General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSince you asked. Why Elizabeth Warren? Why, since she too is "rich" and what is worse
a former Republican?
If you read Elizabeth Warren's book, you understand that while Obama was studying foreign policy and the Constitution, Elizabeth Warren was studying why people go bankrupt.
That gave Elizabeth Warren a deep, not just intellectual, understanding about why the middle class and poor are in economic decline in America. She is unique in her understanding. She has written books about it.
Prior to her study of bankruptcy, and even after the earlier years of it, she was not that interested in politics. She is, you know, from Oklahoma.
It is because she did not become a politician early on, that she sees the world like those of us in the 99% and not like those in the D.C. circuit.
It is because she studied the economic challenges and choices facing the 99% of Americans -- like trying to find someone to take care of your baby while both you and your spouse work outside the home -- like the cost of good education and whether to take on yet another student loan for graduate school or for another year of college -- whether to move to look for a new job when the job market where you are dries up -- whether to accept a job at low pay or try to wait for a good job with a livable income to come around -- whether to bother to send one more resume or fill out one more application when you have already gone that route hundreds of times and gotten no response -- all these dreadful economic choices that the 99% face and that people for whom it is no problem to pay a small fortune for a private school for their first-graders never do.
To explain to you why she is viewed as one of the 99% would take a post that would be so long you would never read it.
But it is because she doesn't just talk about the middle class or poverty, she gives us the sense she is fighting for us. Her speeches are fiery and filled with conviction, not just statistics or sort of dry, perfunctory promises. She knows the numbers. She knows what she wants.
If you read her book, you will realize that this is a woman who really fights. She gets so caught up in her fight, often in the struggle for economic fairness and honesty, and finds herself in a position in which someone asks her to do what is needed. And then, she responds. She forgets about herself and the cookies she needs to bake (yes, she bakes) and accepts yes, another job she never really particularly wanted or applied for but that she knows in her heart she must do because she is the only one with the knowledge and understanding, yes, to do it right.
That Elizabeth Warren was a Republican is not a problem because she can speak a language both Republicans and Democrats understand and maybe can agree on.
Very few of our democratic candidates match her in those respects. Obama did. And that is what won him the White House. I believe that Elizabeth Warren could win the White House even though Hillary is now ahead in the polls. Hillary's advantages are name recognition and her ties to Bill Clinton. The tie to Bill Clinton could easily become her greatest negative.
Besides, Elizabeth Warren has a lovable personality. She is not haughty or arrogant or overly sure of herself. She is not a political hack. Her nervousness and excitement when she speaks is palpable. Even her mistakes are appealing to most people. She cannot hide it. She is a woman on a mission, not a woman looking for a job.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)I remember her most gratefully for speaking out against bankruptcy deform in 2005. That is my first recollection of her, and from there on, she's just been right, time after time. I would so love to see her run.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Walk away
(9,494 posts)this. All she has are name rec and a famous husband. Warren barely won a Senate seat with national backing in the most Democratic state in the country, polls in single digits against Clinton and even against an "unnamed" Dem candidate is a shoe in because she is lovable.
I can't believe people make money writing this pandering fluff. It's like junk food for ideologues.
Michigander_Life
(549 posts)But then came primary season and people got to meet their future president. And once they got to size Hillary and Barack up, side by side, there was no comparison.
The rest, as they say, is history.
Warren is electable and would be much, much better for the 99% than Clinton. She gets my vote when she runs.
merrily
(45,251 posts)the New Democrat Party, began declaring publicly since at least 2012 that, "if Hillary decides to run," she will "clear the field," meaning that no other Democratic politician will oppose her in a coronation primary. (Bad enough we had no primary in 2012, but at least Obama was an incumbent. No excuse whatever for another coronation.)
The message seems to be sinking in that Democrats are not happy with an anointing. The question now is, will the 2016 primary be real or mostly a show to quiet the rabble Democratic voters who are not super delegates? I think the New Democrat Party engineers a primary at its own peril.
pscot
(21,024 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Hillary's years in the Senate and term as Secretary of State following eight years in the White House have mainly served to insulate her from the 99%.
And as has already been pointed out: she was inevitable in 2008. So what happened?
She represents no new thinking, no new people, no real defense of average people.
merrily
(45,251 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)You are out of your mind.
I have written for money, but I have never done that on the internet. And what's more, I write my posts quickly. My plentiful typos give me away: I write to express my thoughts and my feelings, my beliefs, my convictions.
I love my country. That is why I do not want Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2016.
Please answer: did you suggest or intend to suggest in your post that I write on DU for money?
One part of me is rather flattered that you would think that someone would pay me to write about politics on DU. I volunteer and work hard to get candidates elected, but I have never earned a cent in politics. Your post is offensive to me. Please apologize.
merrily
(45,251 posts)But, don't be flattered. The ones who I think are, are not necessarily great writers or great thinkers, IMO. Persistent, yes. Great, not necessarily. You are head and shoulders about some I suspect.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Running his Reaganomics and trickle down. Since you stated she can speak the language in both the GOP and DNC since she was in both parties, Hillary was raised in a conservative GOP family also but changed over many years ago. In Hillary's time as Senator she not only spoke the language but reached across the aisle to work with GOP Congressional members. Hillary has fought for civil rights and against violence against women, for equal pay for women and for raising the minimum wage. I am not trying to knock Elizabeth Warren off but they are on equal footing in some areas.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Do you think that Hillary Clinton would do something about these wrongs? Like appoint someone as Attorney General who would properly attend to justice?
I suspect that she would and could not because she would have to offend her friends and the friends of Bill to do it. I'm interested in your opinion.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)No. 35. I think Octafish posted it. It's about the terrible corruption and upside-down justice system in D.C. and the country. Someone needs to get priorities straight. I just can't picture Hillary doing that. Most of the people who would do it probably could not win. Warren could. Win and appoint an attorney general and others who would enforce the laws.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)I understand this is a big issue with you, I don't like bankers and those in the investment industry running corrupt schemes, whether there is a specific law on the scheme or not, doesn't build trust.
There are more trust issues and schemes occurring which hurts the USA and I have not heard either of these two candidates address so until it happens we do not need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
So far specific issues has not been addressed and until they are you don't know where either Hillary or Elizabeth is going. I wonder why the bashing is not left to the GOP and Democrats needs to work very hard to get Democrats elected into federal and state levels in which our Democrat president will be able to work with because we are living the nightmare of a totally opposed House and nothing we consider important is accomplished.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)She may even be more diligent on many issues than other candidates.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)She is doing something correctly which compares wealthily to the average person.
But compare her to a Hillary. So she might still have a clue!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Hillary has been voting in the right direction and is aware of wage disparity between executives and other employees.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm
quinnox
(20,600 posts)But I think her apparent reluctance to run for president is maybe a seniority thing, being that Hillary is the elder woman, has "paid her dues" and is well respected, it might be something just that simple.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)to use a religious term for every job she has had. Called either by fate, her inner voice or by her country. She is not overly ambitious from what I can tell. She is driven by her purpose, by her belief in doing what is right. If you listen to her speeches, you hear that in her voice and in the words she speaks.
ancianita
(35,951 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I never worked for money in politics, but I have volunteered for many campaigns.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Americans want their president to have a Big Dick. Figuratively, of course.
Michigander_Life
(549 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)has a dick, big or not. I don't want my President to be a prick either. We've had some of those and where does it seem to have gotten us? Maybe Ms. Warren could wear a flight suit and land on a carrier, would that make you happy?
Sissyk
(12,665 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Sun Jun 29, 2014, 11:07 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
"Not haughty or arrogant or overly sure of herself." Is this for POTUS or Miss Congeniality?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5168305
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Sexist comments are OK now if they're "figuratively" made? Come on.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 29, 2014, 11:13 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think the person who alerted on this is misunderstanding the commenters intent.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No, I agree. Sexist comment is sexist comment. Hide.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Sad. Can do better.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Cannot reply to automated messages
Alert abuse Delete this DU Mail
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I don't think so. Don't you think that a feminine woman could be president?
That's called sexism in my book. You're one of my favorite DUers, but i am really shocked.
To women that kind of statement hurts like an equivalent racist statement would hurt a person of color.
I think Americans are ready to see a real woman, a woman who is no mpre afraid to talk about her baking expertise than she is to talk about her legal and economic expertise as their president. It would be wonderful.
I hope you didn't mean your post seriously. I hope I just misunderstood you.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)That means the Killing Fields didn't really bother him, but he saw red at the thought of his favorite movie star being on an Enemies List.
The "average American" cared more about 5000 lost US lives in Iraq than the millions of lost Iraqi lives. The average American cheers when we drop bombs on brown folks in other countries---but loses it if he or she has to do without cable for a few hours.
Sorry, but the "average American" likes having a president who is John Wayne in the foreign policy department. That was why ABC's "America Held Hostage" anti-Carter campaign was so successful. I didn't create America. I am just describing what I see. Middle of the road America wants to be sure that the person with his or her finger on the red button will not hesitate to blow some third world country to hell.
So yeah, the "average American" wants its president to embody a lot of traits that are typically considered to be those of the warrior--and she can be an Amazon. Meaning the president can be a "dick" or "lacking a breast"--whichever does not offend one's feminist sensibilities.
Read Noam Chomsky "Watergate: A Skeptical OPinion". This man understands the American electorate.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19730920.htm
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Brain-dead swaggerers need not apply.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)foreign policy experience. It's never been done, but I am not aware of any reason or law that would prohibit a President Elizabeth Warren from appointing a former President Barack Obama as Secretary of State if he would accept the job. Obama has been pretty good at maneuvering in diplomatic circles. And then there are other possible candidates for vice president and the State Department who have the needed expertise. If you read Elizabeth Warren's book A Fighting Chance, she demonstrates amazing common sense and realism in her life. She would do that in the White House, and that is what we need.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)Even though she has no Eleanor. Wish I could vote for her.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Warren has earned street cred with the populace like no candidate I can remember, but then I'm only 65 years old.
As a Presidential candidate she will draw votes from across the spectrum, including from voters who have been taught to hate Hillary Clinton since 1988. I believe that she not only gives us our best chance to hold the Oval Office in 2016, but that her policies will have a positive impact on our nation like no other candidate I've seen.
Yes, she used to be a Republican. So was I at one time. And yes, there's still a few holes in her resume, but those don't bother me nearly as much as the filled-in parts of some other resumes.
Bottom line: The values she's espoused, and the genuine and earnest concern she's shown for the People, trump any other potential candidate that I've heard of.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Your posts are always great to read.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)Thank you! I'm going through Greenwald's book right now..she's next on the list.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Many of those in Democratic leadership roles act as though they ARE Republicans (Present tense.)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Jasana
(490 posts)I would like to know more about her ideas of foreign policy. I'm making a prediction that any woman running for the whitehouse will be attacked for being weak if she is not a hawk.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I AGREE!!!
relayerbob
(6,537 posts)Just won't happen, they can't get the support or the numbers. Period. These discussions over millionaires running for President is just a waste of energy.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)She has the gift of communicating with the 99%, which HC lacks somewhat imho. The country is sick and tired of wars anyway. The general opinion I hear is "let those countries figure out their own future". The fact that EW's name is now well known and the appreciation she finds on this forum speaks for her efforts as well as her effectiveness. She had not been given the chance to speak at the nomination convention as PBO was. Yet a lot of people like her already. Yes, by all means let another intelligent professor run!