Not WANT It?

I kinda think that's the answer--but the Warrenistas who don't care what she wants (No Means NO) want to try to push her into something she has no intention of doing.

It's all good for her, though--it gives her a platform to craft conversations about issues that matter to her. It doesn't mean she's going to give up her life, her privacy, her ability to make change on her terms, to spend two years getting raked over the coals, to have that Pocahontas shit flung at her again, to have her first husband dug up, to have people from her past found to "tell tales" about her...all the dirty, nasty, OPPO shit that the Brown people pulled, but on a national scale...!

She can't be "tough as nails" on one hand, and then be a weak, waffling ditherer on the other. She's a proven fundraiser; she's raised a bundle for Democratic candidates. If she were going to run for POTUS, she'd have gone out and filled up PAC coffers with millions and millions from loyal donors, and have already started building a list for repeat contributions--but she hasn't done that.

This isn't the Old Days, these are the Citizens United days. Unless you're a RMoney with deep, deep pockets of millions and zillions who can throw personal money at a campaign, fundraising is a BIG part of the game. Warren is a rich woman, but she's not "Running for POTUS" rich--she's "Nice Life, Good Houses, The Occasional Servant, Fly First Class on Holiday" rich.

[VanillaRhapsody]

92. As always....EXACTLY...

You have such a way with words...I love when you comment on my posts and elaborate eloquently what I am trying to say....You can sure paint the picture.....kudos!

[MADem]

97. The funny thing is, I think most of us just LOVE Elizabeth Warren...

There is a faction here on DU that tries -- falsely, annoyingly, irritatingly, and repeatedly -- to insinuate that if we don't see her, unvetted, untried, with all the stumbles she made against that nitwit Scott Brown (and that race was NOT a cakewalk, she almost didn't succeed--it took money, money, MONEY and GOTV like crazy)--as the Democratic standard bearer, then we somehow "hate" her.

In actual fact, I think most of us who see her doing what she does happen to LIKE her in that role. A LOT. We want her to keep doing what she's doing, we don't want her dragged through the mud, we don't want her reputation besmirched, we don't want her effectiveness marginalized by insinuations about her heritage or her divorce or anything on those lines. We want her to do the ass-kicking that she plainly enjoys doing, in the milieu where she feels empowered and can get her message across, and we want her to succeed--just not as POTUS, because I don't think she'd be very good at that job. As Fed Chair, though? She'd run circles around Greenspan or any of his successors, and become the most influential person in that role for a half century or more...so fight on, Elizabeth--and become HRC's Fed Chair!

[VanillaRhapsody]

98. Oh man...that would be even better than making her VP!!!

heads would IMPLODE!!!!

[VanillaRhapsody]

59. not everybody wants to be Pres...obviously she

doesn't...

[VanillaRhapsody]

58. she will be when Warren endorses her...

[djean111]

60. Not for me, no matter how smugly you keep posting this.

Ugh. Ugh.
And if Warren endorses her, and Bernie is running - do you really think that endorsement will count in the primaries? I don't.

[VanillaRhapsody]

63. it counts to real Democrats...

Not so much for left leaning independents

[djean111]

65. Bwah! That particular little swipe is soooo yesterday. And getting a bit tattered, eh? n/t

I would rather be a left leaning Independent than a Third Way, right leaning Democrat. There are, you know, principles involved, not just mindlessly cheering for a jersey with a "D" on it.

[Cosmic Kitten]

67. Exactly, the sad wittle weft-weaning indy pendent pejorative pfft

[VanillaRhapsody]

69. swipe?

Its the truth and you know it...that means its not a "swipe"

[djean111]

70. Sorry, not playing your game today. Boring. Over and out.

[VanillaRhapsody]

71. not a game....its the truth and evryone knows it..

[Cosmic Kitten]

75. Evryone? EVRYONE! You know Evryone!?

not a game....its the truth and evryone knows it..

Who is this Evryone you speak of?
Are they a right-leaning democrat?
Or perhaps a center-swaying-centrist?
Maybe a left-leaning-right-winger?
Dunno....

I just hope they are a Democrat and not a democrat!
Last thing we need are more unprincipled people with questionable values
pushing non-viable candidates as a feelgood exercise in personal politics!

Do you think Evryone will take our "pledge"?
It would go a loooong way to quell the stink eye around here!

[VanillaRhapsody]

76. Democrats would....

[Cosmic Kitten]

80. Would...

[randys1]

3. And yet, I think she could win, in 2016.

I think a majority of the country wants a Woman president and that same majority wants a Democratic Woman president.

The rightwing death and destruction nominees would not do any better or worse regardless of which of these two Women were running, IMO

The real question is could Liz get the same amount of money that Hillary could, and she must have been told no.

[brooklynite]

19. Or, she never asked...

...because she never wanted to run.

[Cosmic Kitten]

23. could Liz get the same amount of money that Hillary could?

Is that what qualifies a candidate for office?
How much money they can panhandle from Wall St?

Sucking up to banksters is NOT a winning democratic platform.

[randys1]

38. Regardless of the source of money, either they can raise enough to win or they cant

I didnt create the system, nor did Liz.

But to win you have to have money, maybe you could compete taking zero from Wall Street, dont know.

[Cosmic Kitten]

41. It's about being BEHOLDEN to donors

It's being BEHOLDEN to donors.
Raising money is fine, it's the quid pro quo that matters.

Hillary is clearly and unequivocally pro-corporate...
from Goldman Saks, Monsanto, Wal-Mart, etc

Hillary will be decidedly pro-corporate, pro-3rd-Way.
Democrats "can do better"

[olddad56]

42. i would agree. To be able to win, the candidate almost has to sell out.

[Cosmic Kitten]

47. Why do they need to sell out?

Are our candidates so morally weak and ethically challenged?
NO! They are simply people who knowingly sell out.
They lie to get elected then laugh at voters for having voter remorse.
Enough is enough!

Start demanding Public Servants actually serve their constituents...
not just those who bribe them into office.
If they can lie to the public they can lie to donors, right?
Just saying if they can't help being immoral they could spread the misery.
But then that would take having a spine... something lacking in Dee Cee.

When we expect candidates to sell us out, WE BECOME the problem.
This process is NOT out of the public's hands unless you accept
that you are powerless and "they" always have and always will win.

Don't be as feckless as the Congress Critters too timid to
actually stand up and do their damned jobs.
AND don't support candidates we all know WILL SELL US OUT!!!

[Cal33]

86. Could that be a reason why she keeps saying she is not running? She could be

wanting to let people know that, if she accepts, it would be on her own terms.
She is no sellout. She has too much integrity to be one.

[JDPriestly]

50. Yes. See my links in Post 45.

[A Simple Game]

53. Money may not be a problem for Warren.

Although Warren isn't what I would call a liberal, she is so much closer than Hillary.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/hillary-clinton-democracy-alliance-2016-elections-112831.html

and more if you don't like that one;

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=warren%20invited%20to%20donor%20meeting%20but%20hillary%20wasn%27t

If Warren won the nomination she may have trouble getting enough to win the general election with Wall Street having no other option than to support the Republican but the liberal support would be a good start.

Hillary's support is not what many think it is, she has a large war chest but has been working on it for a long time. If she has to spend most of it on the primaries and wins, Wall Street can't lose, why would they waste more money on her? Hillary's donations dry up and the Republican wins.

[Cal33]

85. <<The real question is could Liz get the same amount of money that Hillary could, and she must have

been told no.>>

I remember having read some time ago that a group of wealthy Democrats had
openly asked Warren to run.

We still have almost 2 years to go. More and more people are becoming her
fans every single day. In less than a year the numbers will become overwhelming.

[Beacool]

5. She has said this repeatedly for the last two years.

Unlike those here who continually bash Hillary Clinton, I have nothing but respect for Sen. Warren. I took her at her word when she said that she was not interested in running for president. Why should every politician have to aspire to be president? Not all of them want the stress and headache that comes with running this country.

[Cosmic Kitten]

24. Why does Hillary want the "headache"?

Maybe to help her corporate friends?

[Beacool]

26. Typical response from a Hillary basher.

[Cosmic Kitten]

30. Don't make this personal.

If Warren wouldn't want the "headaches" why would Hillary?

Hillary has suffered blood clots and is not in good health.
So what is the upside of Hillary running for and having
to endure the grueling demands of holding office?

Can't HILLARY DO MORE FOR THE COUNTRY
by remaining free from the constraints of holding office?
Hillary should steer clear of the political wrestling which
would undoubtedly have a negative impact on her well being.

[brooklynite]

32. Because, Hillary is ambitious

...which isn't a bad thing.

A lot of people love to throw out "we need a President who doesn't want the job". Funny how they never decide to run.

[Cosmic Kitten]

34. Ambition isn't a bad thing? Really?

Interesting how you validate Hillary,
who has been nakedly seeking political office
for personal gain.

And then throw in a false premise that "a lot of people"
love to throw out...

What is that?
Is that an attempt to legitimize power seeking
as some kind of benign altruism? pfft.

Hillary is in poor health, will suffer the same "headaches"
that any other candidate would, and is a corporate crony.
The Democratic party "can do better"

[VanillaRhapsody]

79. WTF is wrong with ambition now?

WTF do you know about her health? Nothing that is what...no self respecting Democrat would spew such crap they no nithing about...my god her health? Is that what DU has devolved into?

[Cosmic Kitten]

82. Didn't Hillary suffer from a blood clot and pass out?

[Beacool]

83. They are not "self respecting Democrats".

They are the Left Wing version of the Tea Party. They spew the same venom. That's why I come here long enough to keep my account active, but not much more. I decided to try to ignore the vitriol, it's a waste of time.

[JDPriestly]

48. See my post #45.

Hillary cannot make the changes in the executive branch that will set off other changes that are utterly and unavoidably necessary if we are to remain a government of and by and for the people.

I have not read a better argument for Elizabeth Warren's candidacy than that Fortune article. She suggests reforms that will make capitalism and the ideal of private property that is at the core of our Constitution work for all Americans.

See my post #45. Hillary is too compromised. She cannot act against the interests of the corporate donors who have supported her and Bill all these years. She cannot head the charge to make the reforms we need. She is too compromised. Cannot be trusted. She would continue to weaken our economy because of the corruption that is bound to engulf her if she is elected.

[JDPriestly]

49. See my post #45. Hillary has sold out to the financial sector.

She cannot sponsor the reforms that we need.

So far, Elizabeth Warren is the potential candidate and the only potential candidate who understands the ideas of Teddy Roosevelt and knows how to reform our economy and government so that we can continue to govern ourselves under our current Constitution.

I know I sound extreme about that. But the corruption in our political and financial sectors are making it very, very difficult for ordinary, middle-class, hard-working Americans to acquire much less own private property. And when we reach the tipping point at which few people own property of any significant value (and the number of those people who are American citizens and voters is declining), the essence of much of our Constitution is gone.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments directly protect the right to own property. When fewer than 50% of Americans actually own property from which they can exclude others, those key amendments become not just irrelevant but an annoyance to the majority. Then we have problems.

And what Warren says about our tax structure. Many have said that, but only she has the integrity and honesty and understanding to suggest concrete solutions to the problem and appoint people to our regulatory agencies who will enforce laws to resolve those problems.

Hillary cannot do these things.

Please read my post #45. Hillary owes too much to the very financial interests that Elziabeth Warren castigates in that Fortune interview.

[brooklynite]

51. So if Warren is the ONLY acceptable candidate...and Warren isn't running...then...

[JDPriestly]

54. I've been listening to and watching politics for 62 years. It will surprise me greatly if Warren

does not run.

Watch her speech to the AFL-CIO conference on wages. That's a stump speech if I ever heard one. Warren is on her way. Watch out everybody else. She is one strong, brilliant, determined STAR. She has integrity. Conservatives, liberals and progressives will love her. Her message is in tune with our Constitution.

And she is the only one you can say that about.

She is modest and self-deprecating to a fault. She thinks of herself as still that ordinary little girl in Oklahoma who won a debate and gee isn't that amazing.

She has no appreciation of her own exceptional brilliance and the fact that she, of all others, is the one who can change this country for the better. But many of us are realizing that. Our numbers will grow.

Read the article. She has a vision for a revival of capitalism in our country that can save us. If she does not run, if she does not win, I feel very sorry about what will follow. Because our system if failing. As I said in an earlier post, our system is built on the assumption that a good portion of our citizens own property. When that fails to be the case, when we reach the tipping point at which fewer and fewer citizens identify themselves with ownership of property beyond their cell-phones, their furniture and their clothing, much of our system becomes irrelevant to too many people. And then we are in big trouble.

Elizabeth Warren demonstrates in her statements in that article that she understands the problem with our distribution of property ownership. It is fundamental to the application of our Constitution and our laws that people own property. We haven't reached the tipping point yet, but we are on our way.

After reading that article, I understand more than ever why Warren must run and why we will elect her to the presidency if and when she does run.

I think there is a good chance that history will compel Warren to run. It is an extremely rare event, but I think there is a good chance it will happen. And I hate to think what will happen if she does not run.

[Harriety]

6. Sharrod Brown

[belzabubba333]

20. sherrod brown is my senator dont you be taking my senator from me

[Corey_Baker08]

66. Mine Too, But For A Worthy Cause...

Have Him, except I think he's more likely a better VP pick... For now

[brooklynite]

40. DEFINITELY not running--as I've said before, I asked someone in the family

[JDPriestly]

46. Sherrod Brown would be great for VP, but he does not have the voice and the commitment

that Elizabeth Warren has. Elizabeth Warren just has to get over it. She is the only person who can win the election and turn the country around to a healthy economy and healthy environment. She is the only one.

I can understand if she does not want to run, but she is the only person with the integrity, the clear voice, the understanding of the problems and what to do about them that are needed in our president. She really must rethink that position. America needs her.

She has set aside her cookie-baking and family before. We need her. She needs to answer the call.

[Iggo]

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

She knows the words.

[Renew Deal]

9. I wonder when she is going to announce that she is running.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

10. After nearly a minute of my browser connecting to all sorts of

sites that did not have 'fortune.com' in their names, I gave up on the page loading.

Could you actually provide a bit of text for those of us who don't give a crap about whatever 'admin.brightcove.com' wants to load on our computers when we try to access your link?

[Historic NY]

16. Here this link works for me....

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

So are you going to run for President?

No.

What does the Democratic nominee need to do to win in 2016?

They need to speak to America’s families about the economic crisis in this country. It starts with the recognition that Washington works for the rich and powerful and not for America’s families. From there, it has to go into what changes we need to make, and that gets back to education, infrastructure, and research.

[JDPriestly]

45. Only two people have the integrity and the history to say what Elizabeth Warren suggests will

win. They are Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. No other politician has the integrity it takes to win on those words. And one of the worst in that respect is Hillary Clinton. Bill's and Hillary's connections with Citibank, with Pete Peterson and his crowd, with the Bushes, etc. would make Hillary look disingenuous to the point of being a clown if she tried to say those words. She could not be convincing as a reformer since her husband's administration in her first residence in the White House was key to setting up the degenerate form of capitalism we now have. And her early connection to Walmart does not make the outlook for reform from her better. In the past couple of years I have read that Walmart is still supporting her as a politician. It's disgusting. She would have to lie through her teeth to say what Warren suggests it is time to say.

Here is Walmart supporting the Clinton foundation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/clinton-foundation-receiv_n_92141.html

List of Hillary's top donors:

Citigroup Inc $782,327 $774,327 $8,000
Goldman Sachs $711,490 $701,490 $10,000
DLA Piper $628,030 $601,030 $27,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co $620,919 $617,919 $3,000

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000019

[Cosmic Kitten]

64. +1111!!1!!!

[MADem]

17. That might be you--the link went straight to the story. nt

[Cosmic Kitten]

25. right! It's just lazy to put a link to drive traffic.

[chrisa]

12. It's obvious now - She is so running!

[Hari Seldon]

14. Actual Quote: "No"

Someone please ask her if she would seek the nomination.

[MADem]

15. She is not radical or extreme, and she does not hate business.

She has demonstrated that she's all about jobs to her constituency, that's for sure.

I must profess that the Elizabeth Warren I know respects business and the role it plays in jobs and wealth creation. Yes, she is a champion of the working class, but she couches her arguments in terms of policies that make the markets work better for all Americans. I don’t for the life of me understand what is radical or extreme about that.

And she's not GOING to run for President....

So are you going to run for President?

No.

[JDPriestly]

44. Read her book. She only runs for things when pushed and shoved.

And she will run. She is being pushed and shoved.

Listen to her speeches. She takes Hillary on quite directly in all but name.

And, as we have discussed before, I am so totally in sync with her affection for Teddy Roosevelt.I am a big Teddy Roosevelt fan. All but the murdering of innocent animals and his picking a war with the Spanish and then reveling in the blood and gore of it. (Although getting the Spanish out of our hemisphere with their horrible treatment of the indigenous peoples was not a bad idea, but the excessive violence ???? Maybe a matter of the times.)

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are the only politicians who are running who would be capable of getting rid of at least the worst of the corruption that is dividing and impoverishing our country. And that has to be the most important task of the next president. Yes. The Senate and House and regulatory agencies have to pay a role. But if you read the biography of Teddy Roosevelt you realize that one person truly dedicated to ridding the government of corruption cannot totally achieve that goal but can pick and choose enough people to support him/her to get the job done. Hiring people, exposing people is an executive job. With a strong attorney general, Elizabeth Warren could and would get it done, I am convinced.

Certainly, with Hillary as president, it will be more and even more of the same corporate fun and games and even worse damage to the American economy and the American people.

[MADem]

88. Seriously? You think that's a recommendation?

She only runs for things when pushed and shoved?

I think when she answers NO to the question "Are you going to run?" that NO means NO. There comes a point when insisting that someone do what they say, over and over again, that they aren't going to do, takes on a tone that I find to be awkward at best.

The lack of respect accorded to my Senator, as though she is some nitwit who can be pushed and bullied, and she does not know her own mind, astounds me!

She also, along with the rest of the women in the Senate, signed the letter urging Hillary to run. So, even though she "takes on Hillary" on this matter or that, I'm quite certain they agree way more than they disagree.

Howard Dean has issued a formal endorsement of HRC, too. I think maybe it's time to be realistic. If Warren is running for anything, it's Secretary of the Treasury or Fed Chair in the Clinton Administration. And Dean? He's in a good place to be HHS.

Although you say Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are the only politicians who are running .. the fact remains that neither Warren nor Sanders ARE running--Warren has said, now, yet again, that she is not going to run, and last time Sanders spoke, he said he'd only run if he could win. She has said NO for the umpteenth time, and he hasn't announced.

Toying with running IS a way to get people to notice you. It's also a way to drive conversation to issues that you care about. And sometimes, that's all it is.

It's 2015. The election is next year. Neither one of those Senators has a dime in a campaign war chest. It's time to start injecting a bit of reality into the process. Warren has said--yet again--the big N word...NO. I think it's time that people believe her. Sanders seems to be sliding away from an announcement, but it's still too soon to tell with him--I wouldn't hold my breath on him running, or if he did run, staying in past the first primary debate.

Jim Webb is still exploring, so there's an option if you like that brand (not my speed, but YMMV).

I'll stick with Clinton. If she doesn't run, Biden will jump in. I think she's running, though, and I think she will announce some time in April of this year.

[JDPriestly]

94. I and many others will neither vote or work for Hillary Clinton.

I do not want her to be president. Maybe I will change my mind, but I doubt it.

She has too many connections to the corruption that emanates from Wall Street.

See my post #45. Look at the list of her top donors. It's embarrassing. The very people who all but bail-outs from Congress brought down the world economy. It's shameful.

[MADem]

95. Fine, that's your prerogative, but hating on HRC isn't going to persuade

Warren to go through an ugly gauntlet of national vetting, and the accompanying tear-down, to suit you. She's not gonna do it. I don't blame her.

EW and HRC get along. I know it bugs people to realize that, but it's the truth. And when HRC declares, EW will be helping her--and that will probably bug people even more. When Howard Dean starts pitching in, heads will explode.

Not my worry, that. I'm of the mind that we're here at DU to elect more Democrats, and fewer Republicans, to public office. I guess some people find that a less than worthy goal, but I can't worry about that, either. To each their own.

[JDPriestly]

102. I do not hate Hillary. I just don't think she will make a good candidate or a good president.

I enjoyed her book, It Takes a Village. My children thought I was a big backer of Hillary.

I just don't think she should run for president. I would like to see her focus on campaigning for issues regarding women and children. Her strength is advocating for women and children. She could do a lot of good if she stuck to that.

[MADem]

103. Given John Podesta's recent announcement, I don't think you're going to get your wish.

Odds are good to excellent that she's running and will announce within three months.

[MannyGoldstein]

106. Didn't The Next One announce last Fall?

Oh that's right, she postponed it.

Strange.

[MADem]

108. Only strange to those who don't understand campaign finance rules about

informal coordination between PACs and non-declared candidates.

You'll figure it out if you just do a little homework.

Enjoy the postponement while you can.

And oh--No--particularly when repeated dozens of times-- means NO!

[MannyGoldstein]

109. Oh, OK.

I can understand her campaign not understanding the rules until a few months ago, that makes sense.

[MADem]

111. They understand them better than you do, I see, based upon your remarks. nt

[brooklynite]

18. Well, she's a politician...you can't trust anything they say

right?

[Cosmic Kitten]

27. That's rhetorical, right?

[brooklynite]

22. Has Manny been spotted lately? he might need a hug.

[MannyGoldstein]

101. Mrs. Manny here, reporting in on his DU account.

Manny's having one of his special private moments right now, his head is stuck between the sofa cushions and he's speaking the lyrics to "Take the Skinheads Bowling" in a sort of warbling falsetto monotone. He'll probably collapse into a deep sleep in a few hours.

Should I have him check in with you after his morning meds kick in?

[MADem]

110. Ugh. That's a deleter if I've ever seen one.

Given some of the recent, and rather pained comments that DUers have posted about their, and their loved ones' issues with mental illness, it's just not a funny subject to make jokes about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026079373

[FSogol]

29. What could she possibly mean?

[arcane1]

31. Now can we finally stop distracting her from KICKING SENATE ASS???

[sheshe2]

33. +1

Thank you!

[turbinetree]

35. HER BACK

Whatever she does I will support her and watch her and back and Sanders, and any other "progressive Liberal" DEMOCRAT backs

[SmittynMo]

36. So why are they asking her the same question over and over?

Because she is the ONLY one(other than Bernie Sanders) that has the balls to confront issues that are important to America and the shrinking middle class. So why aren't any other democrats in her same boat, as they should be? They're in an itty bitty tugboat pushing the GOP luxury custom yacht up the Mississippi. What has happened to the democratic party? And what a bunch of wusses they are.

The woman is no fool. The time will come. She is currently on a mission, and I like it.

[Jackpine Radical]

56. Why did this flash into my mind as I read your post?:

[hrmjustin]

37. I always believed her. I guess she just doesn't want to run or be president or both.

Hillary Clinton will run and imo wins the primary.

[George II]

39. Maybe we should set up a separate forum for all of these Warren is/isn't running posts?

[JDPriestly]

43. Whether to run or not may not be her choice.

I'm for her running.

I cannot think of a person on this earth other than my husband that I agree with on so many political issues. Right down to my admiration for Teddy Roosevelt as a president. I am not so fond of him as a killer of animals and people, but as a president in terms of the economy, he was the best. He laid the foundation for the reforms that FDR made.

In my opinion, there is no politician in America who could do what we need as a country if we are to keep existing -- and that what we need is to clean up our government, bust the trusts that once again dominate us and control our political agenda. She is right about everything. She and many of us are viewed as being on the left, but we are in fact more supportive of a truly market economy, an even playing field, no special favors and tax and subsidy deals for the big corporations and all the other good things that Elizabeth Warren is for and that make a vibrant capitalist economy that is healthy and prosperous for all possible.

I still support Elizabeth Warren for president. She is going to have to explain to me WHY she does not want to run. Because whatever her reason, there has to be a way to deal with it. America needs Elizabeth Warren in the White House. Only there can she appoint the cabinet and advisers who can get this country back on the right track and help us build a future. I also like Bernie Sanders. But I think Elizabeth Warren is the most electable of the two potential candidates.

Forget Hillary Clinton. She is the ally of the corporations who have corrupted our government to the point that it is alienated from the people.

[brooklynite]

57. "She is going to have to explain to me WHY she does not want to run"

Or she can ignore you and your political requirements and just keep doing her job in the Senate.

[stevenleser]

73. It's her choice. nt

[fbc]

55. Luckily we still have Bernie Sanders so we don't have to vote for Wall Street Hillary

[Mike Nelson]

68. Old News...

...looking for her to be a BIG part of the next Democratic Administration, tho!

[JoePhilly]

78. BLASPHEMER!!!!!

[christx30]

87. And sanity eludes the White House once again.

"Hey Ted Cruz! Are you going to run for president?"
"If the molepeople from Verozian 5 say it's ok."

[Tommy_Carcetti]

90. So what she's telling us is that she's running for President.

We read you loud and clear.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

105. Draft Sherrod Brown

Since Warren has made it abundantly clear she doesnt want the job.

[brooklynite]

107. Brown DEFINITELY doesn't want to run...

...and I have that from family contacts.

[polynomial]

112. Warren does not have to run

First understand I have been a Hillary supporter for a long time. I would like to see a women president like a lot of other Americans want. However, going into a war presidency atmosphere has to be somewhat of a mystery.

The media in any case will make a crisis manufactured or otherwise. That theory comes directly from Rahm Emanuel. Which I respect and think he was a huge lose the Obama inner circle with his famous media quote

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste”. Just as he says with history behind him that is the time to be able to do things that you could not do before. However like most things the Conservative media took that idea way out of context.

Form my view it is a win, win either way. If Hillary runs there will be more lies more than any time in history. Hillary knows how to play the game and just because she gets money from Wall Street does not mean she could stop Congress from hammering Wall Street or others like Bush and Cheney that tapped the treasury in profiteering during the Iraq war.

Warren has the ability to drive the most powerful branch of the American politics. In fact to be able to get rid of a few Supreme Court creeps that are way too corrupt…

If the Senate majority is Democratic I would want to see Warren lead a commission that has the capability to prosecute, indict, and convict any political figure in the previous administrations that appears to profiteer family fortunes especially the Bush Cheney family.

It’s one thing to go to war but not good when it is loaded with lies and political figures profiteer.

Many times I have said if the lies are removed from political rhetoric the money would disappear from that path. It would not be hard to legislate laws that make it fair to challenge political lies in court by any citizen. That would be a head ache for most politicians that depend on the lie to win.