candidate. At this time what she wants to do is exactly what she is doing in the Senate. A lot will depend on the makeup of the Senate in 2016 with what she will accomplish, but she will definitely shake things up

Amazing trajectory this woman is on. Just a few years ago hardly anyone even knew of her. Now the buzz is all about: "Will Liz run?"

People everywhere are asking that question. "Will Warren run for President?"

She sure sounds Presidential, doesn't she?

*President Elizabeth Warren*

...has a very nice ring, doesn't it?



Run, Liz, Run!

There is a difference

Hillary - for the TPP
Warren - against the TPP

Hillary - oh, stop picking on the poor banks
Warren - the game is rigged.

No, not a by-product. That is demeaning and marginalizing.

Yeah, I know the visas are more like in-sourcing, but those visas do not protect American jobs.
And I think the TPP will strip some of her other rhetorical positions away from workers.

No pill for me to swallow.

Keep telling yourself that.

Have a good night.

many more of the major issues that will have to be confronted in 2016.

Talk about a tough pill to swallow. Two of the most important issues America faces, and Hillary is most likely on the wrong side of them both.

It's a win win situation.

race yet.

So I'm not going to be concerned that Sen Warren or Sen Sanders haven't announced theirs, either.

she strikes me as someone who is as genuine as Obama, uh huh I've just said the 'G' word combined with Obama.

I'll campaign for her if she chooses to run. This lady is the real deal, and we need someone like her to be our President.

That would just be a miracle if she changes her mind.

and do everything I can. No one has stated they are running yet, so I have some hope that Warren will do so.

...sorry to disturb anyone's dreams, but political reality says that IF you want to be a serious candidate, you need to have lined up political and financial support by now. She hasn't and she isn't. As your resident 1%er, I've come to know her fundraisers, and if she was lining up support for a Presidential foray, I'm one of the people they'd be reaching out to.

As much as it may annoy some people, Warren and Clinton aren't that far apart, which is why she joined the other Senate women in encouraging Hillary to run.

There's no law that says she has to announce RIGHT FREAKIN' NOW! For all you know, she could be lining up political and financial support. She certainly seems to strike a chord, both with the 99-percenters, and against the self-proclaimed 1-percenters.

...there's no LAW, but there's a reality that says, if you're going to be competitive, you've laid the groundwork by now. Barack Obama announced in February, 2007, but he didn't just wake up and decide to run for President. He spent months considering the possibility, and lined up people who would support him before announcing. Warren ISN'T doing that, and I know the people she'd be working with if that was her plan. Beat up on 1%ers all you like, but Warren came to many of us for support in 2012, and she'd do it again if she was planning a Presidential campaign.

If I were her, I wouldn't say I was running now, either. I would be trying to see what kind of support I could build quietly, while bringing up important issues that no one else seems to be addressing. I like this style, as it is a good way to avoid candidate fatigue this early in the game.

and Senator Warren is not one of the candidates for President?

I suspect the sound of crickets

Lots of people here and elsewhere like Senator Warren's message. I think she is testing the waters, maybe she will run, maybe she won't. I and others will be disappointed if she doesn't run, but at least we can say that we tried to get her to run. And I certainly don't want to see a primary where Hillary is given token opposition and then blows it in the general election. I want to see a lot of viable candidates, maybe even like there was in 1960 when JFK finally came out on top out of a field of 10. Debate the issues, show clear distinctions with Republicans, and may the person with the best ideas and fighting spirit win.

for anyone announcing their candidacy.

I might even here some toads in there, too.

have either setup committees and not closed the door on a 2016 run.

Senator Warren multiple times has said she will not run for President in 2016.

when someone has announced their candidacy. Last I checked, no one has.

But please continue to tell everyone that a candidate that hasn't announced their candidacy is unstoppable.

Kat Deluna could announce her candidacy at this point.

...and I've said she's going through the necessary early steps for a campaign...and Warren is not.

So is her potential candidacy.

It eats up far too much of our budget. It is a huge problem. We can afford a competent military. We cannot afford to spend billions more than what is needed.

that Ms. Warren has come out for reducing military spending.

"As we wind down two wars, we can make cuts in our defense budget - smart, targeted cuts that preserve our national security."

http://elizabethwarren.com/issues/jobs-and-the-economy

She's quite pro-military and supportive of defense industry efforts in her (and my) home state of Massachusetts. All of her brothers served and one got a Purple Heart. She even fought to retain a line item in the Army budget that, if eliminated, would have cost MA jobs--even though the Army said they did not want or need the item.

I think she will walk a fine line on that score. It's like the visa thing--you can't find her talking a lot on that subject because she's a proponent of more "family" visas (visas for immediate relatives of immigrants, beyond just spouses and kids), and in order to get, you have to give a little.

Obama made me so cynical about politicians. But I could cast my vote for her with pride.

have made you cynical.

Hopefully, it is the later, otherwise, in spite of all the obstacles President Obama has had to put up with, what he has accomplished is nothing less than amazing

I'm certain there would be no Rahms or Geithners too. I just think our country really needs her now. We need to make a hard left turn soon or we're screwed.

Wellstone introduced me to Warren

From Paul Wellstone to Elizabeth Warren


John Nichols


Paul Wellstone was a movement progressive. From the farm crisis days when he was organizing rural Americans to fight back against corporate agribusiness to the last days of his final campaign, Wellstone worked to forge a left that was muscular enough to win elections, to govern and to bend the arc of history toward justice.

But the senator from Minnesota was not afraid to stand alone, if that was what principle demanded. Just days before his death on October 25, 2002, he was the only US senator facing a seriously competitive reelection race to vote against authorizing George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to launch an invasion of Iraq.

Ten years after America lost the great progressive populist in a plane crash that claimed his remarkable wife, Sheila, their daughter, Marcia, two pilots, a driver and two campaign staffers, it is Wellstone’s courageous anti-war vote that is best recalled. And rightly so. Paul called me when he announced that he would oppose the Bush-Cheney administration’s rush to war. He was upbeat, proud and confident. He knew he had taken what Washington insiders believed to be a political risk, but he was betting on the common decency and the common sense of Minnesotans. And the polls circulating at the time of his death confirmed Wellstone’s political instincts were every bit as sound in 2002 as they had been in 1990—when he bet that a quirky, low-budget campaign run from the back of a green school bus and relying on a television ad that mimicked Michael Moore’s anti-corporate documentary Roger and Me could unseat a millionaire Republican senator.

That was Paul’s genius. He understood that, sometimes, perhaps most times, Americans respect a stand on principle. And he recognized that time often turns the isolated concern of the true believer into popular sentiment. Paul disliked the suggestion that he was a “maverick.” He might break with presidents of his own party, with Democratic leaders in the Senate, but he did not do so for headlines. He did so because he felt it was morally and practically necessary for what he called “the democratic wing of the Democratic Party” to be heard.

This was particularly the case when it came to defending the interests of the working poor. Paul did not anger easily. But he truly, totally, despised the notion that budgets could, or should, be balanced on the backs of the poor and the working class. When the privileged exploited their economic advantages and lobbying connections to write the laws of the land, Wellstone was more than willing to stand alone in opposition.

That was the case in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when the Senate................ .......................................................


http://www.thenation.com/blog/170821/paul-wellstone-elizabeth-warren