HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » I don't get the Elizabeth...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:28 AM

I don't get the Elizabeth Warren adulation. In fact, I don't get adulation of politicians

I don't understand the "she'd be a great President" or "Warren 2016!" mentality.

We really don't know where she stands on a host of issues. She's been in the Senate for all of a month.

So what is it with making her the progressive standard bearer?

I like Warren, but the adulation is beginning to remind me of that bestowed on John Edwards. No, I'm not comparing her to Edwards. I'm comparing the sentiment that many direct her way to that which was once directed to Edwards.

Elizabeth Warren was a republican until 1995. That's not a non-starter for me, but I do have to wonder. She's been hawkish on Iran and I don't support the rhetoric she's used about it.

Warren didn't run an outstanding campaign for Senate and has little experience in running for office. That's a huge piece of running for the Presidency.

It's unlikely Warren will run in 2016. She's too smart for that. I'm not saying I wouldn't support her she did, but I'd need to see something extraordinary out of her in the next 12 months to do so.

I suspect Warren will be a very good Senator, but I don't know that. Time will tell.

49 replies, 4504 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 49 replies Author Time Post
Reply I don't get the Elizabeth Warren adulation. In fact, I don't get adulation of politicians (Original post)
cali Feb 2013 OP
phleshdef Feb 2013 #1
NRaleighLiberal Feb 2013 #2
UCmeNdc Feb 2013 #3
cali Feb 2013 #7
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #4
cali Feb 2013 #8
RC Feb 2013 #5
Common Sense Party Feb 2013 #6
Jennicut Feb 2013 #17
Bake Feb 2013 #31
SunSeeker Feb 2013 #9
pnwmom Feb 2013 #11
tarheelsunc Feb 2013 #12
SunSeeker Feb 2013 #13
frazzled Feb 2013 #22
SunSeeker Feb 2013 #38
Beacool Feb 2013 #40
Zen Democrat Feb 2013 #20
Beacool Feb 2013 #41
Douglas Carpenter Feb 2013 #10
SunSeeker Feb 2013 #15
cali Feb 2013 #19
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #34
davidpdx May 2013 #45
forestpath Feb 2013 #14
Skittles Feb 2013 #16
DCBob May 2013 #48
Rider3 Feb 2013 #18
cali Feb 2013 #21
Douglas Carpenter Feb 2013 #33
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #23
Voice for Peace Feb 2013 #24
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #25
DFW Feb 2013 #26
treestar Feb 2013 #27
leveymg Feb 2013 #28
brooklynite Feb 2013 #29
karynnj Feb 2013 #30
midnight Feb 2013 #32
ShadowLiberal Feb 2013 #37
Whisp Feb 2013 #35
freshwest Feb 2013 #42
cliffordu Feb 2013 #36
DougRees Feb 2013 #39
dsc Feb 2013 #43
DirkGently May 2013 #44
rhett o rick May 2013 #46
redgreenandblue May 2013 #47
DCBob May 2013 #49

Response to cali (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:31 AM

1. I highly doubt she herself will ever run or even want to run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:36 AM

2. I don't get adulation, period. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:52 AM

3. What is it that bothers you about the "adulation of politicians" so much?

If people in general, really want to support a particular politician since they think that politician represents their interests the most, let them be. Why worry about it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:00 PM

7. I'm assuming that you know the difference between 'adulation' and support, though

your op doesn't reflect that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:56 AM

4. The praise for Warren has been earned.

But the touting of her as a Presidential candidate? Premature at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:01 PM

8. praise for her, sure. adulation? (and pushing her for President at this point constitutes that)

not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:57 AM

5. Hero worship of many here.

 

Nothing more. Not even history or facts can get in the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:58 AM

6. Very well said.

We love them until they disappoint us, and then they are dead to us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:37 PM

17. We love and worship them until they turn out to be

all too human. I like Elizabeth Warren but no one in politics is perfect. And people obsess over 2016 way too much. 2014 is way more important right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 04:36 PM

31. It hasn't been that long since Harry freakin' Reid was a Dem hero for defending Soc Sec.

Then came that filibuster business, and now he's persona non grata here.

Not that I disagree with that, mind you.



Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:06 PM

9. "Elizabeth Warren was a republican until 1995."

Talk about burying the lead!

I can see the Hillary ads against her now...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:14 PM

11. I missed that. Interesting. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:14 PM

12. Hillary was once a Republican herself. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tarheelsunc (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:31 PM

13. Yes, we all did things we were embarrassed about in college. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #13)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:52 PM

22. Yes, but in 1995 Warren was 46, not a college student

I'm the same age as she is. So it surprises me a bit that throughout the time period we shared together--the Vietnam War, Watergate, the Reagan years and Iran Contra--she was identifying as a Republican while I and my cohorts were protesting the war, working for Democratic candidates, and fighting all kinds of battles for economic and social equality that were definitely not reflected in the Republican Party.

I'm glad she converted; I'm glad she was elected senator from Massachusetts, especially over Brown. And I respect her work with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But I don't know where she stands on a host of issues, foreign and domestic. It's really too early to be elevating her as a saint in the way one sees many posts here doing lately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #22)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 09:53 PM

38. I was talking about Hillary.

She went from being a College Republican to working on the McGovern campaign. Yes, that is a late conversion for Warren. Very odd. Like I said, that should have been the lead of OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tarheelsunc (Reply #12)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:51 AM

40. yes, she grew up in a Republican household.

She switched parties in college. Warren was in her mid 40s when she became a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:46 PM

20. Hillary was a Goldwater Girl in '64. And Ronald Reagan was a union-supporting Dem before he wasn't.

I don't care what anyone USED to be. Tell me what you are NOW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zen Democrat (Reply #20)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:51 AM

41. Hillary was a teenager when she was a Goldwater Girl.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:07 PM

10. it is the the idea of "the great progressive hope" - It has now been more than 40 years since the

Democrats nominated a progressive for President or even simply an old fashioned New Dealer who ran on a New Deal agenda.

You are right that we don't know that much about Elizabeth Warren - but she talks like a real progressive. She inspires that hope. Maybe it is an illusion? But she sounds more like a real progressive than just about any candidate in decades.

BTW: I am defining a progressive as someone who wants to significantly expand social democracy, reduce the power of corporate interest and expand the power of community based public interest, enact a more socialized healthcare system, significantly expand and strengthen the social safety net, significantly reduce military spending and fundamentally change the American foreign policy. -Basically a progressive is what Republicans think and some naive Democrats fantasize Obama is - but obviously is not nor are any other major mainstream Democratic Party figures. - No candidate for the Democratic Party nomination who embraces these values held by the probably the majority or a at least 40%+ of Democratic Party rank and file has actually come close to winning the nomination since 1972.

Could Elizabeth Warren be that great progressive hope? I don't know but she sure inspires that hope. Is she really a progressive at all? I don't know for sure. But Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden sure the hell are not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:33 PM

15. And these days, just sounding like a progressive is better than we get from most politicians. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:46 PM

19. The thing is that from what we know, Warren isn't progressive on defense

Her rhetoric sure isn't. She was a republican until 1995. I'm not clear on why she inspires that hope. I agree that neither Biden or Clinton aren't progressives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:35 PM

34. I don't get how those concerns fit with your strong support of a current Republican who has

never once voted against any war including Iraq to be Sec of Defense. "I stand firmly behind Hagel for Defense Secretary" is the title of your OP at the link.
So to be clear, you are suspect of support for a former Republican but support for an actual Republican is fine. It is bad that you don't know Warren's position on many domestic issues, but knowing that Hagel is anti choice and anti gay, knowing this from his 12 year, 100% Republican voting record gives no cause for concern of any kind.....
A bit confusing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022373844

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #10)

Fri May 17, 2013, 10:39 PM

45. I think your post explains it best

We all want to find another FDR or LBJ in our lifetime to expand and defend social programs and check the power of corporations.

I was happy Warren was elected by MA in 2012 and feel she is doing a great job. There is still so much we don't know about her stance on other issues.

My personal prediction is that neither Clinton, Biden, or Warren will run in 2016. If I had to chose one of the three in a primary it would be Biden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:32 PM

14. Acknowledging she's doing what Obama should be doing in going after

 

the banks isn't "adulation."

Maybe it just looks like it since it throws into sharp relief whose side Obama is really on.

Regardless, I am always ready to be betrayed by any politician since so few of them don't sell out at one point or another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:37 PM

16. it's more an indication of how desperate we are

for politicians we perceive to have our back

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #16)

Sat May 18, 2013, 06:50 AM

48. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:39 PM

18. She did a lot before she got elected to the Senate!

You should check out her bio and see exactly how she goes to bat for the little guy. She's the only one willing to take on the higher powers, not sit in the back row like the good little rookie they all expected her to be. No. She's a strong woman who is fighting for us -- not the bankers, the insurers, etc., etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rider3 (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:49 PM

21. I am more than a little familiar with her record and biography

I suggest you check out how hawkish she is on Iran, for instance. -
*
And though it may not be entirely fair, she voted republican until she was in her forties.

I admire her when it comes to her record on fiscal issues, but that really all the record she has, and important as it is, it's not the only issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #21)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:13 PM

33. though a bit vague - she has said thing to suggest that she is not a dove - maybe she is closer to a

old style cold war liberal like Humphrey than to a George McGovern or Morris Udall type liberal or a Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders type progressive. I suppose even that kind of liberal has been so long since we have had on the national scene and the fact that she says things that few prominent politicians of today are willing to say and she has stature. Progressives naturally wonder how long will we have to wait before we can vote for the real thing - another 40 years? Perhaps Elizabeth Warren is not the real thing. I don't know. But just a few words that suggest that she might be does inspire that hope

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:57 PM

23. Very few politicians strike me as having strong core convictions and integrity.

Despite four years of the political give-and-take of the Presidency and some missteps (particulary on the drone/legal memo issue), Obama still strikes me that way--it's why I supported him to begin with. Elizabeth Warren so far seems to be another--we'll have to see, she is still a relative newbie, politically. It's a gut feeling that I get. I have never gotten it with either Clinton, nor with Al Gore, nor with Joe Biden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:20 PM

24. I think it's inspiration more than adulation.. we adore the brave

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:37 PM

25. I am guessing you dont spend much time in the Barack Obama group. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:57 PM

26. I know my share of politicians and don't adulate any of them

I do have my favorites, of course. One of them is Dr. Hermann Ott of Germany: http://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/abgeordnete17/biografien/O/ott_hermann.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:00 PM

27. She says things that we really want said

As to economics, anyway, she comes out and says the progressive positions on issues. There's a lot of frustration when the M$M covers Democrats and they don't come right out and say it like she does. So I get the support - she would make a good DUer on economic issues. Possibly many other issues as well.

But then it can be OTT where people just think the right President is all it takes and put their hopes on her that way. It sometimes was Bernie Sanders or Howard Dean or Kucinich or whoever happened to say the right thing on some talk show. Some people express agreement with a politician on a talk show by calling for them to be President. And Elizabeth Warren has been a frequent and consistent sayer of such things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:07 PM

28. It's largely a response to all the "Best Secretary of State, ever!" threads.

For some, Adulation R'Us.



Makes them feel secure knowing that giants watch over us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:15 PM

29. Indeed, I was surprised at the brouhaha over her announcement of a new PAC yesterday.

Every major politician creates one, but somehow hers merited excitement and immediate check writing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #29)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 04:04 PM

30. I know that every politician has one, but I was surprised by the timing

MA will have a special election this year and a Senate and Governor race in 2014. Unless the goal is that Warren will help in the general elections for these, I don't get why she is raising money now. It could be that with Patrick not running, Kennedy gone, and Kerry by position not involved in politics, she might be trying to fill those holes for MA in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 04:47 PM

32. Ms. Warren a Republican until 1995- I had no idea. Did she say what changed her mind?

I was impressed with her command of our banking system and how she knew the bankers legalize written volumes via mortgage were used to confuse the consumer.... She let it be known her skill set was able to address theirs... Usually our elected officials allow those banksters to say trust us.... Not Elizabeth....

I didn't know Ms. Warren didn't run a good senate campaign either, but real happy to know she took back Sen. Kennedy's seat from Sen. Brown...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Reply #32)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 08:28 PM

37. From the wikipedia article

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren

Some famous politicians switched parties a decade or two before they became famous. Reagan used to be a democrat until 1962, but you wouldn't ever know it with how he's remembered today.

Also, to the topic starter, I highly doubt Warren will ever run for president. First I don't think she'd want to, and second I doubt she'd be able to win with how much of the media is in the republican pockets and demonizing her for going after wall street. Republicans would have to either pick a really weak candidate, or become really weak nationally for her to win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:48 PM

35. I wouldn't call it adulation -

it's more like if you find a good one, and good politicians are so very rare of the qualities of Warren and Obama, then it's okay to get excited and happy about that. It's okay to look up to someone with good character and quality.

Using that adulation word demeans the Warrens and the like to pop star status or something as trivial, compared to life and death, which all this is really about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #35)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 11:01 PM

42. Well said, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:50 PM

36. Ever spent any time REALLY listening to her speak?

Listen to her command of the nation's financial realities?

She runs off the cuff like no one I've ever heard.

I do believe her ideas could save the nation, financially.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:10 AM

39. What are her views on the "Defense Authorization Act"?

Thus far, I like what she's saying, and how she's saying it. I think her victory in Massachusetts is underrated. Mass. isn't really all that "blue" of a state in non-Presidential elections (they elected Mitt Romney, remember?). She was running against someone who, a year before the election, was the most popular major officeholder in the state according to a poll. Probably most Democrats would have lost, but she won. The fact that she was a Republican until 1995 really doesn't bother me too much. One of the most progressive Democratic governors in the history of my home state of Iowa, Harold Hughes, was brought up as a Republican and remained one for much of his adult life. Come to think of it, Pat Brown, the former Democratic governor of California (where I now live) began his career as a Republican (look it up!).

One thing does concern me, however. What are Senator Warren's views on the "Defense Authorization Act", which basically negates the Bill of Rights and allows the federal government to grab anyone off the street and hold them indefinitely without bringing charges or holding a trial? I haven't yet found out what Senator Warren's position is; and, as a former law professor, she ought to have one. If we lose our Bill of Rights, we've lost everything; and it's just a matter of time before we become a third-world dictatorship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 12:07 AM

43. I will say that when it comes to Harvey Milk I am indeed guilty of adulation

Without him gay rights would be, well would be only God knows where.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Fri May 17, 2013, 10:09 PM

44. Truth tellers are in short supply. People react well when it happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Fri May 17, 2013, 11:38 PM

46. In a word: FuckingDesperation. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat May 18, 2013, 05:49 AM

47. Dunno. I guess there are mainly two factors that play into it.

1. She used some anti-establishment rhetoric and that carries a long way these days.

2. She is a woman and somehow gets considered to be the "leftward" alternative to Hillary Clinton.

But yeah, you are right: The Edwards episode should have taught us something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Sat May 18, 2013, 08:15 AM

49. She appears to hit all the hot buttons for many progressives.

I agree its too early to tell if she is POTUS material.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread