Shouldn't that read 99%? Why give anything to the 1%? They've had it all for so long.

Last edited Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:35 PM - Edit history (1)

She may just lack enthusiasm for putting their agenda ahead of that of the 99%.

I will add, I'd like her to run, but I can make the case either way. It brings attention to her issues to not slam the door completely shut (and regardless of what some keep screaming, the words she has been using have left that crack there, and she knows it- has been pressed on it in kidding and not-so-kidding ways)

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]It may also be that Warren feels she can actually accomplish more in her area of expertise as a Senator or Cabinet appointee.

Any liberal-leaning President has so much more to worry about than one area of concern that efforts inevitably become diluted, especially dealing with the relentless obstruction/opposition by industry insiders and their minions, the TeaGOPers.

As others have said, though, keeping that door ajar now gives her voice greater range and gravitas.

right about that. I think most of the modern"progressive Dem" presidents found that they were more shackled by the inner realm of the CIA and whatever other secret cabal lies under the surface in the Oval Office. I think Sen. Warren is well aware of her power in the place she now holds. She's an economist and is probably the best thing to happen in the Senate in decades on that front. If she takes the Oval Office, she may be thwarted in her endeavors. And I think she knows all too well how quickly her intentions can be subverted at that end of Penn. Ave.

If she gets the nomination by changing her mind, I'll vote for her.

Just sayin'....

She is knowledgeable and outspoken on Financial regulation issues and knows how Wall Street gets its way but before people think of her as Presidential candidate she will have to also speak out on Police on Black violence, CIA and Dept. of Defense torture and immigration. Her stand on these will dilute her strength on what she knows about. I say you are right that she is doing exactly as she should at this point in the 2016 race.

Know one knows what might happen to derail Hillary's bid during the next year or so. I support my Senator Warren regardless of her decision about running.

So far all I've seen her campaign for is to be Secretary of the Treasury.

She really does need to visit all the issues, not just Wall Street.

she probably has views and some hopeful ideas about other issues but she's one who sticks to the task at hand. She went to DC to get something specific done and is just starting to gain some steam. She's obviously chosen to be an outsider in electoral politics but I also think she'd be a good treas. sec.. I was thinking that concept out yesterday and I came out of the session thinking that she would be most effective in that Cabinet position if some other Dem is put in the White-house.

I like both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

We need to shake things up a bit.

The other choices that are out there are just awful From Hillary to Jeb and every cook in between. It's a horrible array of losers with the exceptions of Sanders and Warren as far as I am concerned.

That is not how presidential campaigns run. The first primaries are 13 months from now and filing deadlines are less than a year from now for many of the primaries. It is an enormous task to run for President. Tens of millions of dollars must be raised quickly, just to get started, and staff needs to be hired. Anyone running for President needs to start right within the next couple months. Clinton can wait a little longer because she has done it before and has a ready made list of funders and supporters.

money. They will run based on strictly grass-roots volunteers. It may be possible to do that now. People are very fed up with the graft and corruption in D.C.

money isnt the solution.

You tell me how a message gets out to the voters. Oh, I know that old vague "ground support".

because that is surely the only thing worth buying.
now, assuming that is the lynchpin of the ever escalating requirement for $,
in an ENTIRELY electronically connected world, really, do they deserve to be a part of the process?
the party has a slight hiccup itself when it comes to deviant opinions.
Im pretty sure you are willing to overlook issues I cannot.

money is not the solution.
if it were, we would surely have votes aplenty instead of no turnout to speak about.

If Liz is going to run, we'll know within 3-6 months.

And he had been hiring staff and making plans months before that.

He was consulting with Barack in 2006, I was working in a Congressional race, tried to get Mark to help out, but he was busy. Wasnt til late 2007 he explained why.

She has hit a nerve. Whoever the Democratic nominee is in 2016, he or she will not be able to ignore her or her supporters. That will continue after the election. The winner, whether Republican or Democrat, will have to deal with us. I am hoping that her movement is just getting started.

he had a machine going already at this point in time.

HRC's people are in the final stages of shaking out who gets what on the upcoming campaign. The good news for Warren fans is all of the incompetents she had on the last campaign in key positions will be back, but I image after their total collapses in the caucus states last time they won't be routed by the same maneuver again which is only going to make her money advantage more formidable. (By comparison in the last election her internals had every caucus delegate going to her and no one else getting any, which of course left the door wide open for Obama.)

It is this machine that in many cases has made those who run more answerable to corruption money than to the people.

Warren or Sanders will have a different "machine" that will need to mobilize in quite a different way than the traditional (at least in recent years "traditional&quot way of launching such campaigns. If they do their campaign too "traditionally" then people will rightly be concerned if their campaign is genuinely trying to change the system that they are speaking out against.

Just because they aren't following all of the "rules" that others have followed, doesn't mean that they are or aren't running. There will be a different machine that needs mobilization. A lot depends on US as people who support them to build that machine, not things like Wall Street money. It will also depend on how we can build a "machine" that works around the traditional corporate media to get their message out to the average voter, which is also aligned with the corrupt establishment.

I think the most we can say at this point is that "WE DON'T KNOW!" what kind of campaign they might have. And at this stage, that is probably appropriate, because if it was simple and exposed, the corruption money would be spending a lot of cash now to more effectively shut it down at the start. I like the nebulousness now, as it makes it hard to shut down the people's voices supporting them!

I mean NEXT NOVEMBER late.

She already has the name recognition, and she has the idealistic followers who will go to work for her. She should be able to create the necessary campaign framework with a limited time frame.

It may be a long wait for her supporters, but eventually I think they will get their wish.

four years from now will be nothing, NOTHING
like right now. forget about eight years.
If she is distinctly different from the Wall St and Bankster enablers and co-conspirators,
she certainly has had a remarkable rise to prominence.
Her campaign has been flawless.
The last running field was almost entirely composed of subsequent administration officials.
sounds rather homogenous in retrospect, doesnt it?

choices are not for our like to make.

your world starts to get cold. You need to stir up the ashes, so the hot coals can get some oxygen, in order to revive that political flame too. Then pile on some fuel.

November's election proved that the democratic flame is losing it's oxygen. The spark is still there, but the ashes of inept, crooked and dirty politics in Washington has snuffed out the will to get out and vote. The democrats need to offer things that don't make us look ANYTHING at all like the GOP anymore. Someone who is trying to do things differently. I think something like a Warren/Grayson ticket might do the trick to revive the democratic flame in the hearts and minds of the American people. America is tired of fake, one sided "bipartisanship" with political terrorists and their blue dog corporate Dinos, either winning or watering down everything, for their big dollar donors.

When all that running it up the middle gets us, is a bloody nose, maybe we need to run it Wide Left for a welcome change?

I know I'd turn out for that anytime, but then I always do turn out.

Sorry, she gave lip service. We all know it takes one Senator to stop a bill...so spare me the talk Senators. You disappointed all Democrats...either cowardly or on the take. I am very sad today.