2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI 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.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)NRaleighLiberal
(60,013 posts)UCmeNdc
(9,600 posts)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?
cali
(114,904 posts)your op doesn't reflect that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)But the touting of her as a Presidential candidate? Premature at best.
cali
(114,904 posts)not so much.
RC
(25,592 posts)Nothing more. Not even history or facts can get in the way.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)We love them until they disappoint us, and then they are dead to us.
Jennicut
(25,415 posts)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.
Bake
(21,977 posts)Then came that filibuster business, and now he's persona non grata here.
Not that I disagree with that, mind you.
Bake
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Talk about burying the lead!
I can see the Hillary ads against her now...
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)tarheelsunc
(2,117 posts)SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)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.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)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.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)She switched parties in college. Warren was in her mid 40s when she became a Democrat.
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)I don't care what anyone USED to be. Tell me what you are NOW.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)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.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)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.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)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
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)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.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)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.
Skittles
(153,142 posts)for politicians we perceive to have our back
Rider3
(919 posts)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.
cali
(114,904 posts)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.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)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
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)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.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)DFW
(54,335 posts)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
treestar
(82,383 posts)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.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)For some, Adulation R'Us.
Makes them feel secure knowing that giants watch over us.
brooklynite
(94,489 posts)Every major politician creates one, but somehow hers merited excitement and immediate check writing.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)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.
midnight
(26,624 posts)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...
ShadowLiberal
(2,237 posts)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.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)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.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)cliffordu
(30,994 posts)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.
DougRees
(6 posts)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.
dsc
(52,155 posts)Without him gay rights would be, well would be only God knows where.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)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.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I agree its too early to tell if she is POTUS material.