General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLA Times: The "Elizabeth Warren Wing" of The Democratic Party On The Ascendancy
When was the last time you heard about any Democratic Senator or Representative other than Harry Reid making the national news? While Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and the entire Tea Party caucus in the House have all transformed themselves into political Kardashians, constantly mugging for the cameras with their latest outrage du jour-- the Democrats--particularly those in the Senate who wield actual majority power--have for the most part sat quietly by for the last five years and endured this nonsense. Many of them, Jeff Merkley, Sherrod Brown, Tom Udall, were elected in 2006 and 2008; Elizabeth Warren and Chris Murphy, in 2012. By 2015 half of the Democratic caucus will have been in place since 2008. They represent a generational shift in the Senate that has known nothing but Tea Party intransigence--and ignorance--from the other side.They're fed up and they're taking over the Party:
Next on their agenda is extending the filibuster rule change from presidential appointments to legislation, which would enable the Senate to move on issues including gun control and climate change.
The changing Democratic tactics may reflect a generational shift occurring in the Senate. It's almost certain that by the start of the next Congress in 2015, more than half of the Democratic caucus will have been elected since 2008, when gridlock reached new heights. But nine of the new Senate Democrats are former Congress members, all of whom served at least part of their time under Republican majorities. Three were governors who served with Republican legislatures.
..................
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-senate-newdems-20131123,0,385097.story#ixzz2lTxJLuCu
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/23/1257832/-LA-Times-The-Elizabeth-Warren-Wing-of-The-Democratic-Party-On-The-Ascendancy
4dsc
(5,787 posts)I have had several discussion with the centrist in the party and they don't want these people in any kind of leadership roles. Progressives have a fight on their hands.
Baitball Blogger
(46,532 posts)All you have to do is go back and follow the campaign money that came from wealthy donors asking for favors. God knows there's more documentation out there than we care to admit. It would show a difference from the old ways, and the promises of true change.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Raksha
(7,167 posts)or take part in a survey that under no circumstances will I vote for Hillary in 2016, for the same reason I didn't vote for Obama in 2012. Either the Democrats put a real progressive like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren at the top of the ticket, or I vote third party again. This can't be said too often, or TOO EARLY either.
The "Elizabeth Warren wing" of the Democratic Party has a nice ring to it. I'm glad there is one.
CrispyQ
(36,112 posts)The democratic party has, for too long, taken for granted the votes of the working class. Next time I'm snootily asked, "Who else you gonna vote for?" I'll reply, "The Greens, perhaps!"
When both parties represent big money, it's time to start thinking outside the two party box.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Let Republicans represent the minority of business leaders in our country.
Back in the days of the corner grocery store and the prevalence of small businesses, Republicans could represent business and have a good following. Now that the real bosses are few and the employees' category made up of almost all people, Democrats should represent working people and be really open about it.
Everybody knows which side I am on.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)in front of an oncoming car, and that will be the end of one or more Third Wayers.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)That's where you find a typical Third Way Democrat looking for handouts.
I'm not sure it would work if one of we progressives throw the dollar in the street. It would have to be a bankster. Third Wayers are a lot more comfortable with Republicans than with rank-and-file Democrats.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)But, as long as Rahm Emanuel breathes air, I know I am right.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)tblue
(16,350 posts)what are we waiting for?
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I think it would take at least $10.
But for that price you should be aboe to get 6 or 8 of them at once, if you're smart about your tactics.
I would recommend throwing whole handful of those dollar coins out into traffic when a bunch of Turd Wayers are waiting for the pedestrian light.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)First mine, then JD Priestley's, then yours. And now mine again, but I don't think that counts. That has to be indicative of something.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)JimDandy
(7,318 posts)I'm not supporting a corporateer candidate like Clinton.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,103 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It's the 'peoples view' camp that isn't liking this.
Hillery is not sweating Liz a minute. I don't think Liz would survive 3 minutes in the debate with Hillary. Seriously, can Liz take Virginia? Ohio? Heck even Pennsylvania. And don't use Virginia and the latest win. We barely won.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Now that Mrs. Clinton no longer holds any political office or title.
That's "Senator Warren" to you, fella!
frylock
(34,825 posts)triangulated bullshit. people are done with that crap, and young voters will be more likely to back a more progressive, populist candidate.
Response to frylock (Reply #58)
Post removed
cui bono
(19,926 posts)but is losing us democracy itself.
You are following the corporate way and not allowing a true lefty to run. If one ever was allowed to run a legitimate campaign, not ruined by the corporatist wing of the party and not ruined by the corporate media you would see the country flock to them in a second. Elizabeth Warren represents the interests of the people and she would win in a landslide if she were given the backing of the party and allowed to get her message out.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)re "Elizabeth Warren represents the interests of the people and she would win in a landslide if she were given the backing of the party and allowed to get her message out."
Now watch the opposition try to paint her as a "designer" or "boutique" or "focus group" candidate, and not as the populist she is. I'm very familiar with their tactics at this point. I also know those tactics aren't going to work...not this time.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)The ONLY thing Mrs. Clinton has going for her is the Citizens United decision which allows her corporate sponsors to pump unlimited $$$ into buying her the nomination.
blue14u
(575 posts)MOFO's?
Whatever that means... I too am an Elizabeth Warren (D) supporter...
I could not disagree with you more.. Guess I'm selfish for wanting a
Progressive DEMOCRAT to represent me.. I think the
"Hillary is the only one who can win" camp is trying to shut us up, AND shut us down.
BTW.. I am very awake, and very aware of what is going on and I will not
"submit" to "getting on board" with Hillary... Try as you may, its doubtful I will be
changing my mind anytime soon.
Stop trying to bully us into your way of thinking.. I hate when people try and
tell me who to vote for.. It truly turns me off completely, if that's even possible where HRC is concerned..
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)The in fighting has started early this time around. As soon as the 2012 election was over an assumption was made that the next nomination was already set with the usual meme's in full force.
People can blame whomever they want for that, but the truth is groups have already formed to fundraiser and eliminate any competition by taking people out of the running. They learned the hard way that competition is bad and even a unknown could show up and beat the inevitable candidate. They wonder why there is so much bitterness. Maybe it's because a certain candidate is being shoved down our throats three years before the election.
Stupid people don't listen, they just keep repeating what they are doing.
Ps-Welcome to DU!
City Lights
(25,171 posts)Warms my heart...
fredamae
(4,458 posts)re-register as a Dem....
I was a Dem from 1959-2013...I left because I could no longer support the direction the Wall Street/1% Dems in leadership are/were taking the party.
This looks a lot like the old Dem Wing of the Dem Party. I couldn't possibly be happier to read this--I just hope it's completely credible.
Baitball Blogger
(46,532 posts)fredamae
(4,458 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)That's why you register, so you can vote in the primaries, so you can work to bring in more Elizabeth Warrens, and twist the arms of the DINOs.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)for decades--the last 5 Years I contacted Dem Leaders the DCCC/DSCC/DPO and they don't want to hear it-they failed to respond to Multiple emails/ph msgs etc...and wen I did get a real person? They hung up on me.
I communicated with my lawmakers at the state and fed level.
If you are a Dissatisfied Dem--in my personal experience-they don't want to hear it.
My personal frustration grew to the point that I left the party after 54 Years of votes and loyalty.
I didn't expect "magical change" - I only asked to be heard.
blue14u
(575 posts)Sign up and lets fight this fight and WIN!!!
I have am excitement on the inside about Elizabeth Warren
like I have not had in a very long time!!!
Let's do it, because we can!!!
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)They keep calling Warren a "liberal" it seems to me as a way to discredit her.
I believe that due to right wing efforts that the term liberal is perceived a different way than Warren is.
The term liberal is perceived to be giving minorities special favors and attempting to tell people what to do among a lot of the public thanks to 20,25 years of right wing talking heads.
However the economic ideology of Warren, if a lot of the voting public looks beyond the label, easily cuts across party lines because I have heard MANY republicans or dems that vote GOP voice the very same opinions as she does.
I think with the Warren wing of the party on the ascendency that we all have to be very careful to make sure that the main message, of equality an fairness for the average working American is out front and do not let the right and the media box us in the publics mind as some right wing stereotype, because this is a winning message for democrats.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)LuvNewcastle
(16,813 posts)The Democrats, because of their lack of resolve, have gotten little respect in this country from most Americans, especially the Republicans since the Reagan years. I'm glad to see this new breed of Democrats who aren't afraid to stand for something and fight for their cause. If more Dems had been like this in the last 30 years, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today. Too many Dems in the past have not only given in to the GOP, they've collaborated with them. I hope we're going to see all of that change.
So many American voters don't know the difference between a Democrat and a Republican, but they respect strength and the ability to govern effectively. Unfortunately, they haven't heard too many Democrats in the past who articulated the difference between the two parties. That's because a lot of Democrats tried to be just a softer version of Republicans. They were actually ashamed of Democratic ideals. When Democrats explain what they stand for, most Americans like what they hear. Let's hope the days of trying to trick voters into believing we're just like the GOP are over. That's the last thing we want to be.
This is like candy for Saturday morning.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)And this is that.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Warren only had to get the CFPB created in a banker-owned government, then, after being fired for her insolence, swipe a Senate seat from the most popular politician in Massachusetts.
Hillary, by contrast, had to win big bucks from very careful and wise bankers, dodge sniper bullets in Bosnia, and win a vacant Senate seat running against a state rep from Long Island.
It's so unbelievably stupid and unfair to consider anyone but Hillary as our next president. She's been severly tested both in the voting booth, in the corporate boardroom, and in the battlfield. It's her due. Give it to her now, motherf#%^kers.
Sincerely yours,
Wall Street
LuvNewcastle
(16,813 posts)Bask in the glory of her inevitability.
blue14u
(575 posts)of putting things in perspective. Thank you and I think I will
take a glass of that same Champaign you are drinking.
I'm tired of Kool-Aid.
(had to substitute)
Champaign for all supporters of Elizabeth Warren for POTUS 2016!!!
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)docgee
(870 posts)I think the corporate owned media may be trying to put forth an argument that there is a war in the democratic party to distract from the repug civil war.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)and discount any Republican differences. That would be expected.
However, no matter how it's reported, it is true that there is as much of a difference in the Democratic Party as there is in the Republican Party. Actually in both Parties there's a BIG difference between the "establishment" wing and the populist wings, i.e. RW populism as in the Teabaggers and LW populism as in this grouping of the Democrats.
The advantage to the Dem side is that the POSITIONS of the LW populists are more popular with the general population than the positions of the RW Teabaggers. The advantage for the Republican populists is, because of gerrymandering, they hold more political power in positions of authority, obviously and especially, in the HOR.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)tblue
(16,350 posts)My dream ticket.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,103 posts)Dustin DeWinde
(193 posts)Liz Warren is a definite winner.
Bernie Sanders is a good guy but he would be pilitical poiaon on a national ticket.
Besides he isn't a democrat, he is a registered socialist. Dems can, should and will find dems to nominate.
Liz Warren/Debbie Schultz 2016
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Dustin DeWinde
(193 posts)Putting a socialist on a presidential ticket guarantees a loss.
The teabaggers may prefer ideology over results, but I don't. And neither do the majority of dems
And for the record I like Sanders, but I'm unwilling to ignore reality
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Why would you want two diametrically opposed candidates on the ticket?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'm not sure why her middle name warrants all caps.
cali
(114,904 posts)He's an independent.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Dustin DeWinde
(193 posts)But at least we agree that Sen. Warren would be an excellent nominee.
After the midterm elections we can argue and debate about the rest.
polichick
(37,152 posts)has been tackling - but I do think her Republican background (pretty recent) is a red flag. I'll have to know a whole lot more about that and her views in the past.
Dustin DeWinde
(193 posts)As for me, barring any really disturbing revalations, I'm on board with warren.
If she decides to run that is.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Which was grafted on after the removal of the Democratic Wing, once home to Paul Wellstone.
libodem
(19,288 posts)I admired him so much. I have creative speculations surrounding his untimely demise, as well.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Odd, the circumstances.
Odd, how hard Wolf Blitzer and the CNN team pushed for icing.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,103 posts)thesquanderer
(11,937 posts)KG
(28,748 posts)the any dems remember how to do that?
libodem
(19,288 posts)Cuz it is just that good!
gopiscrap
(23,662 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
tblue
(16,350 posts)Can we please make one of them Majority Leader?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,103 posts)mountain grammy
(26,553 posts)2014 2014 2014... organize and GOTV!
Almost forgot: "the Elizabeth Warren wing" love the sound of that!
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,103 posts)Dustin DeWinde
(193 posts)blue14u
(575 posts)I too believe we can get this done.. Keep spreading the
word and don't let the 'HRC clan take us under again!!!
The Democrats that left the party will return if we have a
Progressive like Elizabeth Warren to Vote for!!!
Count on it!!!
wyldwolf
(43,864 posts)OKNancy
(41,832 posts)to piss off the anti-Hillary people. Just wait.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets. I think that is not true anymore, Warren says. I was a Republican at a time when I felt like there was a problem that the markets were under a lot more strain. It worried me whether or not the government played too activist a role.
Did she vote for Ronald Reagan, who ushered in much of the financial deregulation which Warren has devoted her life to stopping? Im not going to talk about who I voted for, she says.
It wasnt until later in life, when Warren was 46, that she had her political awakening. At the time, she was serving on a committee recommending changes to the nations bankruptcy laws. Until then, Warren says, I said, No, no, no, not for me on the politics.'
Warren decided then, in 1995, she could no longer retreat into the ivory tower. I cant just leave this to people who are going to wreck the lives of millions of American families if they get the chance, she says. I waded in.
Warren adds that she voted for both Republicans and Democrats and thought that neither party deserved to dominate. There should be some Republicans and some Democrats, she says. Browns campaign could make the same point. In a state dominated by Democrats, it might help to have a Republican providing some healthy opposition.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/24/elizabeth-warren-i-created-occupy-wall-street.html
TheKentuckian
(24,904 posts)However, she is far above the average in the most pervasive big picture issue, economics and what she is saying is pretty right on at least asa starting point ofa reasonable discussion.
Most are talking crazy to me. Not all the same crazy but all off the farm.
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)the corporate wall street block who must win because they have the most money?
I'll take EW every time thank you very much
Divernan
(15,480 posts)http://www.policymic.com/articles/13080/hillary-clinton-was-a-republican-and-ronald-reagan-a-democrat-top-10-political-defections-in-us-history
eridani
(51,907 posts)Beacool
(30,243 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)on all the right issues - but I do see her Republican roots as a red flag because that party has always been on the wrong side of justice and history.
(HRC has Republican roots too.)
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)I like Elizabeth Warren. Don't get me wrong. I think she is a wonderful Senator.
My point is that I can guarantee that she is going to say, do, or vote in some way that is going to disappoint some supporters here.
She is more like Hillary than not.
Her foreign policy stances are not leftish... they are definitely mainstream Democratic stances.
Nevertheless, I really doubt she will run.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Overseas
(12,121 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)WRH2
(87 posts)Senator Warren would inspire a huge army of campaign workers. She represents purity to her followers.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)blue14u
(575 posts)that could come true if we try. I will contact the
Progressive Change Campaign Committee asap!!!
Thank you kpete!!!
!
Flatpicker
(894 posts)But, I'm not willing to hand the Republicans the election by sabotaging a D in the primaries.
My hope is that this can get hashed out behind the scenes and we don't do what the TP'ers have done.
There is plenty of time for this to be handled and I'm happy to have Senator Warren where she is and causing the stir she is causing until we are much closer to the season.
AAO
(3,300 posts)She is a national treasure.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)DissidentVoice
(813 posts)I have had enough of purported Democrats ending up as "GOP-Lite" once they're elected.
I am sick to death of the supposed need to grab "the centre."
Third Way, DLC, whatever you want to call it, has wrecked this party. Oh, yes, it put us into power in '92, '96 and '08, '12...but Clinton especially walked in the penumbra of the Republicans after he waved the white flag on health care.
I really, really hope that Elizabeth Warren and those who think like her are on the way up.
However, the hand-wringers in control are all too likely to see her as another Mondale or Dukakis.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I mean, duh.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)bluedeathray
(511 posts)H.R.C.
Better than some elephant breathed, ignorant, selfish, Ayn Rand loving, war mongering asshole.
But NOT inevitable. If Senator Warren runs, she'll have my vote.
As well as funds and efforts. I will get off my ass, and out of the house for that!
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)TBF
(31,892 posts)I have non-political folks (not junkies like us) telling me about the Walton family owning more than 42% of the rest of the country combined. I hear them telling me they refuse to shop on Thanksgiving and they are tired of subsidizing Walmart employees. They are talking about low wages at McDonalds. Some have even clued into the Wendy's strikes.
We've seen Occupy bring the word "class" into the discussion and we've heard Elizabeth Warren hammer home the message that the big banks can't keep stealing us blind.
People are listening. We need to keep going and Elizabeth Warren is a big part of these conversations happening because she doesn't shut us down.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 24, 2013, 09:51 AM - Edit history (1)
In college Mrs. Clinton was president of the Young Republicans & supported election of several moderate Republicans - John Lindsay, Edward Brooke; interned for Rep. Gerald Ford and the House Republican Conference and campaigned for Nelson Rockefeller. In 1968, when she was 21 and after years of political involvement, she attended the GOP convention in Miami where she was upset by Nixon's dirty tricks campaign attacks on Rockefeller & left the GOP party.
In Carl Bernstein's 2007 book, A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Alfred Knopf. ISBN 0-375-40766-9), he quotes from a letter she wrote to her youth minister, "she described herself as "a mind conservative and a heart liberal." (p. 50). Bernstein states she believed this combination was possible and that no equation better describes the adult Hillary Clinton.
I think Bernstein's opinion is valid. However, over the years, her support for liberal issues has become quite muted and taken a very distant back seat to her commitment to the MIC, Big Banking and the other "big" corporate interests which have funded Clinton family activities since Bill left office, to the tune that he now has accumulated a personal wealth of over $50 million dollars, in addition to all the millions "donated" to the Clinton Foundation and funding the very lavish life style the Clintons lead while involved in any remotely connected Foundation activities. Here are headline & sub-headlines of a recent article:
Bill Clinton's charities spent more than $50m on travel expenses in the past decade even though he regularly uses a billionaire pal's private jets. Former President Clinton runs a number of charities under his name that are focused on eradicating world health problems
An internal audit showed that the charities spent more than $50m on travel expenses since 2003, including $12.1m in 2011 alone
Rooting out inefficiencies in time for Hillary to decide whether she is going to run for office in 2016
This article is very detailed with fascinating examples of how the Clinton Foundation threw money donated for charity into expenses like flying a politically active movie star and her dog first class to an event. It also illustrates how the Clintons have failed to separate their non-profit charity from political involvement benefiting GOP candidates:
By using grocery-store magnate John Catsimatitis plane for trips- like his recent one with Chelsea to South Africa last month- the charities either pay a discounted rate to Catsimatitis or he writes the expense off as a charitable donation.
Such close ties to the Republican billionaire also shows another reason why the Clintons have been actively staying away from the ongoing New York City mayoral race, as Catsimatitis is running as a Republican against a number of Hillary Clintons former colleagues from her days in the Senate- not to mention her longtime aide Huma Abedins husband, Anthony Weiner.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2398355/Bill-Clintons-charities-spent-50m-travel-expenses-past-decade-regularly-uses-billionaire-pals-private-jet.html#ixzz2lZEZDaRQ
The Clintons have the most tangled political/financial web of any US political dynasty ever. And all those invisible strings leading back to the corporate "donors" to the Clinton Foundation will be in place and calling the shots if there is another Clinton presidency.
See also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/us/politics/unease-at-clinton-foundation-over-finances-and-ambitions.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&
Titonwan
(785 posts)We liberals can't be complacent and need to get activated at the local, state and federal level to get more progressive policies/laws in place (That means 2014 elections). Only DRASTIC change is going to keep us from hurtling over the cliff.
$hillary is just more status elitist quo and we don't have time for that bullshit.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)But it feels to me like a single-issue political attraction. Anti-corporation ... there is no reason as of yet to believe she wishes to do anything other than to take them to task. The caveat to that is that we have found another Messiah. I remember the Obama Messiah group...and the outrage when he didn't deliver the anticipated miracles. And the Democrats were the loudest.
Her work is the entire reset of the exceedingly complicated and inner workings of the foundation of our economy, yea the global economy. This doesn't happen with sound bites or on a checklist of To Dos. She just may be able to pull off some real miracles in this arena.
JP Morgan Chase paid their first, huge fine for their European manipulations. Recently, they paid a rather large one here with more to come. I firmly believe that her unique ability, personal magnetism (startling for an economist in a numbers-crunching world), and passion will enable her to do far and away more than she could being shuttered in as a president, forced to deal with the global political melange that keeps all Presidents dangerously close to the political cliff.
Presidents have little direct power over the economy and that's her work. Being in the Senate on the Banking Committee is the most powerful position for her influence, guidance, and ability to use her own bully pulpit for the good of all the Parties and even the non-voters...we, all the people for real, and she is able to make people understand. Comes from her career as a law professor.
The following article...it's long but fascinating and instructive. The President's power is immense as being the global leader ... wars, complex foreign negotiations, relationships with experienced world leaders such as the G-8 and G-20 ... presidencies are made and lost there. (The striking photo of JFK and RFK is worth a click to see.) Not economics...at least economics over which they have any power. The dearth of job programs and disappointing job growth figures is not because of PBOs intransigence or failure. But he gets blamed for it on a daily basis. I do not see Warren fitting into this scenario. We would lose a rare jewel.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Power-and-the-Presidency-From-Kennedy-to-Obama.html
Obama has had a hard first term because he Was Not a Washington Insider. He didn't know how it worked, didn't have the alliances and relationships needed to push through his agenda. He was politically weak because of that...not because he was incapable or lacking determination or a weak person.
Also, because Populism doesn't work for a president. It may help get him elected, and there may be incidental or incremental gains, but there are more populist groups at the national level. Even more restrictive is the Federal Bureaucracy, which exists fairly permanently and operates independently even as Presidents come and go.
Someone reminded me that Carter may have been the only "Liberal" president in my life as I noticed all have been Centrists during my lifetime...starting with Truman. That is not a comforting political notation. He was brilliant, a warm and caring human being, mostly liberal, but easily the most failed President in recent history. He, also, was a Washington Outsider.
She is not a Washington Insider and she would be the first woman...tough row to hoe. I can see her as Majority Leader of the Senate or Treasury Secretary, although I selfishly want her to continue harassing the murky Robber Barons milking the middle-class and bring their asses to justice, at best, or back in line at least. Without her in this role, they will skate off with more of our national treasure...taxpayers funds...repossessed homes...bankrupted students via their usurious loans...cutting out on regulations...blocking further regulations...the list goes on. No one person has been able to do much of anything. This is Huge. Elizabeth Warren is the person for it.
I pray that all this Progressive Presidential Pleading does not deter her from her focus on what she does best...take the corporations to the proverbial woodshed. Again, at the risk of being repetitive, as President she can do Very Little About Corporate Thievery, their reproducing like bunnies, and free rein to operate back in the shadows. And, as a candidate, she'd need to be in a position to be required to take their money...one way or the other...and that's not even smart. I think she knows that, as she's a smart person.
Last of all, I have little knowledge on her political positions on the vast regions of global politics other than economics. I'm going to assume she's pro-choice. But what about the TPP? Has she said anything about that? That is definitely within her field and important to Progressives. Where is she on war...we have Armageddon potentially emerging in the Middle East. One or two assassinations away from possible chaos. Foreign policy? Single Payer health insurance? Is her family on board? (I hear that's a no) Does she have any health problems?
Very little vetting has been done. The Republicans will hate her worse than Hillary and I don't need to state the obvious reasons, the least of which being she is a female. They will devour her with her inexperience, if nothing else. She doesn't appear to be the type that would take that well, at all.
Teachers and Professors excel at being in control...the ones setting the classroom stage, providing the information and asking the questions, because they know the answers. Politicians/Presidents have to think, act and speak on their feet in a variety of venues, to a variety of interests, questions and even taunting.
I hope she stays the course.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)hey that's me.