Doesn't give them any special powers.

is generally the longest serving member of the majority party. The current one is Patrick Leahy; come January, it will most likely be Orrin Hatch.

What Elizabeth Warren was doing was presiding over the Senate. It's not a formal position, just a chance to brush up on one's parliamentary procedure. All senators take their turn in the big chair!

May she return to that chair in 2017 as VP. (no stopping her then in 2024!!)

Now if she could take that gavel back into the cloak room and beat some sense into her fellow senators we'd be getting somewhere.

I lurve her!

Clearly, that would mean she's not running.

And if I lived in MA, I would gladly vote for her.

However, I have not heard that she was running for any other office.

Have you?

I did not think so.

Many say that, in spite of her repeated claims to the contrary, she will run for POTUS in 2016, just like many DUers made the same claims about Al Gore in 2008 (counter to his repeated claims).

And just like 2008, they parse the language, "I am not running for POTUS" as not meaning "I will not run for POTUS." (<==very carefully worded.)

It is an ignorant, stupid meaningless rhetorical argument.

Elizabeth Warren is not going to run for POTUS. She has said so so many times. Does she have to pull a Lisbeth Salander and tattoo it on people's bellies?

She instead reiterated that she is not running. And run or not, the specter of her candidacy has an effect on the field.

--imm

As again, you are parsing her language too finely.

I take her at her word. If you are correct, I do not want her as POTUS.

That's true. She isn't. When she decides to run, she'll say "I am running for president."

I will never vote for her if she does that.

If she was considering running & had said so, how much good would she have done in the senate for the past TWO years, since the press first began asking her that? She at least seems good at prioritizing. She'll announce when the time is right for her & her family, just like Hillary.

Declaring a candidacy is a critical move. It carries much legal implication. It's also a strategic move. What would she say if this weren't a good time to declare?

It's conceivable that Warren, at some future time, determines that there is no viable Democratic candidate that represents the populist (current euphemism for liberal) objectives, and fills the void. Could happen?

You certainly sound more definite than she does.

--imm

She said I do not know how many times she was not running, and the idiot interviewing was playing semantics (at least I hope he was and not her, because I have no respect for semantics games).

How is Elizabeth any better than any candidate in recent years if she equivocates like them all?

How can you trust anything she says then?

You cannot have it both ways. Either she is ethical or not. I take her at her word. Apparently you do not. Then, why would you support her for president? If she equivocates on her prospective presidential candidacy, why not on votes on breaking up Citigroup? Once one crosses the line, where is the new line?

Furthermore, when one argues that she is crossing a line that hasn't yet been crossed it just sounds like wishful thinking, or made up shit (depending on ones position).

So far, I see no reason to distrust her. And I love her in the US Senate. I am glad that she will not be running for POTUS. We need her where she is. BADLY!!

To choose one's words carefully. She did not shut that door completely- she could have, easily. Whatever her future plans are it makes sense not to have. She's doing good things where she is, would do good things if she ran and/or won as President. I would not see it as a character flaw if she chose to run after saying what she's said how she said it. I will also still adore her if she doesn't run.

It's called politics. Why would you think she can't be political?

--imm

...that she is really being deliberately obtuse and may run for president. (BTW, that is, by definition, equivocation.)

Myself, I take her at her word and would be very disappointed in her if she does that. Mainly, she promised her constituents that she would remain in the senate for the whole term.

So I guess I have to respectfully disagree with your position.

My regards.

What would be so wrong with answering "I have no plans to run for "X". I MAY change my mind in the future, but I doubt it and right now I'm focused on the Senate (or whatever)". Why would that be so terrible? Everyone today thinks politicians answers are a joke anyway, why not be HONEST for a change.
Even Romney said recently (paraphrasing) "i'm not planning to run in 16. Things could change but I doubt it"

She has only ever said that she's not running. All the rest is the mind of the beholder. (One would suppose.)

I really love Elizabeth Warren. I find her an incredible Senator. I take her at her word.

We will all see what she does, or does not, do. My money is on her honesty.

Peace, my friend.

Saying "I'm not running for president" repeatedly while the interviewer constantly asks for clarification out of present tense was ridiculous.