Unless Hillary's coattails are calculated to win back the Senate. She might stay then.

The Senate is pointless until the turtle loses his power.

Only FDR Democrats, hopefully!

At least not anytime soon.

eom

"Mrs. Clinton was often criticized by the right as a doctrinaire liberal during her husband’s presidency and, as a presidential candidate, ultimately ran as more of an economic populist than Mr. Obama did."

Around here Hillary is always accused of being to the Right of Obama.

If Hillary runs, she'll run as whatever she thinks will win, and if elected will move to the classical Republican policies she seems to always embrace, e.g., Wall Street and War as #1 priorities.

Her record is Wall Street and War, and she's known to prevaricate, i.e., Bosnian snipers, being flat broke, etc., so her future is not so hard to predict.

Did Elizabeth Warren change?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

Although I think Warren changed because she 1) had new information (her research) and 2) is an honest person and 3) has a strong desire to help others.

If this is correct, then I don't see where Hillary has an opportunity to change as Warren did.

I'm just going on what I judge to be her character, same as you are with your guesses about Elizabeth Warren. But once a President is sworn in, a whole hell of a lot of moving parts start to...move. It's only a one-person election before the swearing-in.

Clinton will have good advisers and bad ones, same as any President. Despite the fear of what she will do, I suspect the reality will suit us all fine.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

We often rationalize a qualifier as being applicable to only one, and justify reasons why it can't apply to the other-- often predicated on little more than our own biases.

She once said that she voted Republican because she thought that Republicans were better for the markets. When it seemed to her that was no longer so, she switched parties. Now, what she meant by "better for markets," why she thought Republicans better, and everything else in that though needs elaboration. But that's what she said.

Whatever she meant, she ain't the only one to think Republicans changed, that's for damned sure.

She explains all this in the book although not directly. You can readily figure out how she changed her mind when you read the book.

of your time? If you can, I'd appreciate it. If you can't, that's fine.

personality and sincerity that you get from reading the book.

I do recommend that you read it.

I especially recommend that those who have already decided to support Hillary read Elizabeth Warren's book.

It would open some eyes I think.

I hope I am not being rude. But I am shocked at how many people comment on Hillary v. Elizabeth Warren without having read Warren's book. They don't know what they are talking about.

Luv you too.

I am laying low on some threads where some posters appear. It's not that I don't have a lot to say, but on advice of council I need to do it for my own well being. I have no one on ignore, I am doing it in my head. I still want to see what they say though, sometimes it makes me Lol for the sheer.... oh never mind. Sometimes it makes me angry and it makes me cry, sometimes it makes me believe the world has gone crazy.

However, I am not going to get another hide over it. Some are alert crazy here. The Jury, one said this about me....sheshe2 is one of the worst bullies and a bitch to boot.

Sigh~

As I look back over my ignore list, and I don't use it liberally, it's gratifying to see that most of 'em tripped over their own ♂ and got themselves banned.

It gave me peace of mind to get rid of those who gave me agita. It's like taking digital thorazine.

Once you get the hang of it, it becomes an effective tool.

Juror #1 said~

Well played.

People don't change?

Developmental studies on adults and older people have demonstrated conclusively that the old saws like "you can't teach an old dog new tricks", are, like much folk wisdom, false. People develop new interests and perspectives throughout their lives, no less as they enter old age.

In fact, I was pointing to a an example of an instance where someone stated that they did change.

No one prominent in the Democratic Party of today is even close to your description. McCarthyism saw to that long ago and the DLC/Third Way/New Democrats did away with the New Dealers and Fair Dealers.

He made the best of the Congress he had to keep the country running.

dollar tax that she refused to consider in 2008 was not running as an economic populist.

During her husband's presidency, she was not in any office other than FLOTUS. Nonetheless, her name became associated with Heritage Foundation Care.

The article is revisionism at its finest.

Additionally, this time she will not be running against Obama, who, like Hillary, self-identified as a New Democrat and who staffed his white in 2008-09 with recycled Clintonites, starting with Rahm.

…and warmongering--She is most certainly to the right of Obama.

Don't even pretend that this is not the case.

In my opinion, that's pretty damn important. Do we want more war in the Middle East--wars
based on lies that only serve to enrich corporatist neocon Dems and Republicans and their
friends who would profit from these activities?

It's disgusting.

and to Warren, who will prove to be one of Greatest Senators from Massachusetts!

that there is a good deal of respect there. Instead of "either-or" we may get "yes-and". What a concept.

have done far more for working Americans than Hillary ever did. And when Warren assumes the Presidency... wow!

would be enough!

Dep't is another. She is also the only one with the guts to ask the question nobody else dared
to -- Why are none of the Wall Street bankers in jail?

There are so many ways of influencing people -- knowing how to make them more aware is an
important one.

Two great Democrats who will both be fighting to get Hillary elected

It's only on LW sites and certain media outlets that they are portrayed as being antagonists. In reality they have a lot in common, they are of a similar age and background. I'm glad that they had a meeting.

If there's a second Clinton administration, I bet that she would offer Warren to run Treasury or the Federal Reserve.

It's only on LW sites and certain media outlets that they are portrayed as being antagonists. In reality they have a lot in common, they are of a similar age and background. I'm glad that they had a meeting.

Yup, afraid to mention them for a hide...

learn that she strongly opposes the kind of corruption that Clinton represents. Clinton has simply sold herself in order to, she hopes, win the White House. She is more of the same kind of politician that has gotten our country into so much trouble especially economic and foreign policy trouble.

I support Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders for president.

I have frequently posted the reasons for my decision not to vote for Hillary. I won't repeat them. But I have never read a cogent article on the substance, on issues and not on the money Hillary has raised, her polls or her noblesse oblige, as to why she would make a good president.

I have stated why I think Elizabeth Warren would make a good president many times. No one has discussed on DU the reasons they think that Hillary would actually make a good president. What is it that you think she would do that would make her a good president?

Please explain. I just don't see why Hillary would make a good president. I think she would make a lousy one.

I'm a big Hillary supporter and I also like Elizabeth Warren. I hope Hillary wins in 2016, and I think she will win. But if she didn't, I would have no problem supporting Elizabeth Warren in 2020. (Although I am not sure how much of a country we would have left after 4 years of Jeb Bush or Scott Walker.)

I don't post too often anymore. This site is too anti-Hillary for my taste.

If Hillary runs, I'll support her 100%. If she doesn't, I'll respect her decision.

Hugs!!

any chance at all of winning the 2016 GE is Citizens United. But I still think we will win.

There are some pro-Hillary people around here. And after the primaries the party will unite behind the nominee.

{Yawn}
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

HC: Don't f*** with me, Lizzy!
EW: Just watch me...

Can one dream?...

I wish Warren was running, too. We need a firebrand! But Clinton's team will have much to recommend it. And Warren, I hope, will be part of it, not just the senator from Massachusetts.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

Wonders never cease........

Let's leave it at that.

Very confusing...

when Warren shared her secrets!

Hillary: So, Elizabeth, what is the secret to your success?

Warren: I fight like Hell for the other 99.9% of Americans.

Hillary (looking puzzled): Really? Who is this 99.9% you speak of? Of course I know, I'm just testing you.

Warren: The people who aren't born wealthy, and who wake up each day and try to have a decent life without cheating others out of their own decent lives.

Hillary: How intriguing, I do not know of such people! Tell me more! Are they like a long-lost relative of humans?

Warren, muttering: Oh, brother.

Hillary: Oh wait! I know exactly what you mean! Bill and I were "dead broke" when we came out of the Whitehouse!

Warren: face palm

are both pragmatic. Something I admire.

... to read "... Clinton praised Warren for fighting HILLARY'S BEST FRIENDS."?

derp

I just don't think Warren wants to run against Hillary. I think at this point she wants to influence her and have clout with her.

Hillary already has such a leg up, it would be hard for Elizabeth Warren to start building the kind of infrastructure Hillary already has set up, and ready to go. I hope they team up, though - Elizabeth Warren would bring a LOT to Hillary's table. I half want her nominated for Treasury Secretary and half don't want that. I'm afraid if Warren vacates her Senate seat to join a Hillary Clinton Cabinet, that seat would be open, and if martha coakley runs for it, it will be lost. That dingdong scott brown would probably try to reestablish residence and ride back into the Senate.

PLEASE Massachusetts - DO NOT nominate martha coakley for ANYTHING more in the future. She's a certified LOSER. She's had two big elections she should have won - and failed both times.

And EMILY's list, which works closely with the Dem party, laid a million dollar blessing on her from Day one.

Not to mention distracting and silly and irrelevant and nothing to do with the current fascist enemies.

Did I mention boring?

Unless and until we have a primary with both Hillary and Warren in it, I don't see a lot of point to this.

So in a way I guess this nonsense is "good for DU"

Although it's a one sided civil war. Rampant anti-Hillary sentiment on one side, but little anti-Warren sentiment from Hillary supporters. Most Hillary supporters like Liz Warren just fine.

Id give RT much more respect than TPM.
What I dont understand is why they didnt bump into each other at a Grimes event?
Then again, I would have put my shoulders behind ANY noteworthy Democratic contender,
and not against the possibility of another candidate, particularly since hindsight corroborates
doubts aplenty.
and here we are with Mitch, again.

Can the Clinton campaign truly be that shallow and tone deaf?

P.S. That was a rhetorical question.

I appreciate that. Hope they get paid enough.

with her good advise and will have a voice in her administration.

We need to Win again in 2016 and may the best Dem get the Nom.. in the meantime I'm appreciating the two years we have left of President Obama.

mahalo Don

On Tue Feb 17, 2015, 10:23 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I'm sure Hillary has threatened Elizabeth Warren often and will continue to.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1017014

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Suggesting that Secretary Clinton has "threatened" Senator Warren, AND that Warren should be in fear of her life is uncalled for

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Feb 17, 2015, 10:28 PM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Stupid post by a newbie, but not hide worthy IMHO.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: this poster clearly is at the wrong site.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Personal opinion, ask her to prove her statement, argue with her, but don't go crying to a jury.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Sen Warren most likely knows what it takes to succeed in the New Democratic Party.

But while the HRC supporters gloat, the populist movement will continue. Maybe Sen Warren can be "persuaded" not to run, but the movement will continue. Sad when Democrats actually choose to side with Wall Street and the Oligarchs in lieu of the people.

HRC: "Pray tell me, Ms. Warren, what's on the minds of the little people?"

for the war resolution against ISIS. I expect there will be a million excuses for what it shouldn't be held against her, in contrast to Clinton's vote on Iraq. Considering people don't hold that vote against Biden or Kerry, I expect the double standard will continue.

And nobody voted for Obama to get a bonus Biden.

gushed all over Kerry's becoming Secretary of State. There aren't a million threads about either of those two, despite the fact that Biden is certainly a possible candidate for the Presidency. Clearly they have a visceral hatred toward Clinton, and the claims that it is based on policy are completely hollow. Vacuous references to her as "corporatist" are not discussions of policy but rather a simple-minded label that places upon Clinton all responsibility for capitalism and the ills of the American political system.