for who she is and what she is doing for us, where she can make the most difference at present. If all those Warren for President supporters will just deliver their vote to the ultimate nominee, I would be happy.

We would never have gotten anywhere with all sorts of legislation if we'd "respected the decision" of politicians and taken "no" for an answer the first time.

All I've seen is people who'd like to see her as President. There's nothing inherently creepy about that.

If so, that is really sick.

they want, just as others have a right to point out the view that it is probably a waste of their time.

Move-on.org has implied they are going to force a draft of Warren, which will NOT work unless she agrees, and by all appearances, she does not want to run for president in 2016

Claiming it's harassment is a whole different ballgame.

and your comparing that to sexual harassment ... How many times does someone have to refuse your offer of a sandwich (no matter how much you wish to feed them) before one realizes that they are being really annoying by continuing the offer?

It's neither disrespect nor harassment to express your belief that someone would do a good job in a particular elected office. Good grief.

I know. I'm like scratching my head: looking to read about an harassment incident/charge happening or being made.

Someone is irritated that not everyone is board with the anointed one I take it.

requests are bothering her, rest assured.

I do not want her to be pressured into doing sonething she does not want to do. If she decided to get in I'd give her the same chance as Hillary. I have issues with her as well as Hillary. Like being a Republican far longer than was sane. After the AID's epidemic and how Reagan seemed to not give a shit until it happened to straight folks, how could she stay a repub? Because she thought they were BETTER on the economy? Wtf? I'd have to hear her explain that in detail. Nevertheless, I like her as a person.

I have no issues with Warren. I know too many people that were reagan supporters than and are had score Dems today. The past is not generally a litmus test for myself.

I have a problem with people who refuse to accept that she won't be in the race for 2016. It is all over the political inter-webs.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Elizabeth-Warren-for-President-2016/104694622899318

http://readyforwarren.com

two examples.

make that mistake, but she wasnt that young.

I mean I can totally see a 19 yr old guy joining the Nixon campaign if he saw a cute girl working there, but you get much older than that and you have no excuse.

If you are actually, honestly concerned, you haven't been paying attention.

That's why the pressure will not work.

To even ask the question indicates an absurd definition or harassment and one that completely mocks actual victims of actual harassment.

Why would I ask a judge, as opposed to an English teacher - or just an English speaker?

"To subject (an individual or group) to unwarranted (and now esp. unlawful) physical or psychological intimidation, usually persistently over a period; to persecute. Also more generally: to beleaguer, pester."

It doesn't have to be a legal matter - 'more generally'.

If anything, it's a sign of respect.

Heck, republicans are still running Reagan bumper stickers and he's dead.

"Draft 'x'" bumper sticker say "this is the type of leader that I prefer"... not "run out were going to come drag you into the street and force you to serve"

Where in the OP does it suggest that?

I don't feel belittled at at all, and I have experienced harassment. I also believe that when a woman says no, maybe we should respect that decision.


She has stated that she isn't running. Can you respect her choice?

I respect her choice and I also know that she wouldn't be the first to change her mind after saying they aren't running for office. Bernie is my candidate.


As to where in the OP does it suggest harassmen ? Did you miss this? 'At what point do 'Warren for President 2016" banners become a way of harrassing her?'

People who won't give up the idea of seeing her run are no better than people not accepting the no means no idea. It's really disprectful.

She's not running and she is a strong enough person to not change her mind.

I do not think that she is equivocating, or lying, or whatever.

I trust that she is speaking from her heart. That is important to me. I would think much less of her if it were otherwise.

That is why I take this position.

I think Elizabeth Warren is an awesome US Senator.

All of life is a fluid situation, what is not important to me today may be important tomorrow. You and I agree, Elizabeth Warren is an awesome US Senator.. and in my opinion she always speaks from the heart.

really, i would love to see her run. she has made it clear she is not going to run.

dont we have to accept that? allow that?

She is well aware of them and it doesn't seem to bother her at all. We just disagree on this. If Liz starts to feel harassed or that her voice is being discounted she will put a halt to it in no uncertain terms and in a very vocal manner.

i am really not on a side. i am really open to more candidates. and that is an interesting piece of info, that the larger movements are not being shut down.

She DISAVOWED the RFW effort completely.

And that was EIGHT months ago....since then, she's repeated her "No" about forty more times, on top of the dozen or more preceding those.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2014/08/22/elizabeth-warren-attorney-she-has-nothing-with-ready-for-warren/O7nOU8Z4bwAwFNRNrMFyNM/story.html

and not just tell the Globe in an interview before the speech she gave to the gathering of liberal activists, organizers passing out “Warren for President” hats and members of the crowd chanting “Run Liz Run.

I'm puzzled why she didn't tell them to quit harassing her then, It would have been so simple, During her speech she could have said, Ready For Warren, I will not run for President so please focus your efforts elsewhere.
Funny one sentence to the activists, organizers at the speech would have been enough. I don't remember that happening. Those hats must have been devastating to her.

she hasn't said anything other than NO. NO means NO.

And she did say "Focus your efforts elsewhere" -- or didn't you bother to read her letter to the FEC where that phrase took front and center?

She's also released a key staffer to work on the Clinton campaign.

No means no. It's entirely up to you to keep carrying GOP water, though. After a point (and we're getting past it at this stage of the game) it just becomes silliness and distraction.

reeks of desperation. have a nice day, I won't argue with such an absurd statement "carrying GOP water"

Even if they don't have the understanding of what they're doing, and persist in their smug and pointless efforts.

No means no--except when I want it MY way!!!!!! accompanied by little ROFL guys isn't a strategy.

We'll see you in Nov 16....when my Senator STILL won't be running!

Here's some more of that "desperate" with the guy reading for you....

would-be challenger to the front-runner, so any candidate people put forth other than Hillary could be construed as supporting the GOP. That's utter bullshit. The GOP's going to throw everything at the wall, including things that Democrats believe in good faith. Trying to use that to smear Dems who don't support HRC is dishonest and slimy.

and lose big at the end.

They've as much as SAID so--and repeating their game plan isn't "dishonest and slimy" -- it's pointing out what they're acknowledging.

Turn a blind eye if you'd like. It will make no difference at all, at the end of the day.

It's one step up from pestering.

There are lots of ways to harass someone, and I think it is more defined by the way someone feels than by what the actions are.

So it is fair to ask, does Warren feel harassed by this unrelenting pressure to run for president?

What else are we "expected" to do to avoid "pressuring" Senator Warren? Are we allowed to discuss her at all?

If Liz felt harassed or pestered by people wanting her to run for President she would have no problem telling them to stop in no uncertain terms. She hasn't done that yet. You should write her and ask her if it's a concern to you.

I just said it was a valid question. Some people were saying it wasn't.

She has made it clear, she is NOT RUNNING.

It really is disrespectful, IMO. I see so many things on FB and elsewhere where people refuse to accept her decision. every time I see it, it really bothers me.

Her supporters are supposed to be Democrats, liberals and progressives… I really want them to respect the one thing I thought we agreed on: 

A woman's choice.

She is not running.

All you have to do is examine some of the conservative web magazines and see how they flog the notion:


http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/28/desperate-republicans-recruit-elizabeth-warren-run-hillary-clinton.html
Desperate Republicans Are Trying To Recruit Elizabeth Warren To Run Against Hillary Clinton


http://www.redstate.com/diary/6755mm/2014/05/01/run-lizzy-run/
Run, Lizzy, Run!
Why Republicans hope Elizabeth Warren has a fighting chance in 2016.


They want to play the Limbaugh Operation Chaos game, get EW the nom with crossover votes, and crush her in the general.

I really wish people would support her as a senator instead of a POTUS candidate. She is amazing doing what she is doing.

would be brutal if she should get the nomination and run. I don't want to see an idol of mine attacked. And she's too valuable where she is.

They didn't even bother to develop some of the more unsavory themes, because they didn't have time. Also, I think Scott Brown was infected with hubris and didn't think he was going to lose. His smarmy use of the word "PER-fesser" (like he was Sylvester the Cat, or something) was both condescending and grating--he clearly felt, not to stretch a theme, that he was in the "catbird" seat.

And then they went after the whole "Fauxahontas" business. They really laid it on thick, too. They got so much pushback about the "Pow Wow The Indian Boy" bullshit (a group of Scott supporters doing the tomahawk chop and chanting, caught on video tape--very ugly) that I think they didn't dare keep on the attack, because people were REPULSED and said so in no uncertain terms. I do think that misstep was what slowed Brown down, and enabled EW to go on the attack. You will see people still using that ... errrrrr... heritage "material" even today when they want to disagree with EW on an issue on the national stage. It's relentless and they don't really care how MA voters regarded it--they still use it to motivate their hateful base. I think she got a sample of what she'd be in for and she doesn't want to go near that crap, and who can blame her?

When you think about it, HRC has been the victim of abuse--and that's what it is, it's abuse--for well over twenty five years now. And that's just on the national stage, I'm not including any heat she might have taken while her husband was running for governor in 1978 or when she was the wife of the attorney general of AR in the mid-seventies (not that they take much heat, generally--but she wasn't "Mrs. Clinton" back then, either, she was Ms. Rodham). She's been scrutinized up one side and down the other--I'm sure she doesn't love it, but she's learned to deal with it. I do think many people (I am one) admire her for not backing down when idiots resort to insults and shitflinging. No wonder she's guarded...if she lets her guard down, "they" will find a way to make something out of it.

ham-handed details some are shopping!!

and for those who claim it's some DLC plot, that's bullshit. There are other options for candidates, including perhaps Sanders who may well announce. The one thing Warren offers that he doesn't is that she isn't actually running.

I wonder why people would seek out that crap, first, and drag it this way, second!

The wingnuts believe that a cadre of their opposition regards Warren as a bright new sparkly candidate with no discernable negatives, and they can't wait to capitalize on that belief. The right wing oppo research has already been done vis a vis Warren. It would certainly save the GOP some trouble, which is one reason why they might favor her. I doubt they've got a big fat "O'Malley" folder over at RNC HQ, or a "Bernie" one either. But the Brown-Warren Senate race? That was the most expensive senate race in the HISTORY of this country, and the wingnuts spent big money on it--to include a ton of oppo research, much of which I think they didn't get to use to any discernable effect. Also, I think they regard her as both easy to raise up as a "boogieman" to get their base excited, and easy to crush. Their assessment might be wrong, but they're not going to get the chance to test the theory--not for want of trying, certainly. They've been beating the bushes trying to rile elements of their opposition with some really clumsy crap...and that crap gets repeated in the oddest places!

This is it in a nutshell.

I doubt she even knows about that let alone that it bothers her. How is a supporter supposed to help her work in the Senate?

No, ignoring her public statements isn't saying they know what's best for her. It's saying "I admire you and wish you were running". It's the furthest thing from disrespect.

I find your post disturbing and kind of odd. And I say that as someone who has always taken her at her word that she isn't running.

There are at least 2 versions in common use on DU, each in use by more than one person.

I can tell by her responses recently that she's tired of it.

Over/Under?

Problem solved.

Because it's highly unlikely Warren spends much time here, if she visits at all. It's you who doesn't want to see them.

I would think he represents the views they like in Warren.

AND maybe Bernie is.

This isnt really about who TO support

but

who NOT to

"only one of those makes sense now ...".

has no intention of voting Democratic unless Warren is the nominee.

Sure hope not, cuz I can assure you on the other side, they all get together when necessary to vote against us

and since Warren is a woman, she provides some with a convenient shield.

it is Bernie.

He has not said no.

I do not support the supposed nominee, and only someone I deem as being at least close to FDR-style Progressivism is going to stir any interest in me whatsoever.

You don't have to like my freedom of speech, but know that my intent is not to offend anyone!

I prefer to take Elizabeth Warren at her word.

The EW for President folks here make an utter mockery of her explicitly professed wishes to remain as a US Senator.

I am a huge EW fan and like her honesty, unlike many here who think that she is equivocating about her wanting to remain a US Senator. Or maybe that she is Tinkerbell and will save the planet if we all believe hard enough about her putative presidency.

Well, I believe that she wants to remain in the Senate and that she thinks she can do a lot of good there. No Tinkerbell necessary. Just hard work.

what she prefers to focus on, already in the works. i can see that. making clinton stronger.

just throwing it out there. was thinking about it the other day.

or you are right. she can accomplish what she wants thru the senate.

Elizabeth Warren ran for Senate because she sees that she can do a lot of good there. She apparently did not run for that office as a mere step to a more oval one, which she has explicitly expressed on many occasions.

Why so many people are so delusional that they cannot see her value as remaining a US Senator is beyond me. After all, she has said so in so many ways, at so many times.

Apparently she is equivocating, or outright lying. I prefer the honest Senator Elizabeth Warren to the other which so many seem to prefer here.

As always, my best to you, seabeyond.

Why not get a Bernie 2016 banner?

even sadder.

At least Al Gore really did want to be President at one time.

That got to be sad, too.

that Draft Gore didn't work. The point was- and is- that Gore>Obama.

Quit harassing Warren by expressing your support and your hopes!

Hillary Clinton's camp is on your case, to protect poor Elizabeth Warren from your harrassment!
So just stfu about Warren for Pres. already!

HRCs fans tell us over and over that they just don't DO this!
So this OP didn't happen.
Now go back to sleep.

when they know she isn't running. I suspect it serves some other purpose.

Surely that's still allowable?

Perhaps it should be against DU's TOS?

The transparent attempts to smother the very idea that Warren would make an interesting candidate that some would prefer over Hillary are vastly amusing.

There are three declared candidates and more on the way, yet you only focus on you love to hate and another who isn't running. It's very strange. I doubt Muriel has a dog in this fight. He's a Brit living in the UK. I suspect he finds it more puzzling than anything.

Nor do I hate HRC. I don't trust her, which is not the same thing.

This notion you've erected that the only choices are Clinton or Warren is completely false.

I've certainly never said it, as I'd be happy to support Sanders and take a serious look at O'Malley.

as though there could be no other reason for wondering why people continue to pretend to be for Warren for President when she isn't running. International because, as you know, the OP is a Brit.

You don't need to look for cryptic signs of Clinton support. The owner of the site has very publicly come out in support of her. If you want to confront someone, why not him?

That's your projection. To me, the OP appeared to be a Clinton supporter because all the DUers I've encountered thus far who are fixated on telling DUers, over and over again, that Warren isn't running are Clinton supporters.

Note that I don't object to someone being a Clinton supporter, nor even to repeatedly saying that Warren's not running so her supporters are wasting their time. What I found, and find, objectionable is characterizing the expression of a desire to see Warren run for President as harassment, especially as the "harassment" consists solely of signature banners on DU. It cheapens the word, just as chanting "no means no" undermines the seriousness of sexual assault.

And in context, it's pretty clear that Warren's saying, "Hang it up, guys; I'm not running," not "Don't assault me." The rhetoric on DU, however, about how we should respect "a woman's voice" and "a woman's choice" make it pretty clear that there are some conflating a attempt to draft Warren with a different sort of "no means no". That's dishonest, and cheapens the seriousness of sexual assault. It also gives the impression that it's not okay to attempt to draft Warren because she's a woman but would be okay if she were male, which is a whole 'nother kind of fucked up.

If there goal is to support an actual candidate for the Democratic nomination? He has a far deeper record of leftist credentials than she does. He didn't vote for trickle down economics or support Reagan's near viral genocide of gay men. He's been a committed socialist, not a Republican. Yet there is one thing Warren offers than Sanders doesn't: She isn't running.

Nah, that couldn't be it!

The poster's point was that support for Warren was a comment on the fact people didn't like the field of candidates. I said why not support Sanders, who may well announce by the end of the month. He at least hasn't ruled it out dozens of times. Your response in no way addresses that question.