simply because so many Americans have a classically conditioned visceral response to the word "socialist." 80 years of Pavlovian training cannot be easily overcome.

As for Warren, I seriously think she would have a chance. Two years is an eternity in American politics. She lacks name recognition at this moment, but is getting around and being seen as she campaigns for other Congressional candidates. She's a team player; I don't think she'll run against Hillary, barring some unusual events in the next couple of years. However, if Hillary stays out, I think Liz could make a credible run.

Sorry. Her ship has sailed.

BTW, "Bernie" will be 75 and still Jewish.

I admit I have the same problem.

And I'm fully aware of Bernie's age. I didn't mention it here, but I have cited it myself as a significant barrier to his running.

I'm likely to be just as indifferent no matter who's chosen as the nominee.

BTW, it's the fickle Warren supporters who've branded her, not me. Not surprising, either. Ditto Sanders - but that cult is more fully entrenched. They'll come around... the wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round...

What makes you think I give a shit, one way or the other?

made it a point to say that Sanders is Jewish (what does that have to do with it?)

So, you do give a shit. But you got a response you were not expecting and now you don't want to play.

You original comment:

You mean Elizabeth "Bibi" Warren?

Sorry. Her ship has sailed.

BTW, "Bernie" will be 75 and still Jewish

I avoid internecine party politics, leaving that up to the True Believers.

My comment was reflective of Realpolitik. A 75-year-old Jew, especially a self-declared Socialist, hasn't a penny's worth of winning a national race in this country. It's laughable to think he does, but this forum is is quite the chucklefest, so there's that.

"Bibi" Warren, FTR, is a descriptor for the Puritanicals who've shunned her. But, then, I've already said that, haven't I?

We know how that turned out.

But I will grant you your point. My point is we need a certain type of person, old and Jewish - or not. We certainly do not need another Wall Street lackey who supports contrived wars.

With current campaign finance rules and media environment, they know it would be political suicide not only as a politician in many cases, but would certainly present the corporate media with a permanent distraction issue to doom them of any chance in an election.

Warren bends a lot of rules to take Wall Street to task on many issues that other pols won't touch because she has the background to tackle them, and it is likely a bipartisan issue for the electorate to support over the 1%'s view that they push on to politicians through campaign corruption ('er finance) laws today.

Were she get to elected, I think she might surprise a lot of people in taking more even handed stances on the Israel/Gaza situation, once in office and in a position where she could make changes already that noticeably helps the electorate. AIPAC and their friends might be more on the defensive then.

single issue president. She knows where she is going, she knows her value is in the Senate, I don't understand why so many does not like her work as a Senator.

Taking on Corporate America in so many different ways I don't think is necessarily a "single issue". If it is, then I think it IS a "single issue" that a progressive candidate can run on and win, since so many "pieces" of that "single" issue (student loan debt, mortgage manipulation, etc.) are what Americans in general and not just Democrats support, even if the financiers of our elections don't.

I want her to run for president so that she can win another position of power for progressives, and if she takes my state's senator Merkley as her running mate, then so be it as well. If we want to grow progressivism in our government, we need to not "confine" those that have gotten to strong positions to say they can't advance any further. If she and Merkley were to advance to the Senate, it would give a chance for two younger progressives to take their places in areas that they would succeed in getting elected, and build more experience for us gaining ground in the future. It is the corporatists that want to "keep them in their place" so that we can't build out a longer list of progressive politicians to build more power within caucuses like the Progressive caucus and in other areas of the government.

The younger generation wants to be heard more and has more progressive stances on many things. If our party doesn't take more progressive stances on things like domestic spying, military adventurism overseas, taking on Wall Street, ending pot "prohibition", they might be snookered in to voting for someone like Rand Paul, who selectively might want to offer them support for one or more of those issues that we don't, not realizing the screwed up total package he would bring us all. A progressive voice as our nominee would make it very hard for someone like Paul to make a dent in the next election's non-Republican electorate.

stand on the issues. She says she is not going to run, are you doubting her ability to make a decision?

I'm only hearing that she "currently is not running". I think if she wants to run that is SMART! Why be an early target for those PILES of Koch and other corporate infested money to go after her now, and screw her also as a Senator.

You aren't answering the question on labeling her as a "single issue" candidate. She is not! She is stronger on corporate and Wall Street issueS, and as I said before if you are lumping those as ONE issue, then that is single issue that a Democratic candidate can run on in 2016 and WIN, even if corporate America hates that potential outcome and would rather perpetuate the pseudo-hate of HRC that tries to get out votes for personality partisans of both parties and have HRC or a Republican as a corporate friendly president elect.

Warren strong on corporations, have not seen you list her on other issues.

Corporate bribery of our system, which many Democrats seem to like as well which I don't really understand if they want to do that and call themselves bribery, is a problem for just about every DIFFERENT issue that faces us today!

Trying to rationalize being concerned out corporate influence as a "single" issue is echoing the corporate propaganda trying to minimize the fundamental parts of every other issue we deal with today.

She's lead on trying to reform rules on student debt, which IS a different issue than foreclosures and housing issue problems, but both are affected by corporate corruption of our system. Warren has been a leader on THIS issue as well.

they are both from the northeast. Either would need a southern balance for VP like one of the Castros or a Udall, Mark Pryor, or John Lewis.more names: Evan Bayh of Indiana, the gov of Montana (cant remember name), Barbara Lee, Claire McCaskell.

It provide both eastern and western U.S. representation on the ticket, and a woman at the head of the ticket which I think important to get more women voters too.



Also, by having a white woman like Warren running against the "inevitable" Ms. Clinton in the primaries, it would be harder for each side to play "identity politics" to both solicit votes as well as be a more focal point on evaluating the candidates. Instead of each having different races or each having a different gender and creating that divide like we had last election, a debate between Warren and Clinton would have to focus more on issue stances, as the "identity politics" diversionary strategies that the corporate media loves to focus on won't work with that matchup like they might have with any other candidate that might be a contender with HRC for the nomination. Kind of like it is harder to dismiss many Israeli and Jewish dissenters and supporter of more peaceful Middle east solutions as "anti-semitic" for criticizing the Netanyahu government's actions.

I've heard talk that "a challenger to Hillary in the primary will destroy her and leave her exhausted and the GOPPER will win; just crown her."
I disagree and as you say the issues need to be uncovered and debated.
Remember Dole was coronated in '96. Everyone thought he would beat Clinton easily and look what happened.
I like Merkley - he may be a sleeper.

-Laelth

And I'll even admit to a little of that. I don't think it's wise for people who are over 75 to take on a job that's as stressful and as physically taxing as being President. Of course, I love the way Senator Sanders votes, and it's completely his decision to either run or not, but I doubt that he will run, and, if he does run, I doubt that he will really try to win the nomination.

Besides which, we want to win in 2016, and if you think Senator Sanders' age is an issue for someone like me, just imagine how much of an issue his age might be for the voting population of the United States as a whole.

That said, I'll happily eat crow and dance with glee if he runs and wins.

-Laelth

could step up if needed; Warren would be such a person.

The chances of losing both is probably quite low.

Plus, I think we need a woman on the ticket if not at the top of the ticket. The Democratic Party needs to continue to show that it's the party of all the people.

-Laelth

Warren in a position of power would be very attractive on the ticket. If she were a VP selection though, I think for Sanders she would be the best option, were he to somehow win the nomination, since with other male politicians as the nominee that aren't quite as progressive as she is, she might be looked on as a "pseudo first lady" pick, which might work against turning out the woman vote.

I think her as the nominee with a VP selection that works with her well, and perhaps could regionally help her in an election, or fill out some of the skill sets like foreign policy that perhaps she isn't as experienced in herself. Someone like Senator Merkley would be someone she's worked well with, but congressman Alan Grayson I think would complement her well with his experience in foreign policy issues (like exposing the "lost money" in Iraq that he helped do before running for Congress) and perhaps bring out the progressive Florida vote too. Though someone else with more foreign policy experience that is seen as more of a "diplomat" might also be strong, in case some of Grayson's past comments might seem a little undiplomatic on occasion. But his age would make him a good presidential candidate after someone like Warren were to leave office too. I'd like someone young and progressive as our VP selection this coming election. Perhaps someone strong on climate change issues too, since those will be probably really needed in the coming years too, and be affecting more people if not in 2016, most certainly in the presidential terms after that.

I usually vote for Democrats but have no problem voting for 3rd Party or write-in if the Democratic is someone like Hillary.

I'm Democrat but I haven't signed any oaths to vote for 3rd Way, neo-lib, politicians because they have a (D) after their name.

Florida. Nader. A third party vote is a gift to the GOP.

It's up the candidate to attract the voters. Gore failed to attract the votes of those that voted for Nader. He also failed to attract enough of the "moderate" votes that he ran his campaign to attract by ignoring the Left.

ended up with Bush/Cheney in the White House. We just don't need another GOP nightmare team.

I understand your position, Tierra, but it's the results that count.

The problem, as I see it, is that, as usual, politicians like to play it safe. That is, "safe" as they see it. Hillary, at her best, offers more of the same. The voters in this country are very uncomfortable with the status quo and see elections as a contest between ambitious politicians who are first and foremost..politicians whose overriding concern is to get elected and then retain their seats at whatever cost. I find Hillary, and many others from both parties, prime examples of that.

I'm willing to hold my nose to a certain extent but Hillary and the 3rd Way exceed the limit. Voting for someone who votes to kill people and supports the killers is beyond my nose holding capabilities.

deregulation, Imperial military adventures, fracking, drilling, disorganized ion of labor, education deform, stupid and failed drug war, cutting of the safety net, clandestine meddling and destabilization around the world, to foster more fundamentalist radicals, corporate dominance of society, more erosion of civilian control of forces, loss of sovereignty and consequently effectiveness of the ballot, more merger of state and corporation, destruction and/or sale of the water supply, "bipartisanship" to screw the people, more empowerment and militarizing of the police, or any of the rest of the devastating shit that the Turd Way and the radical regressives agree on and have worked in concert to bring us for fucking decades.

Not losing starts with not being assimilated and not surrendering.

And by doing so they'll win the nomination and go on to win the general.

Because there are so many more votes (more than half of the electorate) to the left of the left.

The party, or at least some in the party, cling to the notion that the Left is unimportant and can be safely ignored. Then, when they lose elections, they blame the left. As in 2000.

For that, they have to get some votes from the moderates in the middle.

Nader is to blame for aiming his campaign efforts at the swing states, where he was well aware that his participation could toss the election to Bush. He was on a power trip and wanted to show the Dems that they had to knuckle under to him, no matter what that did to the country.

He didn't. They went to Nader who did appeal to them.

Gore decided that the votes of the moderates were more important and appealed to them. He sacrificed the votes of the left in order to get the votes of the moderates and he didn't get enough of them.

That's showbiz..er..politics.

Now, the man on the stand he wants my vote,
He's a-runnin' for office on the ballot note.
He's out there preachin' in front of the steeple,
Tellin' me he loves all kinds-a people.
(He's eatin' bagels
He's eatin' pizza
He's eatin' chitlins
He's eatin' bullshit!)

Bob Dylan

As it was, Gore had enough votes to win the state -- just not enough to overcome the Rethug cheating.

Why not the "moderates" who didn't vote for Gore even though he sought their votes more than the lefts?

knowing that that increased the chances for the most conservative candidate.

That have forced many TRADITIONAL FDR Democrats to look to a third party for a voice and felt they needed to vote for a third party to get that voice instead of the Dem nominee. If they prioritized many real traditional progressive values and Clinton had vetoed the Telecomm bill, NAFTA, and Glass Stiegel, I think many of these Dems wouldn't have felt the need to vote for Nader to be heard by our party.

... and perhaps run for the Democratic Party nomination.

With today's campaign finance rules, you can only win within one of the two parties, the way the Tea Party is trying to take over the Republican Party now. I don't "blame Nader" for wanting to provide another voice towards the corporatist takeover of both parties, and he's done so many other things in his life that this country should be more thankful for. I blame the system he's tried to get those voices heard unsuccessfully, and for him not being more of a single issue candidate to try and push Gore and the Democrats to support instant runoff voting or similar change of rules that would allow third party voices to be heard more and have better chances of winning and at the same time not be only demonized as "spoilers" for their efforts. With Instant Runoff Voting, Gore would have probably had a big enough lead in Florida to not allow the gerrymandering that took his majority vote away from him then, and Nader would have had enough votes for the Greens to show that he represented a lot of people that have been frustrated in not having a sufficient progressive voice of leadership then too.

I did vote for Gore, which made no difference, as I live in Washington. I kinda liked Al and a lot of what he stands for.

Hillary, however, has supplied too many deal breakers to get my vote.

I have been a die hard Democrat from day one, and Bernie Sanders is far more Democrat than most of the people we now have representing us and claiming to be Dems. He has my full support. DINOs and corporate loving candidates get none from me.

Can we find someone that can stand up to Wall Street, the Big Banks, and the Military Industrial Complex? If they cannot do that, it doesn't make a whole of difference who we elect, in my humble opinion.

will prove broadly worthless.

Smoothing the roughest edges a little still leaves the same rock.

people in different positions. You can elect whoever to the presidency, to get their agenda passed there has to be support in Congress. We are only as strong as our weakest link, right now that link is Congress. Do you think her work in the Senate is not important?

Yes, you need strength in BOTH the congress and with the president. If you give up on getting more progressivism in the president, then you've already lost the battle. Elizabeth Warren is just one 100th of the Senate, as good a leader as she is. And as I note, her moving on would give us also a shot in getting some other progressive more experience for future political positions like a president's staff or even president some day too to replace her. We can't just say we want to keep those progressives "stuck" where they are. That's a losers' strategy in my book, if you are truly a progressive.

I'm not saying that she is or isn't running, but it is more up to many of us to be heard in our desires for her to run that will likely also be a factor if she decides to. Therefore, I'm not going to just go to a corner and "accept it" just because those who want the "inevitable" of what our party preselects for us say she isn't.

Others seem to be the ones to push her as being "inevitable" at NOT running. WE DON'T KNOW what's going to happen, but we can keep getting together to speak loudly for what we want to happen. That's all I'm doing, and I don't want to be told NOT to just because someone else with some sense of omniscient knowledge says I shouldn't.

HRC has a stronger stand on corporate issues than EW has.

Sheesh!

Why don't you back up which issues you think HRC is stronger here to provide explain your logic which you want to only provide your conclusion on here?

Hillary on corporations

Take back $55B in Bush’s industry give-aways. (Apr 2008)
•FactCheck: Pushed Wal-Mart for women managers & environment. (Jan 2008)
•World Bank should impose rules on sovereign wealth funds. (Jan 2008)
•Bush defanged the Consumer Product Safety Commission. (Dec 2007)
•FactCheck: Yes, Bush shrunk CPSC; but it shrank before Bush. (Dec 2007)
•Outraged at CEO compensation. (Oct 2007)
•Stop bankruptcies to get rid of pension responsibilities. (Aug 2007)
•Enough with corporate welfare; enough with golden parachutes. (Jun 2007)
•Close lobbyists’ revolving door; end no-bid contracts. (Jun 2007)
•1976 Rose Law: Fought for industry against electric rate cut. (Jun 2007)
•Corporate lawyer at Rose Law while Bill was Attorney General. (Jun 2007)
•Corporate elite treat working-class America as invisible. (Apr 2007)
•Companies get rewarded with hard-working people left hanging. (Mar 2007)
•1980s: Loved Wal-Mart's "Buy America" program. (Jun 2004)
•1970s: Potential conflict of interest when GM sued Arkansas. (Nov 1997)
•Businesses play social role in US; gov’t oversight required. (Sep 1996)
•Family-friendly work policies are good for business. (Sep 1996)
•Angry at unacceptable acquiescence to greed in the 1980s. (Jun 1994)
•Serving on boards provides ties but requires defending too. (Aug 1993)
•Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
•Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
•Rated 35% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)


Warren in corporations

FactCheck: Insurers should pay victims, plus future immunity. (Sep 2012)
•People feel like the system is rigged, because it is. (Sep 2012)
•Rebuild the middle class instead of CEO tax breaks. (Dec 2011)
•Same rules for trillion-dollar institutions as rest of us. (Nov 2011)
•Bankruptcies result from mishaps, not from gaming the system. (Sep 2011)
•Plenty of people look out for billion dollar corporations. (Sep 2011)
•Small businesses need a level playing field. (Sep 2011)
•New regulatory regime to protect financial consumers. (Oct 2010)
•Scourge of the banking industry, on behalf of consumers. (May 2010)
•Apply consumer protection rules to banks. (Jul 2007


While Hillary was on Walmart board she was an advocate for buy America, do you hear about Walmart on the Buy America anymore? She also advocated women getting promotions while on their board.

Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren/Bernie Sanders

Works for me.

Would others vote for either of those tickets?

And I'm still registered to vote (haven't given up yet).

Let's try it and find out.

No harm in trying, is there?

If we try there is a chance they would win.

If we don't try then there is no chance they would win.

Senate to the VP and would have less power to make changes.

Here are some names that are being tossed around:

Joe Biden (of course, but I don't think he'll get the nod)
Corey Booker (Lots of name recognition)
Julian Castro or Antonio Villaraigosa (Former LA Mayor) if Dems are serious about courting the Latino vote
Howard Dean
Joe Manchin
Jim Webb

I think Warren might make it to Veep if a more establishment Dem (I know, I know) were at the top of the ticket.

Biden/Warren? Don't think they'll give it to Biden.

Webb/Warren? This might actually work. The head of the ticket needs to look tough with foreign policy and Webb has that kind of gravitas and experience. Warren is really good with economics and would be a real, working Vice President (unlike most).

I think Warren would both have more power on domestic issues which she is especially strong on by heading the tickets, and I think being a VP and not having the power of the president and being expected to be more of an international diplomat which I think would use her skills less than the Senate would. Now if she were younger, I might think differently in that being VP would put in her a good position to be president later. Now, at her age, if we have a successful two term president elected, I think she would probably be too old to run for president after those two terms, and therefore as opposed to VP I think she's better providing leadership in the Senate now if she doesn't head the ticket. Sanders probably has the same issue as VP too. For VP we need a good complementary candidate that would work well with either Warren or Sanders, is younger, and perhaps has some foreign policy experience too in addition to reasonably good progressive credentials.

I also think that many problems that need immediate progressive leadership (our economy and especially climate change issues) now demand that someone like Warren or Sanders head the ticket if they run rather than being VP. Being VP provides some security I guess if the president gets assassinated or for some other reason has to leave office, but I'd like to think that won't happen. The bottom line is that we need a strong electable president to head the ticket in 2016, not later at this point and time.

And if it weren't for ISIS/ISIL, I might agree. I just think that if this terror in the ME continues, the perception of having more foreign policy experience might be a deal breaker. This is where Hillary, as problematic as she is, comes in. There is no doubt of her foreign policy experience, although you might disagree with how she handled things. Of course, she was working for Obama and the policies were, no doubt, his.

I'd love Warren to run, but I don't think she's going to break the promise she made to her constituents.

I've been saying the same thing. Not seeing much support for that idea. But things changed.

Stranger things have happened. Maybe it would work.

Elizabeth Warren is the star of the ticket. And, it's obvious that the time has arrived for a woman president. It will be the corporate candidate, or the people's candidate. I can't imagine very many of the current Democrats having the persuasive power and moral authority to hold their own in the face of demagoguery, scare tactics, and a growing blame Obama lobby. A Warren/Sanders ticket has that potential. A Hillary/anyone ticket does not.

<http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/11/03/warrensanders-populist-dream-team-ticket-2016>