But unfortunately, last I heard, she is still not interested.

Although I wouldn't totally rule her out. There is A LOT of support building and most Dems don't even know her yet. We will have to wait and see.

But in the meantime it looks like Bernie is def. running!

outlining her life. That's what presidential candidates do.

Richard Trumka has a very narrow set of interests. Valid ones, but narrow. I am not in the E Warren ready for prime time camp. And I'm still uncomfortable with her coming into the Democratic fold so late in life, at age 47. I'm sorry, but she and I are the same age, and I can't square my experiences with civil rights and Vietnam, with Watergate, with Iran-Contra, with Reagan and the first Bush administrations ... and not think there's something wrong to have stuck with the Republicans all that time. To wait until Clinton's second term ... well, there's too many other possibilities out there for me to be comfortable with that candidacy right now. Too many unknowns.

she also does not possess the charisma for a successful run to the White House. Don't get me wrong, she's a nice person, and smart, and tough on the right issues, and will continue to do BIG things in the Senate. She just doesn't have the spark - in person- to be a viable presidential candidate. I know many DUers seem to love her for standing up to Wall Street and, and for her very good, populist video clips, and I do too, but it took a lot of work to help get her to the Senate. She needs to stay there awhile.

substance and a great message, something Hillary lacks entirely.

As I said she's long on substance, but seeing her 'work' a room or hall she just falls a bit short of the "wow" factor. I wish it weren't so. Meet her and see if your opinion is different. As our Senator, she's the real deal, so whether she runs or not she's helping 'the rest of us'

So I can report back then...At this point, though, I'm not convinced. I never thought

Hillary Clinton (unlike her husband) had much charisma, but at this point she's managed,

seemingly, to make that unimportant through experience, persistence, and sheer longevity.

I Don't know anything about a tv show called "charisma".

and must be more "center". I disagree and agree that we have had enough of the "Republican lites" and Elizabeth Warren is ready for prime time and just the thought of her running scares the hell out of the (Corporacrats) "Republican lites and Teabaggers

True, Hillary switched parties at a younger age than did Warren, but you segued from age 47 to trying to square your experiences with various historical events.

Just for the record, Warren has said that she did not always vote Democratic after she switched parties. Still, I would prefer her to the one everyone seems to want us to believe is our only option.

By the way, The Goldbergs, "a domestic comedy featuring the home life of a Jewish family living in the..... 1980s and starring another actress as the family matriarch, which started this season, is an enjoyable comedy series. At least, I enjoy it.

His father's family was Jewish. I think the name change occurred before his father, though. Grandparents, maybe.

I was simply remarking on the odd connection between my slip and historical reality. His grandparents had a Jewish surname and went out of their way to get rid of it. Probably a century or more later, I unconsciously gave their grandson a Jewish surname.

just translated it into the prevailing language of the nation where they initially emigrated (UK), as is common not just in USA or in UK but in other nations as well.

And Goldwater never ran from his ancestry, either:

http://www.acjna.org/acjna/articles_detail.aspx?id=426

It was Goldwasser originally, and they changed it to Goldwater. That's a change. Whether the practice was common or not affect whether it a change occurred.

I never said or implied anything about Barry Goldwater's having run from his Jewish ancestry. However, according to his wiki, he usually referred to himself as Episcopalian, which his mother was, and which he also was, though he does not seem to have been a religious man, mentioning his Jewish roots only on occasion. So, I guess all sources do not agree on the subject. However, again, it had nothing to do with my post.

They left it as it was, all they did was translate it. This was a common practice amongst immigrants, the idea was to fit in linguistically--not to conceal one's ancestry.

common the practice was. They changed it. But, I've said that before. Seems we are both repeating ourselves and I don't see the point in going around again. Besides, it was only my comment on my own mistake (Goldberg Girls vs. Goldwater Girls). I don't understand the need to make a big deal out of nothing. In any event, I'm out.

The implication you make is clear.

That's damned significant in my book. I can totally ignore what people did before they could even vote (you couldn't vote till 21 back then), and under the sway of their parents. It's much harder to ignore an extra 32 years of remaining Republican. Maybe you can deal with it; it's a problem for me.

And for disclosure's sake: I've was not a Hillary Clinton supporter in 2008, for a number of reasons; though I respect her. I'd rather find another candidate this time around, frankly. But it doesn't mean ANY candidate.

I also noted why I mentioned it--Vietnam, civil rights, campaigning for Goldwater. In the context of what you and I posted, I don't know that being of legal age to vote is especially relevant. Whether or not you are of legal age to vote, you know right from wrong and you know where Goldwater stood on those issues. States rights dog whistle and crush the Red Menace wherever and whenever it appears.

I was very conscious of political issues by high school, certainly by college--and I was nowhere near as active in politics as Hillary was. She was part of the Goldwater campaign and attended the 1968 Republican National Convention. That is way more involved in politics than I was at the corresponding ages.

To her credit, Hillary also changed parties young. I am not trying to take that away from anyone. I just meant that, if you are talking civil rights and Vietnam and not only the age at which someone switched, I don't think Hillary gets a pass, either.

It's much harder to ignore an extra 32 years of remaining Republican.

Maybe you can deal with it; it's a problem for me.

She was not in her mid 40s when she switched parties. What do you mean that she doesn't get a pass on Vietnam and civil rights? There was no Vietnam war at the time and she switched parties in the midst of the civil rights movement.

I think we often tend to remember the past in such a way as to better validate our current values... even when those memories are simply inaccurate, or deny any future growth and change to a teenager, which I certainly hope is untrue-- as I was a pretty vocal fan of Styx when I was 17 and would hate to be held to that same standard in the here and now.

It could become pretty embarrassing. I cringe at some of my fashion choices, such as wearing blue eye shadow. LOL!!

As for Hillary, she was raised in a Republican household. It's normal that she was a Republican until she entered college and was far away from home and her dad's influence.

too. What is not normal for most teens or college kids who were merely loyal to the party of their parents: becoming part of a campaign in 1964 and attending the Republican National Convention in 1968. She was not a politically naive kid.

I am not about comparing Hillary to Warren or Warren to Hillary.

In a similiar vein, it's probably a safe bet that many of the current fans of Bad Boy Beiber will, in their dotage, vociferously deny that they ever found his warblings appealing! Like every fad and fashion, even "Beiber fever" will abate eventually!

which you replied. Also in the post to which you replied, I stated why I had brought up the point anyway.

Looks like Bernie Sanders is The Man.

It don't get no better!

Haven't seen that before.

I did some searching.

Had to sort passed an inordinate number of Cl*nt*n/Warren 2016 banners.

ew.

Yeah, because she's been in politics for a whopping couple of years.

friendly, dems. We have the Republican party if that is what we want. The least time they are in politics, the less time they have to become entrenched. In fact I would love to have people running who have NEVER been in politics.

And this fact digusts me that everytime a décent and outsider nominee was the candidate ( Dukakis, Kerry...) he lost. Will the wheel turn on our behalf. I hope so.! Go Elizabeth!

showing through words and actions, she`s the real deal.

And I really, really, really need you to know that.

Don't even think about it.

And some guy heard from another guy that she signed a secret letter "encouraging" Hillary to run. With such unabashed and public support of Hillary, Warren would look like a fickle woman if she doesn't give Hillary her due.

Regards,

TWM

She deserves to be President.

... but what we really need is a Roosevelt.

-- Mal

Seems as silly to vote against a person due to family lineage as it is to vote for a person due to the same...

if he wants it!

How did that work out again?

If Warren should run, she will not be running against Obama anyway.

If Trumka supports EW on middle/working class issues (as someone steadfastly true to her values) ... making her one of the good ones; and EW supports President Obama on issues affecting the working/middle classes; doesn't that make President Obama one of the good ones, also?

he knows what he meant by them. And, even if he meant what you are reasoning he meant, those words wouldn't make Obama "one of the good ones." It would simply be Trumka's opinion.

Obama stands or falls on his record. Beyond that, whether Obama is "one of the good ones" or not, is moot politically. We're not voting for or against him this time. For political office, probably no one ever will again. (I don't see him doing a John Adams post-Presidency.)

Don't say a word about her strong support for the military or her fight to keep a MA defense plant open despite Pentagon objections (she was being a "good senator," how dare she--and protecting jobs). She's also not a fan of legalizing weed.

Now, I have no objection to the good Senator's support for the military or her protection of MA jobs. Why not? MA chips in more to the federal treasury than many other states; why shouldn't they get a slice of pork back? I think she's wrong on the weed issue; I think that's a money maker. Legalization is not going to make the demand grow, it's just going to move the money from the criminal cartels to the coffers of local, state and federal governments.

But that doesn't fit with the popular, fictional, imagined vision of this politician.

The hippie-dippie peacenik theme, with a dash of "Kill the Banksters" is the only broad brush picture allowed. Pay no attention to those decades of GOP registration or those Votes For Reagan, unless, of course, they can work as a selling point, somehow.

prepare for the stalking!

SSDD! I'm used to it...it's the same folks, too!

is in the eye of the beholder.

As far as pushing the money from criminal cartels to local, state and federal government, sounds to me like a big improvement.

I don't know many DUers who would claim that Warren is, or ever was a hippie dippie peacenik. Her Republican past seems widely known on this board.

Thing is, when you tell people Warren is as well--strongly, in fact, that all her brothers served and one was in combat in Vietnam, that she is VERY wired into Pentagon and Veteran's issues, they look at you like you have two heads and call you the L word.

I know, I have had it happen to me.

See, she's got to be anti-war and pro-weed...just... ya know, because!

The image and the idea of the person is more important than the reality...the same thing happened to Obama in 2008 or thereabouts; people just didn't check his record, they "assumed" he was more liberal than he was, and were angry when they realized he wasn't going to do something like pass the duchy at the SOTU, or make broad, sweeping, way-to-the-left changes by decree (as if he could do that anyway). Some have never gotten over being "duped" by their own enthusiasm for an image over an individual's stated record, history, and utterances.

being pushed on this thread.

BTW, the meme that you say was not being pushed on this thread was that Obama is one of the good guys. Why anyone even imagines that meme should or would be pushed on a thread about the 2016 election escapes me, but that is another issue entirely.

People believed that Obama was something other than what he was, because he was a fresh face. When he didn't change, but their perceptions became clearer, they "blamed" him for not being what they imagined him to be.

They do the same thing with Senator Warren--they don't know her, so they overlay their attitudes on her. They're shocked to learn, for example, that she voted for Ronald Reagan and she was a registered Republican for most of her life. They think she's pro-legalization, when she's not. They have no understanding of her attitude toward the Department of Defense. They only know about "The Banksters" -- and often in a general sort of way, too--and they make a leap about her attitudes that isn't consonant with reality, because they like her feisty attitude on that particular issue.

That's a recipe for disappointment.

That's the point.

It's not about "good guys," it's about individual perceptions.

1StrongBlackMan was saying that if Warren is one of the good guys and she agrees with Obama, doesn't that make Obama one of the good guys, too. That was his point.

You replied to him to shush because that (Obama is a good guy, too, being 1StrongBlackMan's point) was not the meme being pushed on this thread. When I responded to you, you switched the subject, perhaps because you misunderstood 1StrongBlackMan .

I don't expect you to admit that.

next national elections. And he catches plenty of shit from so-called Democrats, too.

You're up to your usual antics, I see.

with anything.

Pointing out how the posts on this thread actually went instead of denial, moving the goal post, changing the subject, etc. are indeed my usual kind of antics. Thanks for the compliment. And, I see you are up to your usual antics, too.

But, my seeing that you were up to your usual antics was obvious when I posted upthread that I did not expect you to admit anything.

You're insinuations are amusing, but that is your habit!

can figure out that my description is accurate. But, I cannot imagine anyone caring enough to follow these tedious exchanges. And, as I've said, the briefer my replies to your posts, the better I feel. So I won't be summarizing.

Once again, I'm out and, once again, you can have the last word, which obviously means a lot more to you than it does to me (Lord knows why).

Gee, I wonder.

We have been in need of that. Rec

winning. I think he is running in an attempt to influence the national conversation and the conversation of other candidates. Obviously, I could be wrong about that.

I also like Warren, but if she runs and is elected, I don't expect her to be our savior. I don't expect that of any politician anymore, even those whom I admire.

choices in a Democratic primary. Fuck this "foregone conclusion" bullshit. . I'd rather write in the monkey who outshone Reagan's acting in those movies than have my vote made that meaningless over 4 years in advance. (Don't know about you, but I started hearing the nomination was Hillary's, if she wanted it before the 2012 Presidential.) It's time we put democratic back into Democratic.

running". If she is not ready to run, then she is not running. Whether she will run or not, that's a different question and hard for a prospective candidate to answer. If she said she was considering running, all hell would break loose. She's best off to say she isnt running and will not run up to the point she decides to run.

I think she would never beat Hillary in the primaries, but I'd sure like to see her steer the conversation at the convention to what issues are important. Just to make Hillary a bit nervous and have to bend a little more to the left in her promises. (Although from experience promises in the Democratic primaries mean little once they get in). But at least it would be something to hold her feet to the fire with when she gets in.

the left. She doesnt need the left, in fact if she disparages the left it will be of more benefit to her and get her some of the conservative votes that are fed up with the Repub Clowns.

Sen Warren will have a hard time against the big money candidate. However, we have no choice. If we dont get change we will end up with another 8 years of plutocratic, oligarchical government.

Ironic isnt it that Citizens United, originally intended to scuttle Clinton may well end up being the very thing that gets her elected.

THAT IS THE TICKET!!!

peace,
kp

and I'm with him on this, also.

either a Wall Street Democrat or a Corporations are People Republican.

Our gracious overlords however have allowed us a choice on social issues. Pretty smart, because social issues are just as important to liberals as economic ones. I may be dreaming, but I would like to have a choice that includes a candidate that was liberal on financial issues as well as social ones.

A dirty hippy can dream can't he? Very few in the Reaganized New Democratic party are not conservative regarding economic issues, preferring instead the same trickle down, Chicago school of economics approach to the Keynesian approach, but sanders and Warren appear as if they are at least open to such an approach, that's why liberals (like me) like them and hope one or both make it on the ballot.

She sounds fantastic. She says all of the right things and says them with great passion. She moves people.

But what has she actually done on the national political scene? She oversaw implementation of TARP; hardly a sterling qualification. She oversaw the startup of Consumer Finance Protection Bureau; decent reference, but still a financial role. She has introduced one bill in the Senate, a bill on student loans. Two roles as assistant to the president and one bill in the senate. That's it. Before that she was a professor in an ivory tower school.

Where is the leadership? Where is the action on her principles? Where is she actually kicking ass rather than just talking about kicking ass? We don't really need good talkers. We don't need someone who can make stirring speeches. We need someone who speaks little and wears big heavy boots.

Good one.. how about Steele Toed Boots at that!

I like what she says too, I also liked a lot of things Obama said back in the day (a number of caveats for a different discussion) but I have had a life time of great fire breathing talk turned 180 degrees when it came time to stand by those principles and promises when elected.

...even if she were to lose, it would put her smarts and values in front of the country in ways she could never reach otherwise. But I don't think she would lose cause the woman is a damn-site smarter than anything or anyone the Repugs could offer up and would bury em in debates. She's a jewel and would look perfect - and be perfect - in the White House setting.

Then again, it is not as if the Clintons were ever that eager to protect union jobs anyway, especially if they can be sent to India.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4836695

She is the real deal and I think/hope she could win, IF the powers that be rally around her.
All I know is I will not vote for Hilary under any circumstance, that would get us nowhere.

Not going to happen. Corporate libs will never allow it. We'll be lucky to get Hillary.

Who gives a shit who he is.

and what about Congress and how you get a bill through? I can conclude he thinks she will sign nothing not in line with her values, which means nothing would pass even a Democratic Congress. There's no way to get legislation perfectly in line with a president's views. This idea that the presidency is the be all and end all of power and if we could just get one with enough "rightness" that Congress will never dare question then (let alone the rest of us, adding the irony that supporting the President blindly is only wrong because the President is sometimes wrong) and paradise will follow.

Elizabeth Warren is not someone who can magically make Congress follow her blindly. She seems to have very little charisma. Faux Noise and the rest of the M$M doesn't know her and hasn't gotten hold of her yet. She would sink very quickly under that microscope.

I AM ADWBH

Any DEmocratic Woman But Hillary