US Sen. Elizabeth Warren: 'No endorsements now' of any Democratic presidential candidates
Source: Mass Live
SPRINGFIELD ‒ Despite pressure to weigh-in on the 2016 Democratic presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., refused to say Monday whom she will support and when that endorsement could come.
The senator, following am open house in Springfield, told reporters she hasn't decided when she'll announce what candidate she'll be supporting for president, but made clear "it's not today."
"No endorsements now," she said, adding that she's proud of her party's candidates for focusing on issues.
"I think that what the Democrats are doing is terrific. We're out talking about the issues," Warren said. "I look at the Republican debates and the difference between what they're doing and what the Democrats are doing that really shows who's on whose side."
Read more: http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/02/us_sen_elizabeth_warren_no_end.html
BigGLiberal
(102 posts)thesquanderer
(11,992 posts)I don't think she'll endorse before Super Tuesday, but I think it would mean something if she did.
LittleGirl
(8,291 posts)Sanders Warren 2016! My dream ticket.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Hillary's reputation for vindictive retaliation is well earned.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)It's not like the Clintons have short memories.
-- Mal
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)when Hillary supporters are jumping for joy that Elizabeth Warren announced that she is not endorsing ANYONE . . . . . . . . . . . YET?
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)let the Democratic Party continue to debate.
I'm supporting Bernie but if Hillary wins the nomination, I will hold my nose and vote for her in the GE, but like Warren does to President Obama, I will criticize Hillary when she champions Wall Street policies that hurt those of us living on Main Street.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)After all, we were all told, over and over, that it went without saying that Warren backed her, and that the certainty of Warren's support proved it was silly for anybody to support Bernie at all.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)to those over and over and over again posts that said this. I missed every single one of them.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)I would like it if more would endorse issues instead of individuals. There's so many political games being played when it comes to endorsements, most endorsements don't result in any kind of net positive to me.
Ellen Forradalom
(16,160 posts)And she's quite right about the contrast between the Democratic and Republican races.
Good on her. I hope there's a spot for her in the next Democratic Cabinet.
Stuckinthebush
(10,847 posts)Sanders would have been her normal endorsement but she's playing this well. She knows that he is likely toast so perhaps is vying for a VP nod.
Politics is politics after all!
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)Especially 49.6--achieving a dead heat--coming from nowhere, starting with no name recognition, no money, no organization, near complete media blackout and a hostile DNC chair trying to rig it for your opponent.
That is not "toast." If anything, it means that Hillary Clinton may be toast. She gets no momentum from Iowa, had to spend way too much money just to get a tie--and even then, was dependent on lucky coin tosses (literally), it was such a squeaker--had to trash the good will of many Democrats by using the DNC to try to rig it in her favor, and had to cash in way too many chips in endorsements, way too early, just to get a tie.
If I was a Clinton supporter, I'd be very worried this morning, and not saying stupid things like Bernie Sanders "is likely toast." Besides being wrong, you risk alienating all the young new Democratic voters who have flocked to Sanders, and Sanders' large constituency for single payer health care, expansion of Social Security, fair taxation and other New Deal policies. Better if you would re-think these issues and advise your candidate to cut off her umbilical to our Corporate Rulers and run on her own merits as someone who could get these things done for the 99%. She has an argument there--she IS competent to do that--but we can't believe her while she's getting millions of dollars from our oppressors, and has a record of abandoning Democratic Party principles (on "free trade for the rich" agreements, on private prisons, on war, on health care, etc.). She needs to "revolutionize" her campaign (for instance, publicly drop her super-PACS and Corporate donors, and ask for small donations from everybody, join with Sanders in picking a new DNC chair and ousting her shill, and other such uniting moves). She COULD do that, and unite the party and most of the country around Sanders' issues. Will she? If she's a real leader, she will. I don't think she's a real leader now, but I DO think she's capable of it.
Bottom line, Sanders if far from being "toast." He has all the momentum right now, and, considering that huge majorities of Americans agree with his positions in polls on the ISSUES (not name recognition), the more they learn about him--that someone is actually advocating for what they want--the more support will he gain. The only things Clinton has going for her now are name recognition and that "electability" meme, but Iowa has put a serious dent in both. She and her supporters need to deal with this, and not tell yourselves lies--lies that will end up ripping the Democratic Party to pieces, like 1968! (Oh my, if Hubert Humphrey had only broken with LBJ and come out against the war, what a better world we would have now!)
Stuckinthebush
(10,847 posts)He didn't get a massive bump. The future isn't bright for him in terms of demographics for the March states. He needed this win and a big one to get the momentum. He didn't. Toast. Mark it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)brooklynite
(94,727 posts)...and if she, like you, thinks Clinton will lose, she'd have nothing to lose, right?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)LuvLoogie
(7,028 posts)is that Liz is an establishment insider now. She's a team-player Democrat who knows she's a Democrat, and with significant political capital of her own.
She got that capital by focusing on an issue that could be turned into legislation and worked with the Obama administration to create the Consumer Protection Agency. Her passionate work on the banking committee adds to that capital.
She has credibility across the Democratic spectrum, and she is playing smart politics, which I am sure both Bernie and Hillary can respect.