General Discussion

Tarheel_Dem

(31,222 posts)

52. Nailed It!!!!!!

Reply to treestar (Reply #20)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:46 PM

Feb 2013

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

66 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama ran after only 2 years in the Senate. Why is this a tougher prospect for Warren? Here's why: [View all] cali Feb 2013 OP

It's not very tough to run. It's tough to win. I hope she, at the very least, makes a run. w4rma Feb 2013 #1

You're right. It's tough to compete as a serious candidate. cali Feb 2013 #2

Who will do her job while she spends 3 years running? graham4anything Feb 2013 #6

the remark about Gore is a load of crap dsc Feb 2013 #66

See that, one learns something new in a second, never knew she was a Republican. graham4anything Feb 2013 #3

I don't hold her voting for Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush against her. Nye Bevan Feb 2013 #4

I'm one of those that is incredulous that any compassionate, sane person cali Feb 2013 #7

Yes! Then after 8 years of that nightmare voted for senior. n/t retread Feb 2013 #21

Well, Reagan did get more than 40 million votes in the 1980 election. OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #39

Good analysis. Her time will come. 2016 just isn't it. nt EastKYLiberal Feb 2013 #5

Personally speaking, I feel all this talk of Warren is premature... FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #8

IWR? UnrepentantLiberal Feb 2013 #9

Iraqi War Resolution. Or as my Senator referred to it, a blank check cali Feb 2013 #10

OK. UnrepentantLiberal Feb 2013 #13

Why Elizabeth instead of Hilary? jerseyjack Feb 2013 #11

well, Warren wasn't in office at the time and as far as I know there are cali Feb 2013 #14

One of them can win against Chris Christie and the other will... Walk away Feb 2013 #27

Hillary was also very hawkish towards Iran as well... cascadiance Feb 2013 #50

I think supporting Hagel in spite of his war vote makes snarking at Hillary for the same thing Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #12

I don't. He's not running for President. He's appointed, not elected. cali Feb 2013 #15

Not Voting For Anyone Who Voted For Ware Against Iraq JGug1 Feb 2013 #16

We sure as fuck did know. Go read Leahy's pre-vote speech cali Feb 2013 #18

Here is Leahy's speech ProSense Feb 2013 #25

That's about as selective as you could get. cali Feb 2013 #36

It really doesn't ProSense Feb 2013 #41

Yeah! When Saddam Hussein attacked the World Trade Center George Bush put retread Feb 2013 #22

She doesn't have the backing of the party powers n2doc Feb 2013 #17

**this** +10,000 zazen Feb 2013 #23

What it will take, is money and time n2doc Feb 2013 #24

True. Lost in all the left-leaning celebration about the end of the Republican Party is ... Ian_rd Feb 2013 #19

People should be concentrating on 2014. treestar Feb 2013 #20

^^^ THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS ^^^ WilliamPitt Feb 2013 #28

I could care less about 2016 right now. Jennicut Feb 2013 #31

Exactly! treestar Feb 2013 #35

2014 gubernatorial/statehouses/senate/house are the MOST important elections in a LONG time SoCalDem Feb 2013 #40

Red presidential states have red governors treestar Feb 2013 #54

and it's serious;ly about those states' statehouses too.. a one vote majority SoCalDem Feb 2013 #56

Nailed It!!!!!! Tarheel_Dem Feb 2013 #52

Hi TD! treestar Feb 2013 #55

Hey tree! Tarheel_Dem Feb 2013 #64

She's older and doesn't have his charisma. Arkana Feb 2013 #26

Let's see how she does. I'm worried she'll turn out to be a Dean Recursion Feb 2013 #29

As I said before I agree I don't think Warren will run davidpdx Feb 2013 #30

It's a tough prospect for one reason only. woo me with science Feb 2013 #32

I would rather see Sen. Warren be Treasury Secretary in Hillary's cabinet. PADemD Feb 2013 #33

WOW. That sounds like music to my ears! CTyankee Feb 2013 #44

After 8yrs of Bush's policies destroying the country's economy ANY Dem nominee was winning 2008 blm Feb 2013 #34

It's because Warren would be *opposed* by Wall Street... Romulox Feb 2013 #37

but wouldn't that be true of most liberal candidates anyway? N/t. OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #45

Yes. That's the point of contrast I was attempting to make. nt Romulox Feb 2013 #46

If she runs she has my vote in the primary. Motown_Johnny Feb 2013 #38

Call me selfish, but I'd like to keep her as my senator for as long as possible. graywarrior Feb 2013 #42

I don't want to be a stick in the mud, but can't we see how this thing is going to play out, just CTyankee Feb 2013 #43

God love her, she's not a good candidate maxsolomon Feb 2013 #47

Abraham Lincoln served only one 2 year term in the House. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #48

No. He served 4 terms in the State Legislature cali Feb 2013 #53

Hopefully, her "inexperience" has kept her from learning to triangulate. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #57

I doubt it. Didn't she say during her campaign that cali Feb 2013 #59

Thanks for the info. My already nebulous support for her dropped a couple notches. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #60

I would like to see her as Senate Majority leader at least. /nt Ash_F Feb 2013 #49

people were already talking about obama being president someday before he was even a senator unblock Feb 2013 #51

Obama's lack of history in the Senate was a plus. No embarrassing votes. lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #58

She's not a great Senator yet. I hope she will be, but no one who has cali Feb 2013 #61

Yes, she is and can. lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #62

uh, what??? "Everyone's starting grade is an A" cali Feb 2013 #63

I love Elizabeth Warren... but Barack Obama was/is a POWERHOUSE of charisma. phleshdef Feb 2013 #65