2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Elizabeth Warren [View all]MADem
(135,425 posts)I hardly think any half-aware Democrat needs an introduction to SECSTATE Clinton--are you telling me, with a straight face, that you are unfamiliar with her stances on the issues? Didn't you watch the 08 Presidential debates? Didn't you follow her activities as a Senator? As a SECSTATE?
If you are unfamiliar with her stances (and those would be the 'reasons' to vote for her), it's YOU that needs to do a little reading on the topic, and after you've done that, you might tell us how you've survived the last two decades in that cave you were living in!
The bottom line is this: You either support the bulk of her views, or you don't. I like her stances on most issues, and I think she has experience, sagacity, intelligence, grit, verve, and she's the only Democrat on offer who can kick the living shit out of any Republican that runs.
No one is trying to "intimidate" you. Go vote for Bozo the Clown for all I care. Toss that vote to the wind--do what you want with it. It's yours to waste.
Just don't give me half-baked arguments, and get irritated when I don't buy them. You make assumptions about Elizabeth Warren that are based more on wishes than fact. She is a cipher in many ways. AFAIAC, that's not important, because I like her as a senator, I like her economic world view, and her attitude towards Wall Street. I want her to continue to do what she is doing in the Senate, where she can make a difference. I don't want her having to take a crash course on who the President of Benin is, or the details of US national defense policy--all subjects that Clinton has excelled at in the graduate school known as "Cabinet University."
HRC has a record to run on. Warren has a specific area of expertise that is needed in the US Congress. To me, there's no contest who is the better candidate for the Presidency. YMMV, but don't cry that you're being "intimidated" because I don't agree with you. Come up with reasons yourself why you support EW--and that's a tough nut, there, because EW has a very sparse record (her views on immigration, as I pointed out in a link in another post, might not be to your liking--but she hasn't had to throw down on that, so she can be vague and get away with it).
We don't need another "fresh face." We need a capable, experienced, ass-kicker for a candidate. One who has been vetted and who is familiar, who is strong, forthright, outspoken, and tested. One with no mysteries left to explore or exploit (e.g., without Googling, name EW's husband--the 2nd one, not the first one-- and tell us what he does for a living--bet you can't do it).
IMO, that candidate is HRC.