Yes, the same people would fight her, however, Ms. Warren would keep the issues in the public mind by fighting for them in a public arena. Take the public option. Warren would not shut up, which would force discussion on the matter.

The results would not necessarily be dramatic, but it would force the GOP and the Fake center to expend a lot more money and resources. Would there be any knockouts, not likely, but sooner or later, even the toughest boxers run out fo breath. Obama, by contrast, gives the fighter a chance to breathe.

At the very least she would set a more truly progressive populist direction, and move us more clearly in the direction we need to go -- more so than the zig-zagging sort-of-liberal centrism of President Obama.

And I also think that such a direction woild also give mushy independents and even some grass-roots conservatives more of a reason to take a second look at what the Democratic party can do for them.

That statement was tame compared to some of the things on here (and the way i sometimes feel about the current direction)

Black men. It would be worse....

That somehow President Warren would call a press conference and they just wouldn't show up?

My husband and I both work, and WE don't have any.

You have no idea what she is going to face if she is elected. Its not nearly as simple and cut and dried as you think.

but enough to where ,at the very least, people would have to talk about it. She would be, at the very least the grain of sand that causes irritation that causes some action.

SHE cannot make them move!

NO Democratic President WILL to get your wish list taken care of UNLESS WE elect them to all three branches! It is that simple...

You want MORE change...then concentrate on the Midterms and stop this throwing good Democrats overboard business that many are in the process of around here. One things Democrats are exceptionally good at is the circular firing squad.

Why so many fail to see what you said is beyond me. Letting republicans keep control of just the House would mean the same kind of BS, no matter who we put in the WH. Those who think otherwise are in serious need of a reality check!

We need to get the voters out this year so we can keep the Senate, and hold our ground, or better yet win a few more seats, in the House. If we can do this, then there is a better chance of getting control of all three branches. Not getting out the vote this year is really not an option for anyone who "really wants change"!

Or march around with protesters and suddenly the Republicans will acquiesce and give her every thing she asks...

if we had a President that was more like Warren and less like Obama?

That is to say, a President who draws clear lines and is not afraid to engage the other side directly.

It's really about the economy -- which affects everyone -- and the framework in which business operates.

That's pretty damn important.

And all indications are that she would also continue the better side of the positions of Obama and the Democrats on social issues.

I *think* she's been pretty candid, and consistent.

All of her brothers served.

One completed hundreds of combat missions over Vietnam.

She recently prevented the Pentagon from cancelling what they called an unneeded battlefield communications program and reallocating the money, in order to preserve some jobs up here in MA.

She's as pragmatic as the next person. Anyone who thinks otherwise is turning her into a cartoon. She's most assuredly NOT that.

If she is pro military then I will not vote for her in the primary. No way.

She won't be IN any primary (as she has pledged to her constituents), and welcome to DU I guess...!

One thing she is, is responsive to her constituents.

It's a trait I like in her--she's willing to (gasp!) compromise and (shock!) consider opposing views...

If we had score voting or range voting then it would be possible for a populist to actually reflect the will of the people.

However, the electoral map looks like this in reality:



If we could choose any candidates we wanted in a range or score based system it would look more like this:

But perhaps the lowest-hanging fruit is Gerrymandering. That's a very big factor keeping Congress under far-right influence.

Find a way to abolish Gerrymandering, including garnering enough support in the coming midterm elections.

Because you can vote for more than one candidate the 'nuance' reflected in the demographics gets to shine. So maybe you could run a hardcore populist who supports gun rights rather than having to elect a blue dog who supports gun rights but also a lot of other conservative stuff. That 'single issue' no longer becomes the pivot for the politics.

I also would advocate apportionment reforms so that rather than having 435 congress people we have 3-10x that many (the lower bound of 3 would allow us to argue for more congress people without it costing more, lowering their salary to $50k).

Fixing Gerrymandering could be done how CA did it, make it a non-partisan, independent, transparent process.

though your question suggests that the wave election would come after the new president is already in office.

I think 2016 could be a "wave" in the same sense that the first black President generated an abnormal amount of energy. The Senate numbers for 2016 are already favorable, and if there is a legitimate chance of electing the first female President (Warren or Clinton -- but Warren says she's not running) that definitely could generate energy equal to 2008, and result in taking at least a slim majority in the House despite Gerrymandering.

But the wave I'm thinking of is a much bigger one. The country is not "right" or "Center right". The country is DEMORALIZED because we know we're getting screwed and don't see any way out. We have that much in common with the Tea Party. When you look at polling on all the great issues -- whether it is the climate, economic fairness, wealth distribution, freeloading corporations, the need for investment in infrastructure. commitment to public education, health care, etc.-- Americans STRONGLY support the progressive positions. Americans support positions FAR more progressive than anything President Obama has fought for.

On top of that, we have radically changing demographics, that include Asians and Hispanic immigrants, and they have very little love for the GOP. So if the universe were working correctly, we should be right in the middle of an extremely progressive period in our politics. A slight majority in the House, a slight majority in the Senate and even a convincing win for the WH does not match where we should be.

I am suggesting that people like Harry Truman and FDR fought openly and vigorously for the causes of liberalism. Without leaders that fight for that, how can we expect the public to be very enthusiastic? So I am suggesting that if there were a real progressive fighter in the White House, whether it is Teddy Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or fill-in-the-blank, that could lead to THE REAL WAVE -- the one that gets away from the 51-49 crap and aligns our representation with the true progressive preference of the broad public.

IMPO the mushier the Democratic position on issues has been, the more the other side has been able to capitalize on non-issues and incorrect stereotypes.

I believe there is a lot of truth to that, but the guy frustrates the hell out of me. If the President won't fight, it really kills the spirit of those who want to take the battle forward.

A case in point is the Keystone pipeline. It seems that he is putting this off as long as possible, but will eventually give in on that and not ask for anything in return. A real fighter would say:

"Sure you can have the pipeline. I'd rather see that stuff flowing in a pipeline than on trains. However, the only way I approve that is if you pass cap-and-trade so we can actually deal with the root problem. You have my number. Let me know when you are willing to talk about dealing with the root problem. Otherwise, you won't be seeing that pipeline as long as I am President."

and think women have "power over them". They actually fear the vagina...they will attack even more ferociously.

It is just fantasy that the whole country supports an agenda they never seem to vote for.

The media would go after her a shrill female. Obama manages to avoid angry black man. From what people say in praise of her, Warren would not avoid shrill female the way he has dodged angry black man.

but I think a lot of people will question her not having an immediate family.

I thought she was married? True. Though I think a childless male candidate would suffer also (or unmarried one).

Republicans would start looking for things to impeach Warren the very day she took office. Her only advantage would be that she's not black and wouldn't have the hate for hate's sake.....Republican/conservatives will only be happy and work bi-partisan when they control the WH and the Senate along with the House....and only for those issues they are interested in and support.

I've lived among them in the rural south...they really really despise women with power.

I don't doubt you at all.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

they got another think coming....

It was a total paradigm shift for them to have to put up with a Black leader......but a woman???

You see...Rightwinger men are totally afraid of women. They secretly believe that women have some power over them. I have actually had several of them tell me that Women ALREADY control everything. I have had them tell me that they think women should "shut up now because they got equality". Many secretly believe they are already oppressed by women. And they also, like to find women that support their "natural male superiority"....like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. These women are the Herman Cain's and Alan Wests only with breasts.

they hated blacks even more. They have elected some women to power and they idolize Palin, so I'm not so sure about that.

I think when you get down to it, it wouldn't matter if Jesus was President, if he was a Democrat, they would hate him too, and the majority of conservatives call themselves Christian.

kinda like Alan West, Micheal Steele and Herman Cain!

And mostly it will be women they would like to sleep with!

So when we did have this advantage, we must have gotten a ton of stuff done, right?

sorry...not true.

Well, let's at least get our history straight. Until Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, the Democratic caucus in the Senate stood at 59. After that it was technically up to 60, but Ted Kennedy hadn't cast a vote in months and was housebound due to illness. He died a few weeks later and was replaced by Paul Kirk on September 24, finally bringing the Democratic majority up to 60 in practice as well as theory. After that the Senate was in session for 11 weeks before taking its winter recess, followed by three weeks until Scott Brown won Kennedy's seat in the Massachusetts special election.

So that means Democrats had an effective filibuster-proof majority for about 14 weeks.[/
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/09/about-filibuster-proof-majority
blockquote]

The fact that the senate didn't remain in session longer was something within their ability to control. So, they got a lot done during those 14 weeks, right?

You're trying to make the argument that "they only had to months" and then go on to say thy had 11 weeks and then 3 more before scott brown was seated. I'm not a math expert, but 14 weeks is MORE than 2 months. I'm not suggesting they had a whole two years, but do you think they took advantage of the window of opportunity they did have? I don't.

Talk about knit picking.

If they really wanted to get the funding to close Guantanamo, for example, it could have been accomplished during that time. They would have had even more time than that if they spent more time in session. The point is, when they HAD and opportunity to do some of these things, they didn't. Why would I believe that the ONLY reason they're not doing them now is just because of the repukes?

But wasn't Obama spending his capital at the time on getting Health Care passed?
Actually I wasn't paying attention or forgot.

we had Blue Dog Democrats....so no, we couldn't do squat. Fortunately some of them went in 2010.....Democrats voted them out or they were replaced with Tea Party candidates.



In 2010, 75% of the Blue Dogs were replaced by teabaggers because the old adage is true: People who sees Republican lite and Republicans will always vote for the Republicans.
I expect the remaining Blue Dogs being removed in favor for progressive Democrats who truly represents the constituents.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021495654

Even having the house and a supermajority isn't all it's cracked up to be. If it was, they could have pushed through a ton of legislation in those 3+ months. While there's certainly no arguing the repukes are obstructionists, it's a fantasy to believe simply replacing them with Democrats will fix all these issues. I'm not suggesting we shouldn't try to do that anyway (blue dogs are still easier to deal with than teabaggers), but the idea that the President and Congress are ever going to be on the same page for all our big issues, even if they're all Dems, doesn't jibe with past experience.

Its the way it works...

And she can stand on Obama's shoulders.

And, frankly and sadly, she didn't have the skin color working against her with respect to congressional and regional opposition.

Women have a better shot than men of color.

No women do NOT have a better shot than men of color....these teabaggers HaTE women...seriously.

and the teabaggers worship her

I'm sure there are more well known tea bag women.

You don't understand the teabaggers at ALL!

You think just because they have women they don't hate women?


The women hate women!!@!!

I also understand that women hate other women - this isn't news.

They resent Black Males because they are threatened by them (and they blame them for taking their jobs etc)

They resent women.....because they think women want to eliminate them! They secretly resent all the rejection they got from women they tried to date you know the old "she wouldn't go out with me because she is a Lesbian or a Bitch" paradigm.....It made them feel inferior that women so often got to turn them down...some men (of the tea bag persuasion) never get over this. They will straight up say that women have all the power in the world...and seriously believe it! This is why so many get involved in the Forced Birth issues....they want women PUNISHED for (not) having sex (with them).

I dated a number of them in the South....and I couldn't wait to get the hell away from them. It is one of the main reasons I wanted to leave....I was so sick of them!

they KNOW its going away.....and they are in the proverbial "last throws". The lamenting and garment rending and gnashing of teeth has begun.

Those Rightwing "Christian" women....who are ANTI women issues!~!!!

You made the general assertion that an Elizabeth Warren could not succeed in reducing GOP Teabag opposition because of her gender.

Although Palin's overall views are certainly the opposite of advancement of women (as well as the advancement of males in many ways) she is a woman who has the support (often enthusiastic) of wingnuts.

Warren would certainly rile up the baggers, but a male with her positions and who is a Democrat would have the same opposition from Neanderthals. One tyhing you can say for the right wing -- they are equal opportunity in their efforts to beat down any Democratic, politician in top positions.

She cannot overcome that. Period. THEY hate women....and they have women who hate them TOO! Many more than Black people in their party...THAT is how deep the hatred runs.

Barefoot and pregnant ring any bells for you?

It seems to me that by automatically assuming failure for Warren because of your gender, you are promoting the same sexist limitations.

She can't succeed and shouldn't be given the chance to try because she is a woman?

No woman can rise to the top in politics or lead effectively because they are women?

How about "Elizabeth Warren couldn't become president, or make any changes if she did because her policies are not palatable to average Americans."

That would be a debatable position to take, but at least would be based on some logical reality.

I am saying that the opposition to them will be even MORE fierce to them thn they have already been to Obama. And getting Congress to just roll over and allow either woman to do whatever they want is a pipedream.

I am also not liking your "my owie is worse than your's" in regards to women and black people. It's not a damn contest, so just stop it.

with the Grand Obstruction party....

Unless WE elect Democrats to the house....and that requires NOT throwing every democrat that that doesn't quite measure up to the Holier Than Thou standards under the bus.

I vote for people that I think are the best for the job and match up the most with my ideas, regardless of gender or race.

Yes I do too...I am just realistic about what they can do in the environment and circumstances we have...not the one we wished we had.

I am saying Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton or Pres. Obama are not miracle workers...they cannot make the Recalcitrant Republicans "play ball"!

anybody for 2016.

Maybe it's high time we go out and get what we want rather than settling for what is given to us. The republicans aren't ever going to want to play ball with us. We will have to get a strong move forward type candidates to run. If we start in the damn middle, we have already lost ground.

as well, since Obama people were involved in that. However, she was not elected in 2008, nor could she have been, at least not at that point.

with the post office being lenders and maybe a place for banking, plus the the call out on Obama surrounding himself with right leaning corporate lawyers.

I sure would be willing to give it a try.



As I've said, the Dem party is stuck in a third way rut, not a real choice at all IMHO. Moderate R's or Full On R's, take your pick.

-p

Hardly anti-Semitic, afaict.

"Muslim" when the intent was to talk about "terrorists." We'd condemn that heartily.

Not all Jews subscribe to the issues that AIPAC lobbies for. The terms are not synonymous. Jews are not universally AIPAC supporters any more than Muslims are universally terrorists. So yeah, you should condemn the usage in the OP. There is no such thing as the "Jewish" lobby.

There is no terrorist Muslim state.

There is an Israeli Jewish state.

The two are not synonymous at all.

What YOU said is offensive. It's disgusting.

there is no substantial "Jewish lobby", which is to say people seeking special favors for the Jewish faith from our government. So even though I misspoke, I don't see how there could be any confusion about the meaning. If a person doesn't believe that pressures from Israel are an important constraint on what President Warren could do, they are certainly welcome to that opinion. I just listed that as one among several examples of real world constraints President Warren would have to deal with. I could nave mentioned the NRA as another example. That is the premise of the question after all. Do these constraints mean that Obama has done all that is possible, or could President Warren have achieved more progressive results?

Sometimes it's difficult to accommodate all the different sensitivities that exist. Making an extra effort when it comes to Jews makes a lot of sense. When I first read your post I honestly did heard a "clunk" when I came to that part. It's not the correct terminology at all.

This is the DUngeon Master's MO. Alerting on this post is so completely transparent.

They fail most of the time, but they are successful often enough that far too many voices have withdrawn to lurking or moved on to more accommodating pastures.

My guesses:

First off, she would have saved the banking system, but not the bankers. The banks would be put into a position where they had to serve Main Street, and fast, instead of being handed unlimited piles of crystal meth and Amex platinum cards.

This, in turn, would have turned the economy around. Which would have demonstrated to independent voters that Democrats can actually do more than complain about ill-mannered Republicans, that we could fix stuff. Which would have gotten them to turn out to vote in 2010, handing us both house of Congress in the 2010 elections.

Etc.

And those great patriots, Messrs. Simpson and Bowles, would have been allowed to retire in peace.

"My guesses:

First off, she would have saved the banking system, but not the bankers."

...guess. In her own words.

will we get Sparkle ponies too?

Most people don't realize it, but we run a pretty liberal state, er, commonwealth here. The one instance that i recall of #%^*ing with unions turned into a disaster for the #%^*er (a large hotel chain).

minimum wage earners getting hosed.

It's on tape, ya know.

and THAT is the promise that concerns you? That's your worst?

HOPE AND CHANGE !!!

I realize he's a politician.

They ALL suck at some level.

But... and you can bookmark this...

If we lose the Senate, fail to gain or come close to taking the House...

IT WILL BE BECAUSE MANY, TWO TIME, ARDENT SUPPORTS, GAVE UP.



not mad at you... just fucking frustrated.

What the hell is wrong....

Its just like I said....some people will hate govt no matter who is in charge...


And YEAH I agree IF we lose the Senate.....but it couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the hyperbolic disappointed crowd spouting off false criticism after false criticism at damn near EVERY single Democrat!

That is now what you think his "major malfunction is" that suddenly ALL the Teabaggers and Rightwingers would just get onboard if only we had an emotional President....

I must ask...."do you complain about everything?"

Because you all act like This Administration has accomplished NOTHING! And THAT is bullshit...

Not to take anything away from Obama's accomplishments, but I do believe that her fearlessness in her quest for justice would lead to a completely different set of challenges.

Can't say if that's a good thing or a bad thing though, at this point, just that it would be different.

In any event, I don't think anyone else on the planet except Obama could have done what he has done. The world was watching when he won office. They're still watching.

you find out you got, about 90 seconds after the Inaguration is over...

BTW, you might want to change "Jewish lobby" to "Israel lobby".

I removed that phrase altogether. It wasn't central to the point. It was just an example of one of the many pressure points that a President has to deal with in the real world.

Your stipulation is offensive.

If this is true, Warren's skin color would result in significantly more bipartisanship and cooperation.

Republicans created a 24/7/365 scandal machine in hopes of driving him out of office. They perfected those techniques with Obama and used racism against him. If Clinton had won they would have used sexism and misogamy against her. If Warren wins, sexism and misogamy will be the primary tools used to attack her.

A big proportion of the Republican electorate, especially those in the south, are racist. Racist attacks were used a dog whistle to get them to salivate and vote. The real money machine behind the modern Republican Party will use whatever they think will work to get people to the polls, be it religion, misogamy, sexism, patriarchalism. Being smart people with money they will spread that same money around to support centrist and center right Democrats, thereby creating a fifth column.

The modern Republican Party no longer believes in governing unless they are doing the governing.

I think the media would undermine her in the same ways they do Obama, but add comments about her appearance.

The platforms people vote for send a strong message to the establishment.

Besides, it seems to me the biggest obstacle we are struggling against right now is a combination of voter apathy and Gerrymandering. We should abolish the latter (and abolishing the former is not unheard-of in democratic countries).

The Republican would have happily raked her over the coals and refused to pass anything that people might consider a Democratic victory. Especially since the 2010 midterm, we have been involved in Political Warfare, with Republicans pursing a scorched earth policy. Same thing would have happened with Clinton, Warren, or with any Democrat in that White House.

We only get one shot.
We don't want to waste her on a Republican controlled government.

a Mainsteam Media intent on destroying her.

Though Obama can still give a good speech.

Unlike most of the actual policies the White House pursues.