Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumWhy would Warren endorse a candidate who is a great pal of Wall Street?
I am disappointed in Warren. She didn't have the guts to support Bernie. Yet here she is endorsing Hillary the darling of Wall Street!

guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Some possibilities
1)Perhaps she hopes to be an influence in a possible HRC administration?
2) Because HRC is the best of the remaining candidates?
3) Because Warren does not feel that HRC is closed to new ideas?
I could come up with more, but that is a start.
elleng
(127,190 posts)and similarly disappointed.
Beowulf
(761 posts)Awknid
(381 posts)atomingai
(71 posts)Beowulf
(761 posts)but she does know how the place works. Schumer will become party leader in the Senate. He's as connected to Wall Street as the Clintons. So Warren is looking at having two corporate Democrats directly over her. She worked hard this last congress to increase her influence. She wasn't going to risk that unless she thought Bernie had a great shot at winning.
KPN
(15,376 posts)no question about that in my mind. But she's also not going to torpedo her own future ability to have influence and make progressive change.
jamese777
(546 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)if she came out and endorsed Bernie.
We should all note that she did not endorse Hill until the establishment media closed off possibilities and forced the hold-out Democrats to fall in line.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(113,079 posts)and is willing to work with Hillary if she thinks it's necessary in order for that to happen? I wish she had endorsed Bernie a long time ago but Warren might be a good and useful influence on Hillary.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)not so.
Jackilope
(819 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(113,079 posts)If I weren't an optimist I'd just sit at home and fret. I think that even with Hillary as president (which doesn't thrill me) there are still a lot of opportunities for progressives to make changes at the state and local level. Hillary is just a speed bump, IMO.
Jackilope
(819 posts)I have a friend going to Chicago for sessions on continuing the Progressive causes and think Bernie's revolution and vision will continue on -- especially with our youth.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)It is most important that we make changes at the state and local level
KPN
(15,376 posts)can I get a bumper sticker that says that?
We will eventually see an FDR type President and Congress. It's just a matter of whether it's 2020, 2014 or 2018. It won't come any later than that IMO.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,201 posts)Either she's a sellout (boo!) or maybe Hillary isn't such a "darling of Wall Street"?
Which candidate do you think Wall Street is going to get more out of as POTUS?
Jennylynn
(696 posts)radical noodle
(7,915 posts)He owes them hundreds of millions of dollars. They can make him do anything they want.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,201 posts)is the freakin' ringleader of Wall Street, is Wall Street manifested in human form. I can't believe what I'm hearing here!
Jennylynn
(696 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)Is there a prize for getting the answer right?
KPN
(15,376 posts)Hillkary has already been purchased. And Warren's smart enough to know she has a great future and plenty of time ahead of her so no reason to rock the boat the way Bernie did (and had to given his age). Bernie did a great and courageous thing in paving the way for a future FDR type leader to take the reins (possibly Warren) within the next 4-12 years. As VO said above, Hillary's just a speed bump along the way.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)... probably no one will right away.
Her involvement, even on the ticket does not influence me, because the election was stolen a long time ago. It isn't anything but watching what has been predicted and has been happening with provisional ballots.
I'll watch the law suit, and reserve anything for comment, as I respect Warren. I do not respect, trust or will ever vote for Hillary.
There... I've said it.
splat
(2,265 posts)That's why she didn't endorse.
She would endorse whoever won.
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)It's politics. Warren is insanely popular yet also 'legitimate'. She's also a fuck of a lot smarter than me, and her backyard isn't my backyard. I'm giving her a pass on this.
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)She played her cards right. I knew she was waiting til she was presumptive. She played the game like a pro.
And yes, I'm very disappointed in her.
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)Her and Bernie, after this election is done, and the dems strengthen their weight in the senate, will be the defacto rulers. And Hillary will be so chumy BFF's to win and will be beholden to them (to steal a phrase from another group), that she won't be able to fight back against those 2 together. This is my wish.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And it's significant that she didn't endorse HRC while the race was still in play.
jamese777
(546 posts)have stock market investments, usually through 401.ks. That percentage has been as high as 65% in 2007. Senator Warren is not advocating Wall Street's destruction, she is for transparency, reform and stiffer regulation.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Jack Bone
(2,023 posts)Help the lost souls along until they, themselves, see the light.
Duval
(4,280 posts)
Pluvious
(4,071 posts)Then how this plays out in the weeks and months ahead, while partnered up with Hillary, will eventually reveal just what the Banksters got for all the millions They funneled her way.
As for Warren, she is a successful politician, a feat requiring many skills - the most important of which is survival. Without which achieving she can't pursue her agenda.
Let's just pray to Zeus her core values are pure and incorruptible.
So say we all ?
corkhead
(6,119 posts)