HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » David Axelrod: ELIZABETH ...

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 11:52 AM

 

David Axelrod: ELIZABETH WARREN Trying To ‘LEVERAGE’ Clinton





Former Obama adviser David Axelrod said Tuesday that he believes Sen. Elizabeth Warren is keeping a high profile to try to exert “maximum leverage” on Hillary Clinton’s positions for the 2016 presidential contest.

“I think Elizabeth’s very sincere about her concerns about what’s happening in the American economy and Hillary hasn’t said yet what exactly her program will be, what she’s running on,” Axelrod said Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “I think Elizabeth knows she’s got maximum leverage by still being in the conversation.”


When asked if there was a possibility for an opening for Warren to run, Axelrod responded,

“I suppose.”

“My suspicion is that what she’s doing is trying to influence how Hillary frames her candidacy and the issues she focuses on,” he said.


Axelrod added that Clinton runs the risk of facing similar pitfalls in 2008 by being overly cautious to define herself and her platform.


You hear ‘Ready For Hillary’— It’s like, ready for what?” Axelrod said, noting that as a candidate in 2008, Clinton was very effective in reaching the American people, but only after the New Hampshire primary when “her back was to the wall, she through caution to the wind.”

“And now Hillary’s task is to define what it is that she’s running for and running about and what would the future look like under another President Clinton,” he said. “And I suspect that what she’s taking her time working through now, but she has to answer that question.?”




http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/david-axelrod-elizabeth-warren-113600.html

37 replies, 2022 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 37 replies Author Time Post
Reply David Axelrod: ELIZABETH WARREN Trying To ‘LEVERAGE’ Clinton (Original post)
Segami Dec 2014 OP
joeybee12 Dec 2014 #1
unblock Dec 2014 #5
joeybee12 Dec 2014 #18
fredamae Dec 2014 #20
pa28 Dec 2014 #27
leveymg Feb 2015 #36
hrmjustin Dec 2014 #2
RiverLover Dec 2014 #6
hrmjustin Dec 2014 #7
RiverLover Dec 2014 #12
KittyWampus Dec 2014 #14
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #29
Scuba Dec 2014 #3
Segami Dec 2014 #9
Scuba Dec 2014 #10
Segami Dec 2014 #17
polichick Dec 2014 #25
NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #19
Segami Dec 2014 #23
NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #4
unblock Dec 2014 #8
NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #11
unblock Dec 2014 #16
truebluegreen Dec 2014 #24
unblock Dec 2014 #28
truebluegreen Dec 2014 #31
unblock Dec 2014 #33
demwing Dec 2014 #22
KittyWampus Dec 2014 #13
Renew Deal Dec 2014 #30
BrettsJets Dec 2014 #15
MoonRiver Dec 2014 #21
djean111 Dec 2014 #26
99Forever Dec 2014 #32
kentuck Dec 2014 #34
fadedrose Feb 2015 #35
HereSince1628 Feb 2015 #37

Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 11:54 AM

1. She "through" caution to the wind???

 

Doesn't Politico have spell check?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 12:06 PM

5. no doubt that's exactly what they have. "through" is a correctly spelled word.

what they need is a proof-reader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 12:32 PM

18. Or an editor....

 

Or someone who's not a right-wing hack working there...I loathe Politico

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 12:38 PM

20. +1 ;) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 02:25 PM

27. "Through" is the new "threw". I guess.

Charles Pierce is probably knocking back some antifreeze right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 10:50 AM

36. From what I've seen, Politico probably needs fact-check even more than spell check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 11:55 AM

2. Yeah I never thought Warren really wanted to run but just to put the fear of God in Hillary.

 

Just to remind her to stay to the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 12:07 PM

6. But its too late for Hillary to go left, except on social issues.

That ship has sailed.

It'll be easy to prove hypocrisy based on her past actions.

Pro-TPP, Pro-Wall Street, Pro-NAFTA, Pro-deregulation...

Ie, Hilary's Biggest Challenge Isn't Just Bill's Outsourcing Record, It's Hers

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-white/hilarys-biggest-challenge_b_6175008.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 12:09 PM

7. It is never too late to go left.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 12:13 PM

12. That could be one of her campaign slogans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 12:17 PM

14. LOL!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 02:50 PM

29. it seems you are confusing ...

 

Hillary Clinton with Mrs. Wife of Bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 12:01 PM

3. I don't care how Hillary "frames her candidacy". I've no doubt she'll screw us all ...

 

... over just as her Wall Street backers believe she will. They didn't give her all that money because they think she'll restore Glass-Steagall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 12:09 PM

9. Hillary is spending her days...

 

in front of a mirror asking herself ' WHO AM I?.....WHAT AM I?.......


Needing more time, she wants to wait till Spring to define herself.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 12:10 PM

10. More like "What should I pretend to be?"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 12:31 PM

17. “You hear ‘Ready For Hillary’— It’s like, ready for what?

 



David hit it on the nose!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 02:13 PM

25. Exactly. She might pretend to be a populist, but we'd be fools to believe it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 12:33 PM

19. I have a reply but it'll have to come by PM.

 

alerters and juries are busy today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 12:51 PM

23. LOL.

 

Got it!

So true!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 12:01 PM

4. IMO, candidate will govern however they want to. Warren is too smart to think Hillary would budge.

 

Here's how Clinton works:

Take no stand except the safe ones: Pro gay marriage, pro reproductive rights.

Stay silent on many other matters or say one thing and do another.

She and her Republican counterpart and the DNC and RNC will control the questions at the debates, and the hard questions won't even come up.

Warren is smart, she knows that Hillary can't be moved.

This is about something else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 12:09 PM

8. budge? maybe not. appoint to cabinet or even fed? that's another story.

in any event, warren keeps the important issues front and center by doing what she's doing. that's good enough motivation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 12:13 PM

11. She does that, she'd be doing it even if it wasn't election season... IMO, Hillary is not 45.

 

I don't know if either or both will run or not, but if Hillary's the candidate in the general, we're looking at a Republican in the whitehouse in 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 12:28 PM

16. imho, if we have a highly contested primary, we're looking at a republican win in 2016 anyway.

contested incumbent party primary is one of lichtman's keys to the presidency, and we don't have much wiggle room.

who would make the more effective candidate? unclear. hillary would certainly raise more corporate money. warren would certainly fire up the base more. republicans would use either to fund-raise for their own candidates.

i'd dearly love to see warren as president, but my main concern is the money aspect. i don't see her being able to raise a ton of money effectively and i do see corporates pouring an insane amount of money to ensure her defeat. our campaign finance system sucks, doesn't it?

she's got much in common with obama in terms of quickly coming on the public scene and striking a chord, but obama was ambitious and methodical in building political connections and a means to gain power. warren was essentially drafted, i don't see her having a comparable fund-raising machine.

my guess in fact is that warren doesn't even want to be president, or at least doesn't want to run for it. i think she cares about issues, not power. but she's smart enough to keep her own profile to help her issues along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 02:11 PM

24. "contested incumbent party primary"

 

might be a key...if there were an incumbent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 02:30 PM

28. the democratic party is the incumbent party.

for purposes of this key, it doesn't matter if the actual incumbent candidate is running again.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 17, 2014, 09:08 AM

31. From the link you provided:

 

3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. my bold

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #31)

Wed Dec 17, 2014, 11:58 AM

33. that's a different key. yes, republicans win that one simply because obama isn't running again.

this is the key relating to a contested primary:

"2.Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination."

for this key, democrats are the incumbent party even though obama's not running again.

note that there's no key for a contested challenging party nomination. i.e., for 2016, it doesn't matter how simple or messy the republican primary is, but democrats pay a price for if our primary isn't essentially a coronation.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 12:46 PM

22. I'm confident Hillary would win

 

I'm just not confident that she should...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 12:16 PM

13. This entire piece is Axelrod's OPINION. Which sounds pretty spot on.

 

Clinton can use all the pressure from pols like Warren that can be brought to bear on her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 03:02 PM

30. I agree with his opinion

And he is someone that should be listened to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 12:23 PM

15. I can dig it!!

Oh yea!!!

Now I can dig this!!!

Clinton is very much to the center along with most everyone else in office. Democrats Republicans, well, they are all serving the same interests. You know what they are? Special interests and their own interests... all while they each have their constituents fighting each other. What a gambit they got going, and it's amazing noone realizes it. Now Warren, she has her interests as well, but she has carved herself a wedge where she hasn't had to sell her soul completely. So the further she can move Hillary to the left, the better, but whether or not Hillary ever comes through on whatever those promises are when she gets elected is another story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 12:39 PM

21. I think Elizabeth Warren would be doing exactly the same thing

if there were not a looming presidential election. She's an awesome fighter for the American people, and it is demeaning to assume her actions are just designed to pull Hillary to the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoonRiver (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 02:19 PM

26. and - yes, it is meant to be demeaning and marginalizing, like Warren is just a Hillary campaign

 

accessory. Framing Warren as an adjunct to Hillary's campaign blather is all it is.
Yes, she would be doing the same thing if Hillary did not exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Dec 17, 2014, 09:26 AM

32. I don't give a DAMN about how HRC "frames...

...her candidacy and the issues she focuses on,” we've seen that song and dance before. I don't trust anything a Third Way poli says. EVER. They have a proven record lying and a continual use of weasel words to hide their real agenda.

No Third Way.

No way.

No how.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Dec 17, 2014, 12:08 PM

34. I think Axelrod is mostly correct on this.

Also, I think Elizabeth Warren is attempting to keep the progressive base from deserting the Party. So long as she is with the Party, the progressives will remain with her, in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 10:24 AM

35. I put Axelrod in the search line

and came up with this. Hope it can be brought up to the present....

I agree with everything he says. I admire him greatly.

Chris Matthews said that HC has all the good campaign runners employed, and they've got a lot of money already. Hard for others to run if they can't hire a good person to manage.

It doesn't sound like Axelrod is in her pocket, and he damned sure can run a campaign. I often wonder why President Obama didn't find him an advisor's position in the White House.

With her alleged full house of campaign advisors, why are they keeping her under wraps and not allowing her to speak her views? Makes no sense. Unless they think the public may not like her views. Those of us who don't particularly care for her might give her more consideration if we knew them instead of banking on intuition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 11:01 AM

37. Because current affairs always change...taking positions creates the need to change position

The media just loves to catch politicians who change their positions.

I completely understand the utility of holding off stating positions until necessary. To imply that it's due to an empty list of what she can do for America assumes to much.

I'd prefer to have a primary choice well left of the 3rd Way which I imo does not adequately address American needs, that doesn't prevent me from understanding how politics works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread