Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
68 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Mr. Russert: So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008? Sen. Obama: I will not. (Original Post) Faryn Balyncd Dec 2014 OP
What are you trying to say, you just know Warren is going to change her mind also? Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #1
nope. Faryn Balyncd Dec 2014 #3
Look, I don't care if you get all hot and bothered QuestionAlways Dec 2014 #42
Agree. Faryn Balyncd Dec 2014 #43
It's more about holding out a false hope to get people all excited (and divided in yet another MADem Dec 2014 #29
If you were against dividing people Union Scribe Dec 2014 #54
I'll do that when they stop infantalizing an adult Senator from my state, treating her like a MADem Dec 2014 #55
So that's a no Union Scribe Dec 2014 #57
So that's a so. OilemFirchen Dec 2014 #59
So you endorse the enfantalizing? MADem Dec 2014 #62
I disagree with that characterization Union Scribe Dec 2014 #63
Well, I disagree with your characterizations, so we're even, then, eh? MADem Dec 2014 #64
WTF? Union Scribe Dec 2014 #66
It's not an unhinged thing to say at all--it's a political calculation. Why do you make everything MADem Dec 2014 #67
Zing! n/t benz380 Dec 2014 #2
:) Dawgs Dec 2014 #4
Seems to me the irrational folks are the ones who never let a day go by without posting djean111 Dec 2014 #5
I like it when they say she's already endorsed Clinton Capt. Obvious Dec 2014 #6
Liz hasn't officially endorsed anyone because nobody is officially running, yet. Odin2005 Dec 2014 #14
But Warren signed a letter or something!!1 HappyMe Dec 2014 #16
It's a done deal Capt. Obvious Dec 2014 #18
Her speaking slot will be her nomination acceptance speech. Odin2005 Dec 2014 #20
Liz doesn't need a speaking slot at the convention. She's the head Autumn Dec 2014 #22
True Capt. Obvious Dec 2014 #24
No longer a lion in the Senate. We have a Lioness in the Senate. Autumn Dec 2014 #25
Lioness! Yes! Voice for Peace Dec 2014 #37
.... MADem Dec 2014 #32
No, she's not. MADem Dec 2014 #31
Iremember who it was and yes I agree he just may be VP. Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #34
Agreed. I have never seen such an obsession with trying to turn a declarative sentence in ... Faryn Balyncd Dec 2014 #10
that's a really interesting spelling. Voice for Peace Dec 2014 #38
!!! very interesting !!! Faryn Balyncd Dec 2014 #68
There's an oldie but a goodie. Liz isn't running, neither was Obama. Obama did run Autumn Dec 2014 #7
Obama and Warren are politicians. NCTraveler Dec 2014 #8
Blasphemer !!! JoePhilly Dec 2014 #53
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #9
It's the "say no three times before taking the crown" thing. Odin2005 Dec 2014 #11
What does it mean when you say "no" dozens of times, and have your lawyer write letters to the MADem Dec 2014 #33
Whoa.. "..Senator Warren has publicly announced she is not running for President in 2016.. " Cha Dec 2014 #48
She also told MoveOn.Org to take a hike, but they're ignoring that, too. MADem Dec 2014 #49
They should write her a letter and ask her themselves.. or get someone from Mass to ask her.. Cha Dec 2014 #50
They're going to have a "poll" to gauge "support." As others have pointed out, if they want MADem Dec 2014 #51
zing!... SidDithers Dec 2014 #56
Asked in 2006 about the 2008 election. Do folks really take such answers seriously? stone space Dec 2014 #12
Some do take it serious, but IMO they are scared of her running. It might upset their Autumn Dec 2014 #15
The temptation to feign seriousness may be great. stone space Dec 2014 #17
Gore: "I don't have plans to be a candidate again" NYC Liberal Dec 2014 #13
Someone or many here is or are eating it now. LMFAO L0oniX Dec 2014 #19
POINT 1: 2 years before campaigning started... brooklynite Dec 2014 #21
nope. Faryn Balyncd Dec 2014 #27
Ah, yes.... "THEY." MADem Dec 2014 #35
Obama also had grassroots supporters around the country JI7 Dec 2014 #45
Not for nothing is Howard Dean a Hillary Clinton fan. MADem Dec 2014 #46
So, Vinca, you will never eat chocolate again because you're a fatso? Vinca: No, I will not. Vinca Dec 2014 #23
Another lie, perhaps? Or, the money from Wall Street was just too good to pass up??? blkmusclmachine Dec 2014 #26
And he almost lost by waiting so long. Is that the point you are trying to make? nt stevenleser Dec 2014 #28
The point . . . Faryn Balyncd Dec 2014 #40
It's not "way too early." She hasn't met with a soul at the state level. MADem Dec 2014 #47
"that makes her a LIAR, and she is NOT one of those" OilemFirchen Dec 2014 #58
All we have to do step back and look at the big BIG picture and we can see what's up. MADem Dec 2014 #61
Message jalan48 Dec 2014 #30
By the 2006 midterm the Obama machine was geared up and running. Exultant Democracy Dec 2014 #36
If she really is not intending or wanting to run this time, Voice for Peace Dec 2014 #39
Whether she runs or not, LondonReign2 Dec 2014 #41
And by December of 2006, he was speaking at events in New Hampshire MohRokTah Dec 2014 #44
The search for the new Messiah is amusing. JoePhilly Dec 2014 #52
They all say no. The timing of when they say yes I'm running is all very well orchestrated. liberal_at_heart Dec 2014 #60
And 2 years later, Obama had him killed... SidDithers Dec 2014 #65

Faryn Balyncd

(5,125 posts)
3. nope.
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 12:51 PM
Dec 2014


I don't know the future.


Why is it, though, that some are so insistent on claiming that Sen. Warren's present tense statement (that she is not running for president) is a statement, written in stone, about the future?











 

QuestionAlways

(259 posts)
42. Look, I don't care if you get all hot and bothered
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 03:48 PM
Dec 2014

to get Liz Warren into the Presidential race. In fact, from a marketing point of view, I want an interesting primary, and debate season so that the repubs don't get all the attention. But remember the first rule is, do no harm to our ultimate candidate. We do not need or want a repub in the White House to make appointments to the SC.

Faryn Balyncd

(5,125 posts)
43. Agree.
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 04:43 PM
Dec 2014


(although it would appear that the "hot and bothered" description might be more applicable to those who seem so anxious to silence support of Sen. Warren and for her positions. This is unfortunate, since she articulates positions that are essential to dealing with the problems we face, and essential to reaching across party lines and to those disillusioned with politics as usual.)

I am prepared to work my rear off for the Democratic candidate in 2016 (the alternatives are disastrous).

It would appear that the greatest harm that could occur would be for the positions articulated by Sen. Warren to not be the positions, in word and in deed, of our 2016 candidate.



Thanks for your comments.

















MADem

(135,425 posts)
29. It's more about holding out a false hope to get people all excited (and divided in yet another
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:52 PM
Dec 2014

direction) for no good reason. Keep 'em scattered, chasing rainbows, and maybe they'll get distracted and demoralized....yeah, that's the ticket!

EW has told both Ready For Warren AND MoveOn.org to push off.

If she wanted to run, the way to do isn't to formally disavow the people raising money. She already knows that the deep pockets that put her in the Senate are NOT with her--why? Because they are the same deep pockets who are backing HRC, and they have TOLD her that that's where their money is going.

People can keep digging for that pony, or they can click on the links and read the woman's OWN words. Who thought, here of all places, that people would be arguing a "No doesn't mean NO" approach, particularly when EW even uses her own lawyer to make it clear to the FEC and everyone else -- "Stop raising money, I am not in this thing."

MADem

(135,425 posts)
55. I'll do that when they stop infantalizing an adult Senator from my state, treating her like a
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 06:38 PM
Dec 2014

helpless and needy neophyte who doesn't know which way the wind is blowing and needs "protection" from the evil "PTB" in her quest for Truth, Justice and The American Way.

Believe me, she knows--she built the anemometer.

I think EW knows her path clearly and it doesn't involve being pushed around by interest groups wanting her to do something that isn't in her wheelhouse. She has a goal in mind and I think she'll realize it. It won't be what the people here, who tout her now but who would throw her under the bus so fast that heads would spin once they realize her nuanced defense policy stance, might want for her, but oh well--she's not in this to please them. She's on a mission, and she's going to see it through. Warren is going to be a change-maker, but not as POTUS. I think it's far more likely she'll be Chair of the Federal Reserve one day--and maybe one day fairly soon.

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
57. So that's a no
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 06:50 PM
Dec 2014

I take it. You want to both accuse others of dividing people and continue to insult large swathes of posters.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
62. So you endorse the enfantalizing?
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 07:32 PM
Dec 2014

See how that "gotcha" stuff works?

Stop treating EW like a child. She knows what she's doing. And it ain't running for POTUS.

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
63. I disagree with that characterization
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 07:35 PM
Dec 2014

If you want to make it, that's fine. And if you want to use all of those shitty insults about ponies and Tinkerbell and whatever else people are using to gloat in EW supporters' faces today, that's fine. Just don't pretend you're also concerned with people being divided.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
64. Well, I disagree with your characterizations, so we're even, then, eh?
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 07:55 PM
Dec 2014

It ain't "shitty insults" if it's the truth. You are desperately seeking that which will not happen without the death of another. So if we want to talk about "division," there's that.

I wish everyone long life.

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
66. WTF?
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 08:04 PM
Dec 2014

What an unhinged thing to suggest, that Warren supporters are banking on Clinton dying. I guess compared to that revolting implication your other insults probably don't seem like insults to you. That is just fucked up to say.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
67. It's not an unhinged thing to say at all--it's a political calculation. Why do you make everything
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 08:11 PM
Dec 2014

PERSONAL and use loaded words like "revolting" and "insults" in order to try and generate IRE? Why not trot out the "Oh, the NERVE" and "Why I NEVER" to round it all out?

This is a political discussion board--if you can't manage a political discussion, why are you here?

HRC doesn't have to breathe her last, but she does have to be "dead" politically in order for anyone else to make a move. I think she wants to run and it will take a grievous state of affairs to prevent that.

You don't have to buy off on that assessment but skip the smelling salts routine because it doesn't resonate with me.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
5. Seems to me the irrational folks are the ones who never let a day go by without posting
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 12:56 PM
Dec 2014

an OP that proclaims Warren Says She Is NOT Going to Run!!!!!! and then, oddly, come unglued when those who like Warren don't enthusiastically agree with them. Makes no sense at all, especially this far out.

Odin2005

(53,521 posts)
14. Liz hasn't officially endorsed anyone because nobody is officially running, yet.
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:12 PM
Dec 2014


Interesting how you Clintonistas all act like she has already thrown her hat in the ring and demand that we all get behind her.

Autumn

(44,762 posts)
22. Liz doesn't need a speaking slot at the convention. She's the head
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:30 PM
Dec 2014

of the Party already. Speaking slot at the convention are used to give newbies name recognition. Any Democrats who doesn't know her name by now has their head in the sand,

MADem

(135,425 posts)
31. No, she's not.
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 02:01 PM
Dec 2014

The POTUS is head of the party--that's how it works when a party is in power. The DNC or RNC chair runs the show when a party is out of power.

Dozens and dozens of speakers speak at conventions, and they do it for all sorts of reasons--former Presidents, sitting senators, up and coming representatives--and they don't, many of them, need "name recognition." The Keynote Speaker is usually--not always, but usually--the person who embodies the future of the party, a fresh face. Most people plainly don't remember who was the Keynoter in 2012. Some say he'll be on the ticket as VP in '16.

Faryn Balyncd

(5,125 posts)
10. Agreed. I have never seen such an obsession with trying to turn a declarative sentence in ...
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:03 PM
Dec 2014

...the present tense into a permanent lifelong future commitment, written in stone. (especially the historical context).














 

Voice for Peace

(13,141 posts)
38. that's a really interesting spelling.
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 03:03 PM
Dec 2014

an abscess that just won't let go. Except abscess is
misspelled. Still, it's good.

Autumn

(44,762 posts)
7. There's an oldie but a goodie. Liz isn't running, neither was Obama. Obama did run
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 12:58 PM
Dec 2014

as we all know. But as a Liz supporter it will surprise me if she does run. She knows the precarious financial situation our country is in and I think that she feels that the senate is where she can work on that. It's my hope that Obama and that little fucker Dimon actually pushing and twisting arms for such devastating legislation will give her pause and make her change her mind.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
8. Obama and Warren are politicians.
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:01 PM
Dec 2014

Why would they write something in stone when not doing so fills their coffers. Groups are getting money and advertising mileage out of this. The past shows that the run up to the run is very important. Just by her not detailing her answer she has created a huge ground swell of support. It is planned. She is a politician.

Odin2005

(53,521 posts)
11. It's the "say no three times before taking the crown" thing.
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:09 PM
Dec 2014

Saying "yes, I am running" this early would make her look like a scheming opportunist taking advantage of public sentiment.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
33. What does it mean when you say "no" dozens of times, and have your lawyer write letters to the
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 02:07 PM
Dec 2014

Federal Election Commission saying no means no?

Cha

(295,929 posts)
48. Whoa.. "..Senator Warren has publicly announced she is not running for President in 2016.. "
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 05:12 PM
Dec 2014

Thank you, MADem..

MADem

(135,425 posts)
49. She also told MoveOn.Org to take a hike, but they're ignoring that, too.
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 05:25 PM
Dec 2014

I think it's a bit disrespectful on one level; I'm not sure what she has to say to get through to these folks!

Cha

(295,929 posts)
50. They should write her a letter and ask her themselves.. or get someone from Mass to ask her..
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 05:28 PM
Dec 2014

MADem

(135,425 posts)
51. They're going to have a "poll" to gauge "support." As others have pointed out, if they want
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 05:33 PM
Dec 2014

an "alternative" candidate--and plainly, they do--Bernie is sitting over in the corner screaming "Pick MEEE! PICK MEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!" and waving his hands wildly.

I guess he doesn't have "the look" or something--he's fired up and ready to go, and MoveOn doesn't want him--won't even flirt with him in a "Hey, maybe you, too" kind of way. When they do finally settle on him (that day will likely come because Jim Webb doesn't look like their kind of player), will he feel like Second Hand Rose?

 

stone space

(6,498 posts)
12. Asked in 2006 about the 2008 election. Do folks really take such answers seriously?
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:10 PM
Dec 2014

I mean, that's a full two years before the election.

Nobody really takes answers like that seriously.

Some may pretend to take them seriously, but it's an act.

Autumn

(44,762 posts)
15. Some do take it serious, but IMO they are scared of her running. It might upset their
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:14 PM
Dec 2014

apple cart. Two years out and they are hanging their hopes on "I'm not running."

NYC Liberal

(20,132 posts)
13. Gore: "I don't have plans to be a candidate again"
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:11 PM
Dec 2014

Present tense, people! He said he "doesn't have plans" NOT "I will not run".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7048370.stm

Obviously that means he IS running because he refused to use the future tense.

--DUers all the way up to 2008

And for more fun, check out the DU thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3031311

Same non statement he's been making. Nothing new

this is no Sherman statement!

saying "i have no plans"..does not say "I will not run"..It does not say..don't try to draft me..it does not say,..Americans i do not want to be and will not be president.

Gore knows the deal..and he has not made a Sherman Statement...and he knows if he will not run ..he would make the Sherman Statement..

Gore did not say anything different than what he's been saying all along. He DID NOT say he definitely wasn't going to run. Let's wait to see what he says tonight in Chicago.

He has said the same thing all along. "No plans" doesn't mean "absolutely will not"

I believe this to be part of the efforts by those who fear a Gore run.
They are doing whatever they can to convince us Al isn't running and Hillary is our only option.

Just the same "no plans" as before.

Plans can be laid very quickly, and I sure hope that they are doing so as we speak.

brooklynite

(93,873 posts)
21. POINT 1: 2 years before campaigning started...
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:29 PM
Dec 2014

...by this point, Obama was fully engaged with garnering financial and political support.

POINT 2: Obama didn't use this period to encourage someone else to run.

Personally, I don't care one way or another. But if she decides NOT to run, will you be back here whining that THEY wouldn't let her run?

Faryn Balyncd

(5,125 posts)
27. nope.
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:49 PM
Dec 2014

It's her decision.


And it's way too early, even by recent standards.

By the way, I DO care, and can't imagine why someone could not "care one way or another". EW embodies what we need to do to repair our democracy. Her message is spot on. She has leadership. And I believe she has the message and leadership to reach across party lines, and to reach voters who have been disillusioned.

If she never makes a decision to run, and if the individual who she currently backs (HRC) becomes our candidate, I will work my rear off to elect HRC (although I believe EW to be the superior candidate).

(By the way, I have no idea what you mean by "they&quot








MADem

(135,425 posts)
35. Ah, yes.... "THEY."
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 02:27 PM
Dec 2014

AKA "The PTB!!!!!"

Those snarling meanies that can scare someone away from running for the Number One leadership gig in the Free World....! Would we want anyone so easily cowed?

I don't recall Obama telling his lawyer to wave off any independent fundraisers, either, or telling the FEC that he disavowed their activities. But hey, no diff, all the same!

JI7

(89,182 posts)
45. Obama also had grassroots supporters around the country
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 04:53 PM
Dec 2014

i remember because i was part of that.

also remember that Obama was NOT popular on DU . neither was Clinton .

but if you look at actual support on the ground there was a good amount of OBama people. otherwise he would not have been able to be competitive against clinton .

right now it's only Clinton who has that ground support. O'Malley is the only one who has tried but he has not been able to catch on and i'm not surprised based on some speech i once saw him give. he is a decent person overall but when there are big names people are expecting you need something more which Obama clearly had .

and i think this ground support is key in how much a candidate feels like they could win .

MADem

(135,425 posts)
46. Not for nothing is Howard Dean a Hillary Clinton fan.
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 05:07 PM
Dec 2014

Who wouldn't want HIS rolodex?

I think he's gonna get that HHS gig if all this works out for him. He'd be great at it, too.

The Big Money is nothing to sneeze at, and it's all lined up behind HRC. I don't think that's likely to shift, either.

DU always seems to favor "boutique" candidates, even though it's the national brands that are the bestsellers! Kucinich, Edwards, Clark...every single one crashed and burnt. Some of that was kinda painful, too...!

Vinca

(50,170 posts)
23. So, Vinca, you will never eat chocolate again because you're a fatso? Vinca: No, I will not.
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:30 PM
Dec 2014
Give him a break . . . people change their minds.

Faryn Balyncd

(5,125 posts)
40. The point . . .
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 03:31 PM
Dec 2014



... is is that perhaps folks should take historical context into their perspective, and not be so anxious to take a Senator's statement that they are not running (present tense) and turn it into a written in stone statement that they never will run.

Especially when it's way too early.

Especially when no one can forecast how numerous factors will play out which effect such a decision.

Especially when history is full of examples of circumstances where a candidate makes a decision to run for an office when they previously had not made such a decision, as well as numerous examples where a candidate made a decision to run after even making specific statements that they would not be a candidate (future tense, as opposed to the present tense statement that they are not running).




It seems to me strange for some to be so apparently desperate to take a candidate out of consideration.














MADem

(135,425 posts)
47. It's not "way too early." She hasn't met with a soul at the state level.
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 05:11 PM
Dec 2014

She should have organization by now. She doesn't. She should have big money donors lined up. She doesn't (her donors for her Senate run are the ones she got from Hillary--and they're sticking with HRC). She shouldn't be telling the FEC that she "disavows" these money raisers if she doesn't--see, that makes her a LIAR, and she is NOT one of those.

She is not running. She has pledged to finish out her term.

If she's running for anything, it's Chair of the Federal Reserve. IMO.

OilemFirchen

(7,143 posts)
58. "that makes her a LIAR, and she is NOT one of those"
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 06:58 PM
Dec 2014

Or, per her wild-eyed supporters, she is. Or might be. Only those afraid of her take her at her word.

It's a weird way to promote a potential candidate, but maybe it's "New Politics", of which I know bupkis.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
61. All we have to do step back and look at the big BIG picture and we can see what's up.
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 07:29 PM
Dec 2014

EW has a very good reasons to want to "up" her profile in the Senate, and thus gain more clout. And good enough for her! She has good ideas that deserve a bit of attention. She wants to be (forgive the analogy) the "E. F. Hutton" of the Senate--when she talks, people listen. The more people who pay attention to her, the more her words have weight, the easier it is for her to steer the conversation to issues that matter to her. She is, as a consequence of this chatter, becoming a silverback.

It also benefits her to be coy without seeming to be coy. "Do I have to put an exclamation point after that?" and "I pledge to finish my term" aren't enough for some--they hang on to that "present tense" canard and think it means something. This is what it means--if Hillary is hit by that DU bus that has everyone stuffed under it, and expires from her wounds, then EW might be persuaded to run. MIGHT be. And maybe as VP, not POTUS. Anyone who is holding their breath, awaiting that eventuality, though, is betting on a very long shot, indeed. The Rodhams have incredible genes.

jalan48

(13,798 posts)
30. Message
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:56 PM
Dec 2014

I think Warren could run in the primaries in order to get her message about Wall St. and the banks out to the public. My guess is that the Clinton machine will ultimately be too strong but having to include Warren in the debates will help educate the public as to what is going on.

Exultant Democracy

(6,594 posts)
36. By the 2006 midterm the Obama machine was geared up and running.
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 02:35 PM
Dec 2014

I know this because the first time I met Obama was in Denver in 2006. I actually gave him a piece of my mind for endorsing Lieberman in the CT primary, and he responded with the full Obama charm which of course worked on me.

When I look at what Warren has now vs what Obama had then the gap is pretty vast. I'm not saying she has a lot going for her, but a real operation has to emerge in the next 2-4 months for her to fight out this primary. HRC can be beaten her campaign organization is actually one of her biggest weaknesses, but you still need to do the ground work.

 

Voice for Peace

(13,141 posts)
39. If she really is not intending or wanting to run this time,
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 03:06 PM
Dec 2014

then everybody probably should shut up and quit focusing
on getting her to run; as she said she wishes people to
put their energy and money elsewhere, and she probably
can give a good suggestion where we should put it.

I would like to see her run, and I think she could win.
But if she has something else in mind, it's probably a
good idea.

LondonReign2

(5,213 posts)
41. Whether she runs or not,
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 03:45 PM
Dec 2014

(and I'm guessing she won't), it is amusing to see all of our DUers that think the party needs to be more right-wing frantically insist she most definitely is not.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
44. And by December of 2006, he was speaking at events in New Hampshire
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 04:51 PM
Dec 2014

Has Elizabeth Warren been speaking at any events in Iowa or New Hampshire?

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
52. The search for the new Messiah is amusing.
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 05:48 PM
Dec 2014

Even as those seeking a new Messiah look to traditional politician behavior as evidence that the Messiah is running.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
60. They all say no. The timing of when they say yes I'm running is all very well orchestrated.
Mon Dec 15, 2014, 07:06 PM
Dec 2014

Doesn't mean Warren will run. Doesn't mean she won't. Those who claim to know she won't run are just trying to marginalize her.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Mr. Russert: So you will ...