How can anyone not realize still that most MSM, and a lot of others as well, are owned by one of 7 giant corporations and they're working to defeat Democrats?

Warren schmarren. "The Democrats have to be defeated or they'll regulate us and redistribute America's national wealth nationally."

THAT's what's happening.

But going for moderate most likely so,we will get more status quo.

that appear in the OP excerpt? It makes a lot of difference to what you're saying.

on track to top leadership in the senate, put there by top leaders bringing her along. "Dems" VP Biden and SecState Hillary Clinton both wanted Warren for their running mate in 2016.

So, for just one big problem, any article that spins Warren to readers as an outsider and not "gotten" by "Dems" is trying to deceive.

Also, since I'm being asked , I've got my usual hair about using terminology to, again, deceive. Key to the theme this article's pushing is not making clear which kind of radical she's supposed to be.

Radical personalities tend to be dysfunctional, unable to work with others well enough to achieve big, lasting advances. We know that's not Warren.

Whereas "radical" goals, as in new or bigger ideas, pushing the envelope further, or maybe just those whose time others don't think has come, are completely different. Almost all "radical" advances are achieved by teams of mainstream movers. The ideas almost always are mainstream products also. This is all studied and proven many times over. Just look at the New Deal.

So, sure, competent teams, galvanized by competent iconoclasts such as Warren, can and do make history. But to imply that Warren is an outsider (like Sanders) who wants to advance the nation against the opposition of "Dems," who don't "get" the need for new approaches in a changing world, is a toxic and hostile misrepresentation of who Warren and her fellow Democrats are. And of what they're capable of if enough people are finally smart enough to once again give Democrats sufficient power.