But maybe if he hadn't acted like such damned fool, it would have happened sooner. He irritated the crap out of me, which I think is why I quit watching.

She and Urkel fought to get rid of him and Urkel's girfriend-turned-stalker.

(The girl who played the girlfriend later died of cancer, not a funny point)/

I don't see the EW people becoming suave and sophisticated Stephan....they are more of the Persistent PITA URKEL character...Lara HAS rebuffed you....

After hearing that you fair weathered Democrats (aka Left Leaning Independents) who stayed home (or threatened to) in the Midterms not once but twice JUST to punish Obama...now that's showing real support ....I think she sees your Urkel persona too....it sure seems more like how those weak kneed spineless Democrats act more than anything....wishy washy.

Why should she risk THAT should she disappoint you too.....those that are demanding she do it? She would have to walk on water...invent the flying car and give everyone a pony! You all are looking for a hero....I don't blame her.......frankly...who wants that?

And he even wore his glasses clear through their first time in bed!
Wanted to see what he was doing, I guess.

I think she has been very careful to parse her language leaving that door open. I really don't get why some people here feel compelled to try to shut that door.

if Hillary wins, it's over. She's pro-corporate and the fight for the middle class will be over. Chilling thought really.

i can read it.

Huge Bernie fan here but I cant imagine him saying that about Hillary

He might believe it but I cant see him saying it anywhere it could be repeated or put to print

It is not locked, but she is the one who will have to open it. It has to come from her.

still, she is almost certainly considering it

or anyone else who has not announced yet.
I for one would like to see Bernie running as well.

I just don't like only one person or two to run.

Let us say for just a moment that Hillary will not run,
then the field would be wide open. And HRC, as far as
I know, just postponed her decision. So why not give
that right to any other possible candidate?

I just find the constant badgering more than a little disrespectful.

fighting her on issues. Please, I highly doubt people asking her to run for President has her feeling disrespected.

The potshots she takes from her opposition on the issues she deals with in the Senate are another matter.

that doesn't mean she won't. Personally, I like Sanders slightly more than Warren because he speaks to a broader spectrum of issues such as war, wages, health care, education and many other issues but I am just glad people are ready to support populist candidates like Sanders and Warren. I think it is great so many are asking her to run.

I don't really get people do not WANT to understand this.....and feel compelled to harangue this poor woman! I think she knows and speaks her mind at WILL!

We take turns at jump rope as children, not in politics.

its her friend....

WTF are all you Hillary Haters going to do if Hillary Clinton asks Elizabeth Warren to be her running mate???

Heads will explode on DU!

It was a 'you go girl' letter encouraging her to run, not an endorsement because she's not a candidate. Chuck Schumer encouraged then Senator Obama to run for POTUS but said he'd have to endorse Hillary (a NY thing). There really is daylight between the positions even if you choose not to acknowledge it.

All of the female Democratic senators signed a secret letter to Hillary Rodham Clinton early this year encouraging her to run for president in 2016 -- a letter that includes the signature of Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other senators who are mentioned as potential candidates, two high-ranking Democratic Senate aides told ABC News.

The letter, organized at the urging of Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., was meant to be a private show of support from a group of 16 high-profile former colleagues and fans who are now senators, urging Clinton to do what much of the Democratic Party assumes she will, the aides said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/30/hillary-clinton-secret-letter_n_4178317.html

"All all of the women — Democratic women I should say — of the Senate urged Hillary Clinton to run, and I hope she does. Hillary is terrific," Warren said during an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week," noting that she was one of several senators to sign a letter urging Clinton to run in 2016.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/27/elizabeth-warren-i-hope-hillary-clinton-runs-for-president/

Funny there are alot of "Democrats" on DU....that support EW but would NOT speak so nicely about HRC the way EW does.. but THEN tell you that the things EW is saying about Hillary running for President...mean jack shit....but WE are not supposed to notice that irony...

With Warren and Sanders, I have hope. Neither has, as of yet, given me cause for doubt. Perhaps I'm naive where they are concerned.

Other politicians fall into two categories for me. Likely liar and known liar. At least as long as they remain in the "likely" category I can suspend disbelief and get behind them. But a known and proven liar? My support is lost once and for all, especially when the lie is so blatant and the damage control so off-handed, even contemptuous. I give you the real HRC.

http://scholarsandrogues.com/2013/09/04/progressives-dont-vote-hillary/

You and the rest of the Wall Street Placation and Enrichment Squad can go ahead and vote your conscience and keep hawking the known liar. The rest of us know that her character is only suitable for growing roses. I dread to think what her policies would be good for.

I think I made that abundantly clear.

I don't mind the "encouragement to run" letter and the support shown at that level by its signatories. It's still consistent for me to support as much plurality of views/ideologies in the electoral process as possible. That's liberalism 101. An outright endorsement would not only disappointment me but significantly reduce my support of Warren.

I think I made that abundantly clear.....are you a better Liberal than Elizabeth Warren?

...that your style of argumentation is merely perverse? You remind me of Monty Python's argument clinic.

And for the record, should Warren actually outright endorse Hillary, yes, I think that would make all those who would be disappointed by such a move better liberals than she, at least on that particular point.

Since you're keeping score for all of us, Sparky, what's mine?

BOB SCHIEFFER: Are you going to endorse Hillary Clinton?

SEN. WARREN: We're not there. This is about the issues on the table right now. We've got to talk about student loans, we've got to talk about minimum wage, we have got to make changes, and we have an election coming up in 2014 where those issues are going to be right on the table. People will have voted and the voters will have a chance to look at how the senate voted.

If I thought that, I would NEVER vote for her.

Unlike far, far too many here, I take Elizabeth Warren at her word. She wants to be a US Senator where she, like Teddy Kennedy in her seat before her, can do some fucking good possibly through many presidencies.

Then there are the delusionals who can only argue that she will run in 2016 by having to admit that she has been dishonest with everybody about her intentions. I would rather have one honest US Senator than a hundred equivocating presidents. The more of the former the better to keep the latter in check.

We need Elizabeth Warren in the US Senate. And as many more like her we can elect. The extent that Democrats do not understand this simple concept is why the US Senate is going to fall into GOP hands in January. We drop the ball in off-year elections.

I support Elizabeth Warren's reelection to the US Senate in 2018.

And I have no idea who is running on the Democratic presidential ticket for 2016, not even the apparently hated (according to many here) Hillary Clinton, who is the forgone Democratic nominee (again, according to many here).

Let's give 2016 a rest until things resolve themselves. And let us support Elizabeth Warren's repeatedly professed political decision. That she wants to be a US Senator.

I love that.

And the growing interest in her candidacy for POTUS cannot be denied.

I am done here, as is apparently Elizabeth Warren... over and over and over again.

I suggest, if people do not like Hillary -- who is still not certain that she will even run -- that they try to find another horse to hitch their wagon to.

There is one thing for god damned sure. Elizabeth Warren wants to be a US Senator, not the fucking President. She has said so too many fucking times, and furthermore she is going to make her name as a US Senator. That's where we need her.

She is fucking not going to run for POTUS.

Predicted response:
But, but, but, but, she said she wasn't, not that she won't.

My response:
Fucking political idiots!

would be: Good lord you've really got yourself worked up over this, don't you? Deep breaths ...

Have you been repeatedly asking her to run? Or are you actually saying the people who want her to run, as opposed to your preferred candidate, should stop trying to get her to run? (Edit: and yes, I see your statement of affection and that you 'wish she would run', but that doesn't necessarily mean that you actually want her to win a primary.)

But how many times, and in how many ways, does she have to say "no"? If she herself changes her mind, I will be very happy. But until -- and unless -- that happens, enough already.

FSogol excerpted an interview she did with Steve Inskeep of NPR, and Inskeep specifically pointed out the 'tense' issue and tried to get her to clarify, and she still sidestepped on it, making a statement that still did nothing to resolve the issue, when all she would have had to do was add 'nor will I run for President in 2016' to her 'I am not running' present tense statement.

I think the point, though, is that the only way she even MIGHT change her mind is if she sees that enough people desperately want her to run. The way to guarantee for certain that she won't is for everyone to stop asking her to.

Thankfully, if she doesn't, we've still got an even better chance that Bernie will.

so as.. "..not confuse donors about a non-existent run for President"



MADem http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5963473

"Non-existent run for President".. "not running in 2016".. but, but, but.. Yeah, she can always change her mind. Good for her if she does..

Since then however Warren herself has refused to say she is not running in 2016 despite being asked numerous times, she will only say she is not running in the present tense. While her lawyers have said she is not running in 2016, she has not been willing to say it herself.

I don't know what she is going to do, but it is pretty clear that she does not want to close the door completely because she won't give a future tense statement no matter how many times she is asked.

the cut off time. See how the waters are then.

Hey, maybe Scott Brown can run again for Sen from Mass.. 'course he'd have to hop back there.

says "2016" so as not to confuse the donors.. but, "she refuses to say 2016". Just the "exclamation point".

And, mustn't forget "nobody's running now"..

by now...

And that thread would have had 300 recs.

I left for 2 years in 2010 'cause of all the ODS.

situation indeed. too bad.. sounds like she would have liked to hang with the putin club.

*As cheers break out throughout the stadium, the entire crowd starts to cheer "Team..Pooka, Team..Pooka, Team..Pooka"*

Take a bow, champ!

that's what frees you up to act like Teddy.
Knowing that you can never be president.
She doesn't know that.
Warren should run.
She should run in 2016 and 2020.
Two terms.

That she isn't running now, and that she doesn't intend to in 2016, do not mean that she doesn't want to run for president. Her desire is likely to be just one of many factors in her decision. If she's the politician I hope she is, it's not even the most important factor.

Not wanting to have to run against Clinton is not the same thing as not wanting to be president. Let's stop acting like a fave-year-old on Christmas Eve where Clinton's anointing is concerned.

Because every time Erkel asked Laura out, it drove the story and kept the audience tuned in.

Every time the noise gets loud enough for Warren to say "no," those who WILL run have to take note. The voters they will be courting don't want their votes cast for big money.

you Warren supporters shut the fuck up. (And, er, support Hillary - who, I might mention, has not said she is actually running.)

This one is not quite as bad, comparing us to Erkel - another of has a headline "Elizabeth Warren is a Lying Sack of Shit" - that will come in quite useful elsewhere, methinks.

I think it might be "Try to Trash Warren and her Supporters" day at DU! Yay!

that she will be persuaded to run!!

A record of trust.

Warren isn't a change candidate on the MIC. Warren isn't a change candidate on the police state. I went to her "issues" page, and I think she will cut Social Security.

No unnecessary cuts or risky privatization schemes. (Jul 2012)
Modest changes will save Social Security, not privatization. (Apr 2012)
Opposes investing part of your payroll tax. (Oct 2012)
Sponsored keeping CPI for benefits instead of lower "Chained CPI". (Apr 2013)
Rated 100% by ARA, indicating a pro-Trust Fund stance. (Jan 2013)

No "unnecessary" cuts? Really? What "modest changes"?

Her talk is very good on the banks, but the PTB will easily be able to say that she can't get anything done there because of Republicans. I don't see her talking about our shredded Bill of Rights, and I don't see much on her "issues" page suggesting that she won't continue most of the very same war and police state policies that are destroying this nation.

I don't trust any of this hype around her. By my observation, half of the Obama cheerleading squad is now backing Warren, and there is great, deliberate theater being whipped up everywhere, in the MSM and across the internet, about whether or not she will run. I think it's an attempt to get people to rally and fall in line behind her without actually looking at her agenda. It reminds me of all the weird attention by the MSM months ago, when they were elevating Elizabeth by publicizing all Hillary's supposedly inadvertent "gaffes" about being poor like poor people.

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders is being almost utterly ignored, which is standard behavior by the MSM toward any candidate they genuinely don't want included in the national conversation.

We live in a propaganda state now, run by those who know exactly what we want to hear. I don't trust this hype around Elizabeth at all.

If she truly isn't, I'm still not supporting Hillary.

Because if she doesn't run, then the Wicked Witch of the East will win the nomination in 2016, and we will all have to go back to listening to Bill tell his longass boring stories about how he was mistreated by the House Republicans when Newt was their leader.