That is so much more informative than "But Warren used to be a Republican!!!!!!!"
Funny how Republicans are initially praised for switching to Democrat - and then that is used against them when conveeeenient.
Warren is a thousand times more likely to support a liberal policy than Hillary is. That's the important thing.

I want a candidate who has progressive ideas. Hillary ain't progressive, and if she tried to campaign that way her nose would be 100 feet long. Warren represents progressive ideas right now, but anyone who is more progressive than Hillary will have my support. Evidently some people are incapable of understanding that concept.

And Hillary as a Republican bothers me more than Warren's short stint with it. If I'm reading the above correctly, Warren was an Independent in her youth, registered republican for 5 years due to what she thougt was common ground. And then left that party when she realized they'd left that common ground.

Hillary was a Republican in her youth. Left that party...why? When she hooked up with Bill, who she recognized as a potentially brilliant political rising star? I don't know why...

I do know that over long periods of time, we become who we really are at heart.

because she grew up in a Republican family. Warren was a Republican through the Reagan era. I can't begin to imagine why it took her so long to figure out the party was aligned with Wall Street. I'm glad she switched, but people should examine her positions more carefully before declaring her the new Messiah.

Hillary, and is better equipped and more likely to understand what needs to be done. And more likely to make an honest effort toward that.

I grew up in a Republican family. My eldest sister is now a teapartier. My middle sister is a Democrat, but I would expect her to be a corporatist Democrat. I was always an Independent. I registered as a Democrat in 2004 as a result of the W nightmare.

Did Hillary switch before or after she met Bill?

But I have to say I find irritating the tendency that Democrats have to identity anyone new who captures their attention as suitable for the presidency. I can't help think Obama would have been a better president with more experience in Washington and working with congress in particular. The Presidency isn't a popularity contest for the coolest public figure. It should be who is best qualified and prepared to enact Democratic Party policies. People were even running around saying "Wendy Davis for President" after her filibuster. Some Democrats have a tendency to become quickly infatuated and are easily disillusioned when they discover the reality of what they voted for. Evidence for that is in all the complaints about policies Obama actually ran on while a candidate, like increasingly military involvement in Afghanistan or not legalizing marijuana.

My messiah comment is in reference to posts I've seen (not from you in particular but generally speaking) where people reveal a conception of politics where they imagine the perfect president is going to solve the countries problems when the fact is social and political change has only ever occurred due to sustained pressure from below. People site FDR as a hero with no conception of the extent to which he was forced to act by widespread popular mobilization.

and I so agree. Clinton-Sachs doesnt fit that bill. Her love affair with Goldman-Sachs-O-Gold and Wall Street disqualify her. And what can we say about her betrayal of all that is holy of Democratic principles. She bowed down to George Bush and Dich Cheney and gave them her vote helping them commit untold damage. She does not qualify to be a Democrat. But of course the Oligarchs love her. Those that made hundreds of billions off the war are so grateful. She is a friend of the ruling oligarchs.

Which country is it you suppose you live in? Every President since the dawn of the Republic has represented the country's financial interests. We live in a capitalist nation. Your little slogans do nothing to change any of that. The Democratic Party has never been a party of the people. No such thing exists in this nation or ever has, nor in any capitalist country. What do you think is the function of the state under capitalism?

Even if your perfect pure president were in the oval office, it would change nothing because legislation has to pass through congress. The system is structured to represent the wealthy, and the campaign finance system means anything else is impossible, Sitting around complaining about corporate influence is like railing against oxygen. To pretend there is something unique about Clinton in that regard is absurd. We need a constitutional amendment to change the ability of the wealthy to buy politicians, and that takes actual mobilization and hard work.

Even if the perfect candidate miraculously appeared in the oval office, it would make no difference because they couldn't get legislation through congress under the current system. The person might say things to make folks here feel good inside, and maybe that is really what this is all about. It certainly doesn't seem to be about bringing about any change in policy because I see no evidence of any desire to do anything but sit around complaining. It's up to you and me to change things. If you want the Democratic Party policies to change, you have to involve yourself on the local level and work to bring about those changes yourself. Any other expectation is an exercise in futility, and you're not going to change anything if your fundamental concern is making up trite slogans about politicians and insulting Democrats as "authoritarian."

I could understand this if I thought people here were all 19 yrs old, but I know that's not the case. I have to wonder where people think they've been living their entire lives? When you think the capitalist state is somehow the function of a single individual like Hillary Clinton, it appears to me you still haven't figured out the nature of the society you live in. I can tell you something with one hundred percent certainty: You will never see a US president who does not first represent the country's key financial interests. There never has been one and never will be.

As for 2016, I see no reason to go at one another's throats over which politician people prefer. We have no candidates right now. When the time comes, I will watch the debates, examine their policies and choose from among them. There is a little I find more irritating that the cults of personalities (either for or against) that dominate on DU. The fundamental effect of them is to diminish the importance of debates about key issues to their lowest common denominator until they become essentially meaningless.

up and just go with Clinton and 8 more years of Wall Street theft. I agree that we shouldnt put our hopes in just any progressive that comes along but we have no choice. For 30 years the centrists have been letting the oligarchs lead them down a trail to destruction. The poverty is getting worse every day and none of the conservative candidates give a crap. We have to draw the line somewhere. How long would you wait? Until the poverty level reaches 75%?

The Centrists / Conservatives just go along with fracking, the XL Pipeline, the NSA spying, indefinite detention, etc. We need change.

as "centrist" rather than actually changing anything. Not that you actually bother to ask where I stand on any of the issues you lay out. Why bother with that when it's so much easier to just dismiss people out of hand when they raise ideas you don't want to consider.

I find it amusing you respond to a Marxist analysis by calling me centrist. What that actually means and how you think you're going to bring about those changes in policy, I have no idea. Since you speak with such derision about my post, I assume you reject the idea that change comes from popular pressure and that you imagine your perfect "leftist" candidate will magically transform America. Good luck with that. You aren't interesting in discussing how to get money out of politics, don't respond to my point about mobilizing for a constitutional amendment, but imagine you can just call some people centrist like that actually means anything. Insult enough people and your political Messiah will magically descend upon the White House, wave his hands and America will be born anew. Who cares about Congress, campaign finance, or the mundane practicality of actual elections?

That view is not unlike the one the Tea Party has toward the GOP, but with one major difference. The Tea Party has worked hard to gain control of their party and move it to the right. Those of you so critical of the Democratic party and "centrists" like me don't appear willing to do that work, which is why you haven't been successful.

None of what you say of course addresses any of the points I made about the relationship between government and financial interests under capitalism and how you imagine a different personality in the White House will change any of that.

I see so many here in DU that are willing to continue with the status quo like we are living in Camelot. I see the ravages of poverty daily and want change. I enthusiastically voted for change in 2008. I was hopefully naive. I feel the left got punched in the mouth. Not blaming Obama. He may be doing all he can. But if that's the case then things are worse than I had imagined.

A pragmatist would say that supporting Sen Warren is again "hopefully naive". So what does the left do? Sit down and shut up like certain "little dictators" would prefer? Watch the conservatives in our party destroy everything Democrats stand for?

I'll go so far as to say that I see the same juvenile behavior here on DU as on free republic.

I don't think any of them are Messiahs; quite the opposite. I'm strictly issue oriented, however, and Clinton fails on my 3 baseline issues.

All the experience in the world doesn't matter if you're going to do the exact opposite of what needs to be done. Experience says that Clinton is a corporatist warhawk. She didn't just vote for the Iraq war, she pushed for the disastrous surge in Afghanistan. And she is in the pocket of Wall Street, behind TPP and it's European counterpart.

Warren passes on 1 of my baseline issues and is essentially unknown on the other 2.

You just said a mouthful. That was my mantra in 2008 and now: experience DOES matter in life. It was one of the reasons why I preferred Hillary in 2008 and not Obama.

A president can have the best of intentions, but if he/she can't get Congress to go along, it's all for not. There are only so many things that they can enact through an executive order, the rest requires Congressional approval. Both Clintons know how to maneuver through Congress. They know all the players on both sides and they know how to play the game. Would Hillary have had an easier time with Republicans than Obama? I'm not sure, but at least she would have been under no illusion about them.

As much as I like and respect Liz Warren, she's even less experienced than Obama was in 2008. She's an expert in one topic and that's her main focus. Why does anyone think that she would be an effective president? Could she get things done? Has she gotten any legislation passed in the short time that she's been in the Senate?

There is a polished, practiced, professional feel to Hillary's words. More professional politicians is NOT what we need - not unless you're Adelson or one of the Kochs or maybe Jamie Diman. We need real CHANGE in DC - and not just from R to D or even D to D. It's obvious that the flying monkeys controlled by the oligarchs are determined to take our votes away from us. We need to use that ability to vote (while we still have it!) to effect REAL change in DC while we still can. A vote for Hillary (and her financiers) by a middle class or impoverished person will be a lesser of evils vote against their own interests. Sadly, I fear she'll be elected by gender instead of genuine.

She had an epiphany and realized she was wrong, and had been lied to. People learn and change. I'm just glad she is saying what she's saying now.

I didn't. Quote: "I'm glad she switched . . ."

Hillary had already started to change her views of the Republican party once she left home. She may not officially have switched parties until she was at Yale, but her views were already formed by the time she got to law school.

You fault Hillary for being a Republican in her youth, but think nothing of Warren being a Republican until her mid 40s? Hypocrisy much?

than it took Hillary to figure out she wasn't a Republican as Hillary got it in July of 1964.

They bring up stuff that happened when she was a kid. Of course she was a Republican in her youth, she came from a Republican household. Once in college her views evolved, like it happens to a lot of young adults.

"1000 times more..."

GMAFB!




Which one is which?

Link?

which of those graphs are which....

Can you tell which one is Clinton and which one is Warren?

and it most certainly isn't "1000 times" difference....

Warren is the top graph, and Clinton is the bottom graph.

Right?

In other words, some context for the pretty pictures.

I have EVERY intention of providing all that.....

For example, if the criteria are dated or give more weight to economic issues than social ones (or vice versa), the results would be quite different.

take a stab....what are you afraid of?

Your reluctance to provide context is a narrative in itself.

I want to see who has the courage of their convictions....so far only one person does. Do you agree with their guess or not?

And the criteria used to create those graphs will likely wither under scrutiny, since you're so slow to provide any context.

something the Libertarians have been using as a recruitment tool for decades? Hokay.

Go on; convince us that these graphics are based on something more meaningful than a Cosmo quiz.

image number one.....is Hillary Clinton



Hillary Clinton is a Populist-Leaning Liberal.
http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

Click here for explanation of political philosophy.


image number two .....is Elizabeth Warren


Elizabeth Warren is a Hard-Core Liberal.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm


Click here for explanation of political philosophy.

I've got no problem with the quotes, as I suspect they're legit, but as I suspected,

Who the hell is a Libertarian? What does this have to do with Libertarians?

Funny you are the only one that seems to have a link to a Libertarian organization website in this conversation!

denial is NOT a river in Egypt...this has NOTHING to do with Libertarians! NOTHING.....

On the Issues or OnTheIssues is an American non-partisan, non-profit organization providing information to voters about candidates, primarily via their web site.[1] The organization was started in 1996, went non-profit in 2000, and is currently run primarily by volunteers.[2]

The owner and CEO of On the Issues is Dr. Naomi Lichtenberg. The editor-in-chief and content manager is Jesse Gordon. The organization is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts and Missoula, Montana.[3]
The organization's stated mission is to help voters pick candidates "based on issues rather than on personalities and popularity." They obtain their information from newspapers, speeches, press releases, book excerpts, House and Senate voting records, Congressional bill sponsorships, political affiliations and ratings, and campaign websites from the Internet.[3]

OnTheIssues has a reputation for helping voters to make educated decisions.[4] Among other things, they offer an online quiz "that aims to bring together the politically compatible – a wonk's version of an online dating service."[5] The "VoteMatch Quiz" has 20 questions, and matches users' answers against candidates for president and for Congress. The quiz also assigns a "political philosophy" by analyzing the answers on social issues versus economic issues.

The OnTheIssues website is characterized by heavy content and a lack of fancy technical features: an "information-rich, plain-jane site," according to U.S. News and World Report.[6] The website contains 75,000 pages covering about 1,000 incumbents and challengers,[7] as of early 2014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_The_Issues

its ridiculous...

and I posted both Rand Paul AND Bernie Sanders to show you WHY!

distorted by a libertarian agenda. But since you're not willing to actually read what I said, I'm done with you.

Do you deny where Rand Paul or Bernie Sanders are on those "Libertarian" graphs too?

Elizabeth Warren is NOT "1000 times more likely to vote for Progressive causes".

Hillary Clinton is Authoritarian Right

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

On the Issues....provides all that plain as day....AND shows you their analysis and evidence.

How do you know that?

When as recently as 1996, she preferred the Rethugs because of their "conservative" economic policies?

Legislative district was in 1994 - and who she voted for. That would make a big difference to me.

BTW - I don't trust Charlie Crist either.

I do think the Republican party left him. And Scott is pillaging Florida.
I don't think of Rick Scott as belonging to any party but his own self-interest.
But there as those here who would say Vote For Rick Scott!!!! if Scott changed to Dem. As if he would govern any differently.

Christie to the party cuz he was "nice" to Obama.

It can be a goofy place.

Chafee on the R side and Skelton on the D side were probably the two last representatives of that era.

-Laelth

Interesting. She was in the GOP while Bill Clinton was President; in '94 when the GOP and Gingrich took control of the House with their "Contract on/with America" and the same time the GOP was accusing Hillary of killing Vince Foster (+ Whitewater and "Travelgate.&quot

from the 1952 Republican Platform:

Civil Rights
We condemn bigots who inject class, racial and religious prejudice into public and political matters. Bigotry is un-American and a danger to the Republic.

Equal Rights
We recommend to Congress the submission of a Constitutional Amendment providing equal rights for men and women.

We favor legislation assuring equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25837

So Liz Warren was a Republican when Clinton was president?

Very interesting......

Edward Brooke, while the Democratic Party included Richard Russell, John McClellan, and Harry Byrd.

She decides to run for president.

If anything, this makes me like and respect her even more.

this might make some sense to you.

However, taking the 12 years of the Reagan and GHW Bush administrations as a whole, I don't find it defensible in the least. On issues from the environment to union busting, arts censorship, race, gay rights, and a host of other domestic (not to mention foreign) issues, those administrations were horrendous.

The Republican party was especially divisive on civil rights and gay rights in those years (remember Anita Bryant, and Reagan vetoing the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988?). And what about nominating Robert Bork to the Supreme Court?

Color me unconvinced, still. My political outlook extends beyond the machinations of Wall Street, which although important, are not the only issue to consider. Let me just remind you of the racial issue alone, which Paul Krugman wrote about some time ago:

More than 40 years have passed since the Voting Rights Act, which Reagan described in 1980 as “humiliating to the South.” Yet Southern white voting behavior remains distinctive. Democrats decisively won the popular vote in last year’s House elections, but Southern whites voted Republican by almost two to one.

The G.O.P.’s own leaders admit that the great Southern white shift was the result of a deliberate political strategy. “Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization.” So declared Ken Mehlman, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, speaking in 2005.

And Ronald Reagan was among the “some” who tried to benefit from racial polarization.

True, he never used explicit racial rhetoric. Neither did Richard Nixon. As Thomas and Mary Edsall put it in their classic 1991 book, “Chain Reaction: The impact of race, rights and taxes on American politics,” “Reagan paralleled Nixon’s success in constructing a politics and a strategy of governing that attacked policies targeted toward blacks and other minorities without reference to race — a conservative politics that had the effect of polarizing the electorate along racial lines.”

Thus, Reagan repeatedly told the bogus story of the Cadillac-driving welfare queen — a gross exaggeration of a minor case of welfare fraud. He never mentioned the woman’s race, but he didn’t have to.

There are many other examples of Reagan’s tacit race-baiting in the historical record. My colleague Bob Herbert described some of these examples in a recent column. Here’s one he didn’t mention: During the 1976 campaign Reagan often talked about how upset workers must be to see an able-bodied man using food stamps at the grocery store. In the South — but not in the North — the food-stamp user became a “strapping young buck” buying T-bone steaks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/opinion/19krugman.html?_r=0

... positions are, they don't override the importance of the issues mentioned.

I think as time passes, more of her GOP-era statements and votes will see the light of day. They won't prevent me from voting for her in a general election, but there will be plenty of rationalizing here.

were so eager to play out in the 80's and 90's? She was attracted to the Party that wanted a Constitutional Inequality Amendment, the Party I was aggressively protesting and countering at every turn. She became a Republican just when they all went totally crazy and totally religious and bigoted.
Is she also anti choice? Or just anti gay? I won't vote for her, that's for sure, no one who was on the other side of those barricades, shouting that we should all die is going to get a vote from me.
She has to demonstrate that she is not a bigot. Not just some blather, she has to prove herself or she can just fuck off.
Sorry.

Whether principled or not.