Al Franken's endorsement will mean a lot in Minnesota. Minnesota loves Al!

BTW, Senator Franken voted NO on CROmnibus. He is one of our most reliably progressive Senators.

a bit jealous. But besides OurDumb Senator Ron Johnson, WI has Tammy Baldwin

Amy, meh.

He wants a third Democratic term and he knows Hillary has the ability to win it for us.

Hillary is disater in the making.

She won't even announce till spring but she will give corporate speches before then.

So if say 10% of dems not of corporate Dems like her mostly stay home where is she going to get those votes.

She is just more corporate sellout we have been seeing from Obama and Bill Clinton before him.

You vote for whoever you like but Hillary is likely going to be the next president.

She leads in the primary and the general.

as many dems who lost in 2014 can tell you.

In early 1983 mondale lead reagan.And at one point w had double diget lead over gore.

Doesn't matter if she wins or not.Banks,wall street,and neocons get what they want regardless.

in December 2006 she was ahead of President Obama by 22 points. You can't discount completely how bad she is on the stump. She would undoubtedly be a better President than she is a presidential candidate.

Hillary and the rest of her corporate Third Way pretenders will be exposed.
No way does this country want more Bush and Clinton's destroying the nation.

I see a very strong third party on the horizon. Voting over and over for the same type of candidates and expecting different results is for the insane and uninformed.

We may disagree on this but I hope you enjoy the site.

I try to be civil when getting my point across and can always agree to disagree. I recognize some of the posters on here but haven't done forums in over three years.

Its my belief that Wall Street has a stranglehold on both parties and the primaries that get them promoted. That is not to say Hillary is a bad person. She is just not my choice.

...."where is she going to get those votes"?

Hate to break it to you, but Barack Obama and Bill Clinton both won TWO terms!!

I like "disasters" like that.

Another clever Republican in disguise.

Time to vote for real change. Al and Hillary are both dragging the goalposts to the extreme right just like Clinton and Bush before them.

But that doesn't change the fact that she voted for the most disastrous item of the century (The Iraq War), supported gay marriage bans until the polls swung her way, doesn't support single payer healthcare, and supports the drug war and prison state. But maybe this is the best we can hope for? I prefer to support policies, not politicians. When I look at things that way, I see more often than not, Hillary Clinton is on the wrong side. If she wins the nomination (and she will) it will be a lesser of two evils vote.

and a bit less beholden to Wall Street. But maybe he can influence her to keep more distance from the Third Way types.

that a Democrat wins the Presidency. I share that concern, and believe it is crucial that a Republican not become President in 2016 and carry the Congress along on Republican coattails.

This early, it's difficult to predict the 2016 election, but I believe it is ours to lose if we're not very careful. The combination of a Republican President and Congress would be absolutely disastrous. Of that I'm certain. If, on the other hand, we could manage to elect a Democratic President and regain control of both houses of Congress, much good would ensue in the following four years.

I know which I prefer, so I welcome Franken's endorsement.

was a bona fide endorsement as much as just an acknowledgement that she would be a good president - not that she should be the nominee. I, too, would rather have Hillary than any Republican. I just don't want anybody nominated by acclamation; I want to see a vigorous primary where other candidates have a voice and Hillary's feet get held to a nice, hot, progressive fire.

No one should be handed the nomination without going through the process.

Just because I am a early supporter, in no way means I think it should just be handed to her.

Last edited Wed Dec 17, 2014, 11:41 PM - Edit history (1)

Her votes have proven to be very liberal, nearly 100% on ratings, but her message never seems to get out there. Media focuses more onher hair, body, money, and faults for poutrage media, so people think that is really her.

I just don't know her, but she'd be miles ahead of Jeb. Another problem is the kind of agility and charisma needed to maintain public attention and inspire voting. It's sad this is part of politics, it'd be dangerous to ignore it.

As far as whoever the GOP puts up, their appeal will only be to those who feel weak and want a 'ballsy' daddy figure. Like McCain saw in Bush, Jr.:

..like setting up a trade agreement that's described as NAFTA-on-steroids.


VERRRYYYYYYY LIBURALLLL!!!

And her message is clear. And yes she is very liberal but some people here make her out to be a monster.

I welcome the primaries.

Now that she has been SoS, she will have more knowledge. I think her focus was always on the domestic side. But Obama is on fire right now getting things done, then we'll see...

We'll see what happens.

If he wasn't supporting RFH, I think he was have said something else.

I'd be interested in seeing the interview, instead of having someone else quote him. Get some context.

Thanks for posting this William769. Even though it has someone I greatly admire saying something I disagree with. I look fwd to hearing from him how he feels about this.

yet.

They both really KNOW that she's gonna run. (As we read here every day.)

Either that, or those who say so are delusional.

You choose.

from underneath it would appear that they are all bozos on the bus.

likes being a Senator from Minnesota. He's shown no interest in the White House at all. This year, at a meet and greet thing, I asked him directly if he ever considered running for President. His answer: "No way." I believe him. Even less interested in VP, I'm sure.

We don't need help in MN and, well, there's old SNL footage of him wearing a diaper that nobody wants in national attack ads.

One of few true liberals who is fighting the banks and wall street endorses corporate dem in name only hillary.

More signs the democratic establishment is doing all they can to make a cornation for her who can't even be bothered speaking out.

while she will do their bidding like Obama and Bill Clinton.

She won't even call them names like Obama has.Obama does their bidding yet they hate it he called them fat cats to fool the voters.

The clintons only care about wall street.

The democratic establishment has decered they want a cornation for hillary.This way they don't even have to pretend to talk Liberal.

As lone as democratic party wants to be lesser version of Republican party it deserves to lose.

It doesn't matter if who wins if choice is between her and Republican.

Just a really stupid comment. I don't like Hillary at all but she would be much better than any Rethug.
Yeh, Just like Gore was no better than Bush.

she is with neocons on endless war
She is with republicans on wall street,banks,corporations
She is with them on free trade deals
She is with them on torture

Just like her husband she will have no trouble throwing much of 99% under bus for top 1%

Passed NAFTA turning democratic party into party of free trade-with some xceptions

cutting off nutrational ad to new poor mothers

telecommunications act allowing media consolation

wellfare reform which hurt poor single mothers

end of bank reguraltion

DOMA

He also left a surplus. Given the inquisition he was put through, he did a fine damn job.

Could he please everyone? No.

I for one long for the Clinton years and I'm Gay! DOMA was a step forward from what we had (or do you not remember what we had before DOMA?).

If your'e going to use talking points, at least try to use them from someone that is knowledge.

Obama with all his selling out on economy and war did more for civil rights with repealing DADT,coming out during election year as supportingg ay marriage and stop enforcing DOMA than the Clintons ever did

Bill clinton helped setup the 2008 meltdown.

Hillary going by Clinton record would have no problem selling out those on food stamps,SS,SSI,medicare,and medicaid for wall street and banks.

I will be more than happy to school you.

Before DOMA we had nothing. DOMA was the catalyst to get the ball rolling. Same with DADT.

Once again you insinuate Hillary with wall street bankers with out offering proof (this is not the first time you have done this and am sure it won't be your last).

I will debate anyone, I only ask that they know what they are talking about. Since you do not, this is where the conversation ends.

And you saying this "Then i guess you think we should go back to DOMA" shows just how much you don't know about me or my activism.

Have a nice life.

that is still unfolding and ramping up for part 2. Clinton signed Glass-Steagall out of existence, opening up the way for unregulated derivatives that led to the subprime disaster. Hillary is the continuation if that, she is in the pocket of Wall Street. Well, I hate to suggest it, but your avatar is too.

Al Franken has not impressed me since he went into politics, better as a comedian I think, not a true progressive imo. Dean seems to have been absorbed by the party machine now. Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are the progressive leaders. I hope they run.

Couldn't possibly have contributed to the misery we have today?

Clinton co-sponsored requiring full disclosure about subprime mortgages

Sen. DODD: Today we are facing a crisis in the mortgage markets on a scale that has not been seen since the Great Depression: over 2 million homeowners face foreclosure at a loss of over $160 billion in hard-earned home equity; over one out of every 5 subprime loans is currently delinquent. These high default rates have frozen the subprime and jumbo mortgage markets and infected the capital markets to the point where central banks around the world have had to inject liquidity into the system to avoid the crisis from spreading to other segments of the market.

One of the fundamental causes of this serious crisis is abusive and predatory subprime mortgage lending. The Homeownership Preservation and Protection Act of 2007 is designed to protect American homeowners from these practices, and prevent this disaster from happening again. The legislation will:
realign the interests of the mortgage industry with borrowers to insure the availability of mortgage capital on fair terms both for the creation and sustainability of homeownership;
establish new lending standards to ensure that loans are affordable and fair, and
provide for adequate remedies to make sure the standards are met; and create a transparent set of rules for the mortgage industry so that capital can safely return to the market without bad lending practices driving out the good.

It is important to keep in mind that only about 10% of subprime mortgages have been made to first time home buyers. This market has not been primarily about creating a new set of homeowners; a majority of subprime loans have been refinances. While maintaining access to subprime credit on fair terms is important, too much of the subprime market has actually put the homes and home equity of American families at risk.

In the coming months, the housing crisis is going to get worse. We will need to continue to press lenders and servicers to provide real relief for homeowners threatened with foreclosure.

Source: Homeownership Preservation and Protection Act (S.2452 ) 2007-S2452 on Dec 12, 2007

Credit to OkNancy.

Wall street prefers clintons over Obama.And he just made sure a huge sellout to wall street and banks happened.

The clintons think it's ok for companys to move out of country to avoid paying taxes.

It's naive to think clintons or obama aren't doing their bidding.

The ball's in your court.

The Hillary camp is clearly running scared, and it's showing.

Inevitable?

Nope, not even close.

It's what's stated in the article.

It's your spin on what is said by the reporter's spin of what Franken actually said.

Words matter.

Unfortunately you don't like what's being said.

I don't like being fed a line of bull shit and being told it's ice cream.

It's a beautiful day, the sun is shining, 75 degrees (at least where I am at). Enjoy the day & be happy. I know I will!

As long as you are smugly self-satisfied and "happy," screw the rest of us. Got it.

Understood and filed.

... try not to take it too personally.


It's just what's best for We the People.

What size hat do you wear? I will have one specially made for you.

Why would we want someone who represents everything that has gone wrong the last 20 years?

“I think that Hillary would make a great president,” the Minnesota senator said in an interview on the MSNBC cable network with Ari Melber, scheduled for telecast Tuesday at 2 p.m. CST on “The Cycle.”

“I think, I certainly feel I haven’t announced that I’m supporting her, but does this count? I guess, maybe this counts,” Franken said in his appearance on the left-of-center network, according to a snippet posted on nbcnews.com. “I think that I’m ready for Hillary. I mean, I think that we’ve not had someone this experienced, this tough, and she’s very, very impressive.”


I get that you don't like Hillary but it's pretty clear that Sen Franken has no problem with her running at all AND thinks she'd be a great president.

There Is no left anymore In america.

when so caled liberals in congress rushing to join in cornation of hilary who is for endless war,all free trade deals,keystone,torture,
doesn't care that black men are being executed by police,and in pocket of wall street,banks,and corporation it proves there Is no left
anymore.

She shouldn't be leading any poll.she should be called what she is-a DINO-Democrat In Name Only.

same with everyone in my family and we're all Hillary fans. Is she our perfect candidate? No - nobody is but I sure as shit wouldn't ever tell someone else they're not a Democrat because they don't agree with me on every issue. I hopped right on board when Pres Obama won the nomination even though I knew the "he's much more liberal than Hillary" line was pure crap. Purity trolls bore me and remind me of children having temper tantrums for not getting their own way.

Actual article: "she’s not running." (Which is a fact, and is identical to what Warren herself says.)

Your headline: "{Franken} says Elizabeth Warren is not running in 2016" - adding an important phrase which he did not say.

She is not running TODAY.

She has managed to avoid any opportunity to say that she is certain that, come 2016, she will not be running.

Franken's quote doesn't alter that in any way. But your headline does.

The article even talks about that very ambiguity.

Sabato also noted that Warren’s repeated assurances that she is not a candidate should be treated with skepticism.

“With politicians, you must analyze every word,” he said. “She did not say ‘I will not run,’ she said ‘I am not running’. If people think that’s playing word games, they haven’t studied politics very long.

"Franken added that he’s also been asked about U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., as a presidential candidate in 2016.

“She is great,” he said, “but she’s not running.”

If you are going to cut & paste please don't do so selectively.

There is no quote from Franken saying anything about whether Warren will be running in 2016.

It basically reads this way:

Q: What do you think about Warren in 2016?
A: She's great, but she's not running.

That answer--that, as of now, she is not running--is a fact, undisputed by no one, and confirmed by Warren herself.

Your headline indicates that Franken has some further knowledge or insight that Warren definitely will not run in 2016. Nothing in the article actually SAYS that.

As she has reiterated time & time again and as recently as Monday where she said "no means no".

Now try and dissect that quote from the horses mouth. Sheesh.

I was talking about what YOUR post said, and I stand by it. I do not see where Franken has said anything in that article that Warren herself has not said. Franken did not say she is not running in 2016, he said she is not running. That is indisputable, it's what Warren herself says, and is nothing new.

But if you want to talk about the "no means no" quote, it is well discussed at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025276603

The fact remains, she has had PLENTY of opportunity to say "I will not run in 2016, period, regardless of anything that might happen between now and then." She seems to be making a very conscious effort to not say that. She always keeps her anser in the present tense. Even "no means no." She never puts it in the future tense.

Maybe she genuinely wants to keep a window open for herself. Maybe she merely wants people to believe she may be keeping a window open, to keep her visibility higher and keep more people paying attention to her words. Either way, she refuses to completely close that window no matter how many times she is asked.

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/23/elizabeth-warren-could-end-the-presidential-speculation-today-she-has-chosen-not-to/
and watch the video to see just how hard she goes out of her way to refuse ruling it out in the future tense. She's not dumb. She knows exactly what the question is, and she is clearly avoiding answering it.

See also this article (which post-dates "no means no", btw, not that it really makes any difference):
http://www.thenation.com/blog/184657/did-elizabeth-warren-just-change-her-tune-running-president#

Have a nice day.

I absolutely will not vote for Hillary Clinton for the office of the President of the United States. I'm damn tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. Hillary Clinton is not at all progressive or liberal, and for years her public behavior has been meticulously governed by the principle of saying something that sounds meaningful if you're not listening too closely while offending the least possible number of people. Pure political machine - the kind of thing that is anathema to what little remains of our democratic process.

She has said she is considering it.

But that doesn't mean people won't want to support her when and if she announces.

and I don't see where he endorsed he, since she hasn't announced yet.

...just like Warren saying she's not running doesn't mean she's not running.

English certainly is a complicated language to understand.

Him saying he supports Hillary doesn't mean she is running either. No one has announced as of yet.

Thank you.

Sid

I can't wait to drink some of the tears here....

None of it surprising in the least though.

I will stay positive and not sink to their level.

Please join me in that pledge.

Sorry but she is just another disappointing retread.

Should be fun.

You have to have endured it 3-4 times though to appreciate it.

JUst cornation for Hillary.

Everyone else will be pushed out.

That way she can move to the right even quicker.

It won't matter who wins.The top 1% wins regardless.

But I'll give you have a nice day anyway.

Debates will happen, delegates will be chosen, and the DNC will have elected delegates from every state seated and vote on the party platform.

why would there when virtully no other dems run.

If bernie sanders runs she won't debate him.In that sceniro he would be only other one running and no way would they put him sole on same stage as her.

The primarys could be case with only 1 candiate on ballet-Hillary.

What should we expect from you next?

Yes there will be debates but they will be rigged? see why you can't be taken seriously?

Have a nice day.

If there is only 1 candiate which democratic establishment is doing all they can to insure.