Or are you saying Elizabeth isn't a progressive either?

have to do with Clinton's political history?

supports Hillary.

And yet one of DU's top two favorite progressives does support Hillary.

You don't look at what they say, you look at what they do.

But you're right -- look at what they do.

Or don't do. Warren hasn't lifted a finger toward putting even a skeletal campaign organization together, and she's quickly running out of time.

....at his refusal to join the Democratic Party.

and the rest of the Wall St Banks. She publicly will not criticize a member of her party. If you think her obligatory comments regarding Hillary are evidence of support for her policies, you haven't been paying attention.

on the DNC, other Democratic politicians and Democratic donors. At this point, most of those people are New Democrats.

It's silly to pretend her every political move is some liberal statement that rank and file Democrats should heed.

She is probably much more aware of Hillary's overall record in the Senate than all the people who pretend that Hillary's record there wasn't progressive.

http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

times, I have no clue what the term "progressive" actually means.

For example, the Progressive Policy Institute, like Third Way, is an offshoot of the DLC. PPI was founded by a DLC employee who signed the PNAC letter urging Bush to invade Iraq, much as Hillary urged her fellow Senators to support that invasion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026211673

At a minimum, the term seems to mean very different things to different people and therefore causes confusion, especially when people see it as a synonym for liberal.

and what her positions were? Then maybe you'll understand why people who examined her positions on the issues rate her as solidly liberal.

vote with their caucus

Did you find Hillary's introducing a bill seeking an anti-flag burning amendment to the US Constitution, as Republicans routinely do, a liberal move?

and I say that many do -- including but not limited to Elizabeth Warren.

And I'm saying to look at Hillary's OVERALL record, which is very liberal, not a few votes out of context. No one is perfect, no matter how much some people wish they could be.

I addressed that, whereupon you changed the subject from Warren's endorsement to Hillary's voting record.

Also, my prior post DID address her overall voting record.

endorsement to Hillary's voting record, then claiming I'm the one who changed the subject.

I said she was a progressive supporting Hillary, and then I explained why it makes sense for Warren to do so. And since you questioned this, I then supplied the voting record. It was all logically connected. Here is what I said.



"It's not silly to say she is a progressive who supports Hillary. She is probably much more aware of Hillary's overall record in the Senate than all the people who pretend that Hillary's record there wasn't progressive. "

That's not specifically saying that Warren feels that Clinton is her choice to be the Democrats' nominee. It is arguably a statement that Warren supports the process of democracy, where everyone who wants to seek an office runs and gives us many choices to choose from.

I can see some Democrats even arguably saying they support Republicans *running* even if they don't support them as the choice for a given office at all.

even though she herself won’t be running? That seems unlikely. Why has she also said she and all the other Congressional women “hope” Hillary will run? Just for window dressing, so someone like Joe Biden will have an opponent?

Because just a month ago Elizabeth clearly stated she will not be running. And she hasn’t even a skeletal campaign organization. And time is running out.

Jan. 13, 2015
http://fortune.com/2015/01/13/elizabeth-warren-sheila-bair/

Interviewer: So are you going to run for President?
Warren: No.

That's not saying she WILL not run!

I don't think ANY Democrat is already CHOOSING who they want to win a primary and be the nominee! Warren HAS NOT SAID that Hillary is her CHOICE as the nominee! She said she supports her RUNNING! Those are two very different statements.

Most Democrats who want to be supporters of the process of democracy won't say they support someone as a nominee just yet, until they see the field of candidates in the field. No one is in that field just yet, and therefore to claim that Warren or anyone other Democrats who want to be seen as supporting the principles of democracy will not want to publicly say the primary process should mean nothing in a democracy and we shouldn't be allowed to choose a candidate and instead only bless a preselected candidate.

It's too early to select our nominee when the field doesn't have any candidate officially announced for it yet.

She didn't just say "I'm not running" now. She also ruled out running in the future.

I don't know her views on lots of things. There is plenty of potential for her to have some conservative-ish views on social or foreign policy issues, for example. For all I know she hates midgets.

What I do know is that she's tops on financial issues, which she has made a career studying, and got dragged into politics because of it. Given all the information, she came to good conclusions. I assume that she has been studying other sorts of issues in the same way, and I strongly believe that she'll make really good decisions as president.

Re: Hillary- What democrat (besides us in DU) would have said anything but a supportive word about any other democrat last year, even if she intended to run against her? I imagine that Hillary would have said something similar, if asked. Any statement of the sort made by anyone last year is pretty much meaningless.

that all the Congressional women, including her, had written a letter to Hillary urging her to run, and that Elizabeth hoped she will run.

Warren didn't say anything remotely similar about any other potential candidate for President.

...even though they had a range of alternatives to choose from (including "real" progressives like Dennis Kucinich)?

and hillary is not in the picture.

So do millions of other progressives.

There are many here who find facts repulsive, especially those facts that go against their delusional thinking.

Can't we all just pretend that Warren hates Hillary in an effort to get along?

it might just fold up the tents.

Because she leads every single primary poll.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president

Those polls didn't survey REAL progressives!

I won't vote for her under any circumstances.

along with the fact that there has never been a female President, or even, with all respect to the wonderful Shirley Chisholm, another female Dem primary candidate who looked as though she had a shot. (I'm sure McCain didn't mean to pick a laughingstock for his VP candidate, but he sure meant to a female.)

And Hillary's status as a Democratic First Lady for 8 years. The First Lady always shows up on popularity lists.

Thing is, despite all she had going for her and a 30 point lead, she lost to an African American man few had heard of before 2004, Even after, she ran a "racially tinged" campaign against him. This, though perhaps the most loyal Democratic voters have been African Americans. And even after she said gratuitously, during a Democratic primary, that she and McCain were ready for the 3 a m phone call, but her Democratic opponent in a Democratic primary was not.

You and others need to stop cherrypicking factoids and let all the info from during the 2008 primary, from before the 2008 primary and after the 2008 primary sink in fully, including as to her judgment.

Moreover if the Democratic PTB were really confident that Hillary could withstand a hotly contested primary, one would already have been taking shape.

That Hillary can wipe the floor with her opposition is the real fairy tale. If Republicans nominate is anyone half way decent, Democrats will need to pray, do rain dances, buy rabbit's feet or whatever.

and including some very prominent ones like Howard Dean and Elizabeth Warren. Or do you think Elizabeth Warren is not a progressive?

... in my book! There's more to being a liberal than JUST supporting liberal perspectives on social issues that the big money don't really care about. In my book being liberal means wanting to empower ALL American citizens to have a more equal voice in selecting our leadership and telling them how they should govern us, not just the wealthy and powerful. Clinton is not helping us in that area.

Even though the corporate media want to define being liberal and conservative only around social issues (which they use to divide us the electorate), and hide the more critical fundamental money issues that affect all of us doesn't mean we should accept someone being "liberal" the same way the corporate media defines it for us. I choose to want to get people in power that follow through on our founders' objectives and support people having power, NOT "corporate people"!

Reccing Post #149 by cascadiance.

I encourage everyone to go to the TruthOut link and read the whole article.

....now is the time....

....talking Left from the Right is too Obama-ish for me....been there, done that....

That will come as news to her millions of supporters.

I'm progressive and support Hillary, Sanders and Warren. I agree with the last two much more than the first, but I don't have to claim that they agree with all positions and are therefore progressives like me.

You can even say that no one really agrees with Hillary because she offers nothing progressive. It wouldn't contradict the idea of support. Most people who don't "support" Hillary would still vote for her in the general. But all along they have not agreed with her actions as Senator or SOS.

Even as we support party politics we are usually at odds with its platform, various wings, etc.; the same will go for how we approach Hillary.

As not all differences should break a family apart, not all disagreements within this party and its leaders should nullify political support.

and as a progressive, I would love to have a true progressive in the White House. If given an opportunity to vote for a more progressive Democrat in the primaries, I will definitely consider that. However, any Democrat who votes against Hillary if she is the nominee or chooses not to vote is voting against their own interests and the interest of the country.

Do you really want the Republican alternative?

positions/postures.

I just thought they deserved consideration.

rephrase to say the positions you presented. They do deserve consideration. It saddens me to know that true progressive my not come out of the primaries, but regardless of who the nominee is I'm willing to support any Democrat in order to maintain some level of competency in the White House.

I think a lot of the vitriol is happening because we don't know whose running. If Hillary and Warren and O'Malley and Webb and Sanders, and anyone else had actually declared, we could argue about their vision for the world after 2016.

I would much prefer to hear what these people have to say rather than watch them all ripped apart by different camps.

I agree the lack of choices at the moment are not helping the conversation. If Hillary is the nominee, so be it, I'll work for her, but I would love the opportunity to hear from other candidates.

One of the biggest issues Dems have is how divided we are... idealism is a wonderful attribute but, regardless of who the nominee is, we'd all better vote for the Democrat. The alternative is frightening.

chooses to run, no Democrat will run against her in the primary.

Think about that. That is a very extraordinary statement to make, especially before an incumbent Democrat even gets re-elected.

As politicians get to levels like Governor, US Representative, US Senator and Vice President, many of them want to be President. Hell, Scott Brown apparently was entertaining that as a member of a small Republican minority in the Massachusetts legislature. Wouldn't you assume that at least some Democratic politicians would risk entering a Democratic primary against the woman who lost the last contested one to someone few in America had heard of until 2004? Even though she started with name recognition, a donor list, lots of chits to call in, etc. and a 30 point lead?


Yet MSNBC anchors and "strategists" like Shrum and Shield have been making that very extraordinary statement on national TV since at least 2012 as though it were self evident. Those people make a living off their credibility. Conversely, their making a living and getting all that comes with it, including respect, depends upon their credibility. Yet, so many of them were saying that extraordinary thing before Obama even got re-elected.

Think about that.

Being President is a very difficult job. Republican opponents and the formidable problems in the world today are far more formidable than Clinton.

If Hillary Clinton intimidates them then they are gutless wonders and should not apply.

So I don't buy the whole premise that Hillary is such a formidable opponent that she scares all other Democrats into running home to their mother's.

Biden, Jim Webb, Martin O'Malley, and Bernie Sanders are all considering a run.

As reported, Bernie Sanders biggest concern now is being able to get enough money to run. But he is out there trying to put things together and I admire him for that.

I don't like Jim Webb, but he is not intimidated.

Martin O'Malley also is showing courage in getting out there.

Biden is also considering a run.

I have my preferences among this group, but even my least favorite, Jim Webb, would make a better President than any of the current Republican clown car crop.

And should Hillary get nominated, I'll happily vote for her. I think that she would be a damn good president.

Are you saying there is no other Democrat with a vision about where they want to take America?
Are you saying there is no other Democrat with the desire to be President?
Are you saying there is no other Democrat who thinks he or she will do a better job?

I think the argument that Clinton's possible run takes all the air out of the room is bullshit because there are at last four other people who do not agree.

But if you want to make that argument then please explain exactly what it is about Hillary Clinton that keeps everyone else out of the race, excepting Biden, Sanders, O'Malley, and Webb of course.

What opponent is refusing to step up because they won't step on Clinton's toes?

For now, I will ask you to read the post again and do what it asks readers to do twice, namely think about how extraordinary it is.

BTW, I don't react very well to demands.

Not only is that ridiculous, it is wrong.

Again, Biden, Saunders, O'Malley, and Webb have expressed interest and have not ended speculation that they will enter. The media narrative story doesn't hold water. If it did, then any person so intimidated by a media narrative that he or she wont' run is a gutless wonder who is not qualified for the job.

How about this January 20, 2012 story from "The Atlantic" about Warren.

Elizabeth Warren for President? Democrats' Barren 2016 Bench

They did much the same thing on the Republican side as this story form 2013 shows. Jeb Bush undecided on 2016 presidential race

Or this August 2013 story about Christie and Clinton 2016 possibilities.

Christie, Clinton top 'hot politician' list

Stories about Bernie Saunders running in 2016 from 2013

Bernie Sanders Open To 2016 Presidential Run

The media likes to beat the drama drum to keep eyes on screen. If you look, you will find stories about more of the current contenders. The notion of the pervasive media narrative is ridiculous. What we have is a pervasive media attempt to create drama and keep people's eyes on the screen and reading stories about politics.

Your points do hold water.

Well, I'll mody "any " to "many." Maybe some scared-y cats I don't of have been intimidated. How should I know? But that is not what I am talking about.

Barren Bench for 2016, and extolling the virtues of Elizabeth Warren.

In 2012, the conflict between supporters of Warren and Clinton was already being pushed.

That is what the media does. They create drama.

I don't see it as a conspiracy to get Clinton elected. I see it as a conspiracy to get people to watch TV so they can make money by selling ads.

But I don't think it has sucked all the air out of the room or created a sense of invincibility or inevitability. 2008 taught us that is not wise.

this one.

And I don't think the Democratic bench is barren. Maybe 50 million Americans are Democrats.

:shrug

I've drawn my own conclusions from the facts cited in my prior post.

IMO, if anyone wanted to beat the bushes for qualified Democrats willing to run and willing to accept the backing of the Party's PTB for their candidacy, I am sure they could find at least ten worthy candidates. IMO, the Party's PTB have been discouraging potential opponents in a number of ways or we would not be seeing what I've been seeing for the past 2.5 years. I sure have never seen it before, even we have an incumbent. And for such a mixed bag candidate, no less.

In any event, I've drawn my conclusions from what I've been seeing and ask people to think hard and draw their own conclusions. I am not going to declare anyone evil or dumb or crazy simply because their conclusions differ from mine.

BTW every course of action people make and agree on, ,but do not necessarily announce to media is not a conspiracy. As Freud or someone supposedly said, "Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. " Good discussion.

Later.

I are? How bizarre. Every large organization has its PTB.

I am not talking Da Vinci Code or Illuminati here.

involed in a conspiracy of domiation and subjugation, is, IMO, conspiracy theory right up there with the Illuminati.

over the matter under discussion at the moment. The PTB of the Party means the people who have the most power in the Democratic Party. Nothing illuminati like about it.

I said nothing of a conspiracy of domination and subjugation or a conspiracy, Indeed, I expressly said the opposite: Sometimes people who head organizations simply agree on a course of action and then take it. The idea that every business decision should be considered a conspiracy is also bizarre. I am sure you don't believe that. The powerful people in both parties are making decisions all the time.

at least in presidential elections.

Minnesota, where I live, is reliably blue. I will not vote for HRC for president under any circumstances and she will still carry the state if she is the nominee.

Oligarchs manipulate us with the choice of a corporate Democrat vs. a Republicon?

One reason people don't vote is because of that manipulation.

for freedom and liberties.

Hell no.

I refuse to support those that increase poverty among my lowly class in favor of their wealthy friends like Dimon!!!!!!
Vote for the interests of the upper class if you feel their boots are tasty, as for myself-

going to be in the White House so start working on your options.

I don't under stand what your asking.

I side with the 99%.

Either way, I am pretty sure the only way she ends up in the White House is as a guest at a dinner party.

I'll wager a five hundred dollar donation to DU or the charity of your choice that if Hillary is attending a dinner party at the White House after 1/20/17 it will be as the host.


How do you like them apples?

Mostly R's against her.
I believe she will discourage many more from turning up to vote, mostly progressives or young.

I know I will not vote for her. Ever.

Res ipsa loquitur:


Young people will hit the polls in 2016, and they want Hillary.


Young Democrats across all demographics pick Clinton to be the party’s next nominee, according to the survey. More than half — 57 percent — of the Democrats surveyed prefer Clinton, compared with 10 percent who choose Vice President Joe Biden and another 10 percent who want Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. At 19 percent, a large chunk are still undecided.

http://fusion.net/story/41972/fusion-poll-millennials-politics-hillary-clinton-jeb-bush-election-2016/


That poll proves to this "old" man that age and wisdom aren't mutually exclusive.

Nepotism - while many would see having a woman in the W/H as a victory for feminism, Hilary has achieved politically what she has on the coat tails of her husband.

Nepotism is not gender specific.

Furthermore, it is childish to underestimate the role that nepotism plays in the inside-the-beltway world. Their are a great amount of people in the world who are hard-working and brilliant and who do not get ahead because they don't have the right connections.

In Hillary's case to think that she has moved ahead because of her own talents and not being the beneficiary of her husband's connections and career is unrealistic.

She is brilliant in her own right and I would say that he got where he did only because he had her help.

That said, I sure don't want her as the Democratic nominee..

does not equate to succeeding politically. On the brilliance issue you only have to look at Jim Inhofe as a case study - many other political leaders have similar acumen -

And you are saying Jim "climate change is a hoax" Inhofe is brilliant?

Good luck.. you're gonna need it.

Yes Hillary has brilliance and yes she has had a career. But brilliance and a career do not have to equate to being connected politically...One only has to look at James Inhofe to see that brilliance does not equate to a political career. I don't know how I can say it any simpler - many people who are brilliant do not have political careers because they also need political connections. Conversely, many people who are total idiots have political careers due to their political connections. In Hillary's case, although she is intelligent, her political connections made through her husband have made her.

Clinton supports getting children to see a Doctor and has called on Congress to act.

I consider getting children to see a doctor when they need one as progressive, but I am liberal and my view of progress is making things better.

I did not know that.

to partner with?

What difference does it make who she partnered with?

A progressive policy is a progressive policy.

Unless progressive feel that children should not see doctors when they need one.

What good are progressive social issues if we turn into paupers? Her stand on continuous wars will kill many of those children's parents. If we don't get a progressive in power to curb the NSA/CIA Deep State, we will lose our remaining freedoms and liberties.

We are sliding into tyranny and HRC will not change that.

I don't support her.

from the "Tough-as-NailsTerror Warrior" to the "Progressive Savior."

Not buying it.

His opinions don't make it true.

Just looking through this... really, bring up something that happened 40 years ago when she was doing her duty to represent a client?
That's stretching. I personally don't care about the speeches since I know that her voting record on economic issues was extremely progressive.
I won't bother you with too many "blue links" since those who have their mind made up don't read them or dismiss them.
But here is one on the environment.
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/hillary_clinton_environment.htm