From personal experience. Completely unpleasant.

I really do not think she will run. She's just enjoying the possibility and the attention.

'likeable'...

I will vote for the democratic candidate, but I sense that she feels entitled to the nomination. Same issue as in 2008. Just my opinion.

may she win in a landslide whatever comes after that will be dealt with by duly entitled progressives and liberals.

which is true of all potential candidates . . . for the time being.

Don't see how those two thoughts are necessarily mutually exclusive. I once was competing for a job promotion with someone and, when pressed what I thought about that person's fitness for the position, I had to admit that person was highly qualified. In that sense, I supported their hiring, but felt I was better qualified and had superior job skills for the position that would allow me to do a better job. Had our supervisor disagreed, and I had not been given the promotion, I would have felt very comfortable working for that person. BTW, that person felt the exact same way about me, and gave almost the same supportive answer, when our supervisor posed the same question. Anyway, that's what I was getting at.

you can twist and turn all you want. I have been listening to her read her own book....NOTHING about it tells me that she doesn't know EXACTLY what she is doing.....

I find it very disconcerting and a bit misogynistic that everyone seems to think she just doesn't.

NO means NO!

Thankfully, Obama did decide to answer the call of the grassroots demanding that he run and give favor to those of us on Main Street, not Wall Street. I see Elizabeth brilliantly playing down her interest in running - for the time being - before she too is persuaded that the country desperately needs her vast talents and she decides President Warren has much to contribute to improving its prosperity even more.

she said and I quote "I am not running for President...I am NOT running for President ...I AM NOT RUNNING for President"

Not to mention she has already thrown her support behind someone else....

What part of that sounds like she is unsure?

That's my only point. Obama said and did precisely the same thing, as have many savvy politicians in considering, and leaving the door open for, a run for POTUS, who don't want to foreclose a possible run for the office. Smart move on her part.

she wont run against Hillary Clinton...whom she ALREADY put her support behind. IF you read her book you will see....she is a very sure footed woman.

Ironically, it is YOU (not me) who's putting THOSE words in her mouth. Elizabeth Warren knows exactly what she's doing. Of course, ultimately, she may decide not to run, as may Hillary. Guess we'll just hafta wait and see.

she wants to talk about OTHER things more important to her right now...but instead because of people like YOU ....when ever she is interviewed...most of it is spent answering THAT question. THAT is why she was so annoyed....


Do you really want to "annoy her into running"?

She's just sooo unlikable.

This place is worse than a RW site.

But they all know what she thinks and how she feels about a host of issues. Some should write fiction, they are talented.

Were I ever to be interviewed by Terry Gross (which will never ever happen as I am not interview material in any way) I would likely bite her head off. She is obnoxious.

I love that word - puts the little woman in her place, eh? I got an idea for you, maybe this may a new concept for you, I dunno, but here goes -- instead of resorting to near sexist personal attacks how about, you know, maybe, reviewing her record as a senator and show how that, not her clothes, not her looks, not her "snippish" responses, not half truths, not outright lies, not her time in the White house as first wife, trying to project what6 she thought about Bill's BJ, how about addressing the issue of her qualifications for President , based upon her performance, and experience?

Women aren't allowed to be strong without being attacked.

Not everything is based on gender or race.

I doubt it . Perhaps you did not hear the audio ...or perhaps your opinion is tainted by pre conceived disdain. And anything and everything is twisted to the worst possible interpretation. And strong women in China bound their own feet. Strong women hold down their daughters for mutilation. Strong women in America jump on the sexist bandwagon.

You mean to tell me, Mr. Vice President," George W. Bush said incredulously to Al Gore on election night, "you're retracting your concession?"

"You don't have to be snippy about it," Gore responded.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20001126mag-onlanguage.html

in the interview. She kept harping on the gay marriage issue with several different questions and Hillary finally answered her, quite frankly, in a that way that most Americans would have to answer if they were being honest.

Call the answer snippy if you like but most of us have evolved and moved favorably towards that issue. Hillary is only different in that she's a politician so she gets accused of all her positions being political and not sincere.

Hell, even the president has admittedly evolved on that issue, and I worked for the his campaign in 2012 against Hillary. I'm saying that to say I'm not an unabashed Hillary fan, but fair is fair.

but no matter. The wonderful language police have deemed you a grave sinner for using a very word for describing a tone she used while communicating.

If a man stood up for himself he would be labeled strong and powerful. Load of crap and still surprising that "democrats" spew the rw nonsense

Except that she's a white woman, hence "snippy".

And in this case, you would have a difficult time finding any description of a man as snippy. That description is used to minimize what they have to say and to reinforce the notion that there is something wrong with a strong woman.

It is surprising to me that "liberals" would stoop to such tactics. I am saddened that you have so dehumanized Clinton that it is ok with even liberals to use sexist language in an attempt to bring her down.

I don't see her being "snappy". I see someone pushing back when an interviewer is trying to play "gotcha" games; which is what Gross was doing.

But only because this little gem is the most prominent use of the word snippy in the last 20 years.

And it was an inaccurate description of what occurred during that interview.

Last edited Sun Jun 15, 2014, 06:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Do you acknowledge that you said "And in this case, you would have a difficult time finding any description of a man as snippy." And that in turn I provided the most prominent use of the word in presidential politics and it was from one man to another.
Given that those two fact are true...

word I used when I heard Terry interview Sandra Day O'Connor - the former justice was just a tad bit rude in my mind.

Yes, we've all evolved. Including Obama.

And, maybe one day we will all be where she was in 1993 - healthcare for all and a single payer.

(I did not know that when she was in Seattle people booed her and spat on her because of her plan.)

deal. But if she always held a view and misstated it for political reasons, it reflects on character and moral courage.

We deserve the leadership we collectively choose via elections. We need leadership that really is transparent about positions & decision making. It's up to the electorate to close the delta.

he has never offered any insight. Did he really decide to be against civil rights? Or was he making politics? No one knows, he doesn't say and it does not seem to matter much.

I doubt he would've changed his mind, then changed it again. Just seems like politics, and yes, it sucks.

Because when it comes to politicians, the only way you can tell what they are going to do is what they have done in the past and who is giving them money.

Everything else is worthless, especially their words.

about Bill signing DOMA. Not that she would have (or should have) any influence over that as an unelected First Lady. But I'd still like her to articulate her thoughts during that time...

It was the Senate of the 90s that passed DOMA - that the Supreme Court invalidated. And then it was, still is, up to each state.

Hillary has too much baggage from the past.

We need to move on and take care of the issues that confront us today.

In case you did not listen to the audio in the OP:

President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) -- HR 3396 or Public Law No. 104-199 -- on 21 September 2000. It defines marriage as an act between heterosexuals and frees one state from being required to honor the same-sex marriage conducted in another state. As of this writing, 39 states have laws based on DOMA; 18 of those are amendments to the state constitution.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/DOMA.htm

Marriage has traditionally been a state issue, but gay marriage is a national issue because it involves national laws (income taxes, Social Security, etc.) and because marriages that are legal in one state need to be recognized in other states.

If she runs, Hillary is going to have to answer question after question about her past, about Bill Clinton's presidency. Her candidacy is likely to be mired in that old baggage.

I support Elizabeth Warren. I do not think that Hillary should be our Democratic candidate. I think that Republicans will have a field day with her.

spot on.

As Rip Torn/aka Patches O'Houlihan said: If you're going to become true dodgeballers, then you've got to learn the five d's of dodgeball: dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge!

And we know the disaster that led to. Hillary's cosying up to Wall Street should be a concern to just about everybody on this site. OTOH, Elizabeth's sterling record in dealing with those fat-cats is impeccable and one of the main reasons she has my vote.

When it was politically acceptable to do so. Just like she "evolved" on the Iraq war after it fell out of favor with the American public.

no surprises there

A) She was definitely NOT running in 2016, and

B) That SHE was going to support Hilary Clinton.


Unless she's changed her position.

Especially the bold parts you emphasize.
good luck.

she never literally used the word 'endorse,' or how you have to read between the lines, and that she's just being coy, or that she really means 'yes' when she's saying 'no.' So, I'm not sure why I'm bothering to do this.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/democratic-female-senators-sign-letter-encouraging-hillary-clinton-to-run

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/10/in-secret-letter-senate-democratic-women-rally-behind-hillary-clinton/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/04/warren-im-not-running-for-president/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/elizabeth-warren-book-senate-cfpb

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/04/elizabeth-warren-hopes-hillary-clinton-makes-2016-run-but-declines-to-endorse-her/

sometimes its helpful to use past experiences to assess reality.
honest.

She will have the support and she can win, so she will run.

Read her book, A Fighting Chance. Elizabeth Warren will run, and she will win. Her candidacy will focus on the issues that Americans are most worried about today. She will be extremely popular, offer an alternative to the Tea Party nonsense and bigotry. And she will win.

When the previous pope resigned, I predicted that the next pope would be from South America. He is. I don't score 100%, but i don't do badly at recognizing political trends. Life-long hobby.

Hillary has too much baggage. If she subdues her ego and mends her hurt, she will be a tremendous help to Elizabeth Warren's campaign, may be reappointed either as Secretary of State or any position she wants in a Warren cabinet as long as it has nothing to do with economic issues. The Clintons are too close to Wall Street to be trusted with any economic posts.

You are dead on about the whole corporate friendly aspect.

Look at how a Tea Party guy used populist ideas against Cantor and painted him as being controlled by the big banks.

Bills pandering to Wall Street and Hillary being the Senator for Wall Street would allow the right GOP candidate to run a populist campaign against her.

In the long run the reason for the crash may have been bing banks controlling it all. However the decline of the middle class has a lot to do with gov't hands off and a populist republican is not going to help.

Brilliantly stated.

have been enough states calling for a Constitutional Convention. DOMA instead adopted as an amendment to the Constitution would not have been thrown out by any court.

Bill was just being 3rd way moderate Bill, like with NAFTA.

Massachusetts, didn't permit same sex marriage until 8 years after DOMA.

Even as she has spoken out against them? Because at some point in the past she supported her husband she must always be for what he did?

That sounds rather patriarchal to me.

Hillary shouldn't be president just because her husband happened to have been.

Hillary may have and may have had very different opinions from Bill. We know that she did on the Monica Lewinsky matter. That's for certain.

But her campaign will have to spend enormous amounts of time fielding questions about the minutiae of differences between Bill's actions then, her opinions now, etc. The fact is that a lot of what Bill Clinton did was good, but an awful lot of it had bad repercussions after 2000. Fair or not, Hillary will be called to answer for what happened during the first Clnton administration.

We Democrats do not need the distraction of that kind of a vulnerable candidate.

Elizabeth Warren has spent her life studying the economic issues that push people into bankruptcy. She has a lot of experience in government THAT IS RELEVANT to the current state of our country. Hillary has experience in other areas, but we need Elizabeth Warren in the White House so that she can make appointments to the Treasury Dept. (not based on the political debts
that Hillary owes), the regulatory commissions like the SEC, etc. and the Fed.

We need Elizabeth Warren in a position in which she can enforce the laws that those too cuddly with Wall Street dare not enforce.

Hillary polls high now, but she is extremely vulnerable to attacks on her lack of populist credentials. And Hillary is not really a populist. At least her public image is not that of a populist. Bill came across because of his personality as more of a populist than Hillary although Bill's policies and appointments were not very populist.

The victory of Brat over Cantor reflects the rising populism of the electorate in this country. Ordinary Americans feel that their interests have been subordinated to those of the banks, Wall Street and the 1% to a point that is intolerable. Americans do not want socialism. Americans want fairness, openness and opportunity. And they will look for a candidate in 2016 who will stand up for those values. Hillary is not the person to do that even if she does share those values.

That only makes me want to support her campaign more, because of the BS that's going to get thrown at her, if she can weather it, great. If not, then it will be an indictment on our society. We get the politicians we deserve.

Warren can run if she wants, and you can draft her if you want, but I think this is a weak sticking point. Just because the media is misogynistic and it will make it "difficult" for Clinton to face a lot of the BS doesn't mean she shouldn't give it a go.

The "populist right" is fascism. It does not indicate any thing more than fascism.

Rand, is that you?

Hitting a little below the belt, aren't you? What's the matter, bud, so enamored with Warren that you can't handle the fact that she polls in the single digits and that she has repeatedly said that she's not running?

You just hijacked an OP that had zero to do with Elizabeth Warren.

Unbelievable.........

I'm saying that the Republicans will somehow work in some way to bring in Monica Lewinsky. They hit below the belt.

We shall see whether Warren runs. The polls won't bother her. Those polls are too early. Elizabeth Warren has not been heard by enough Amercans yet.

Think what she had to deal with in Massachusetts.

The OP had to do with Hillary. And I am discussing why she shouldn't run.

In short: We have a better candidate.

Wishing for something is not going to make it so. She barely won in MA and that's a blue state.

As for who is a better candidate, that's your opinion. Opinions are not facts.

That's not my opinion. Look at the results in the Cantor/Brat race. That's a fact.

Hillary Clinton cannot pretend to be a populist and get by with it.

You can be before same sex marriage and at a time when defending opposite sex marriage is the norm.

Yes you can be in politics that long.

It is not disqualifying for Hillary for President.

But her whole record is, alas,disqualifying.

IMO! IMO!

In my opinion I must caution.

Evolution is easy when you are just following the crowd. Standing out and letting your voice be heard when your opinion is unpopular but right is the brave thing to do.

The interviewer was persistent in asking Hillary about how her views on gay marriage have evolved. Hillary responded directly to the questions she was being asked. I don't see any problem with it; I just think she's being direct and assertive which are qualities one would want in a leader.

Warren before Hillary.

The question was accusatory and she deftly deflected.

hoping that people will just buy the headline and not listen to the tape.

If this were a guy, the headline would have been "X holds firm against irritating reporter"

Go Hillary!

what Bill did, not sure she agreed. Not much of a point to me anyways. I didn't vote for him, and worked for the only anti-Nafta person running. and I never was successful in voting in a President until Obama btw. 2x.. Started voting in 72

If it was a male politician being interviewed (eg. Bill Clinton; Barack Obama) I don't think he would be viewed as "snippy" if he answered the questions in the same way that Hillary did.

an example for me might be breast feeding.
-
1. it went from unknown position,

2. to probably best,

3. to it should be allowed anywhere

4. to perhaps promoted to occur anywhere now.

----

perhaps promoted to occur anywhere now... was never denied, just not particularly endorsed



edit: added a space

Hillary is going to have to answer too many questions about too many issues on which she will have to explain why her opinions (and she will be held to answer for Bill Clinton's decisions, like it or not) have changed.

It is going to drain her campaign and make her ineffective as a candidate.

We need someone who can, with a relatively clean slate, speak to the issues of today.

Yes, and the more she IS held to answer for her husband's actions and/or decisions, the more women (in particular) and people who sympethize with women will sympathize with her.

If anybody thinks they can score cheap political points against her that way, I say "please proceed."

It is a matter of whether she will be able to tell her story to voters for all the dissension over her controversial past and Bill's controversial past.

Let's leave the past behind.

We are entering a populist era. If Cantor's defeat does not prove it, then just wait.

Hillary may feel that she is a populist, but the fact is that her past and Bill's past, lived at a time very different from this time, will defeat or at least muddy any claim she makes to be a populist.

Hillary is the bankers' candidate. That's how she will be seen by the most active members of the Democratic base -- me for one.

I recall in 2008 in a debate with Obama about healthcare, Hillary said something to the effect that couples earning $250,000 are middle class. How many couples earn $250,000? They are the upper middle class, maybe even rich in the eyes of most Americans.

In California and New York, the view may be different, but when it comes to economic reality, Hillary is way out of touch with most Americans.

The average Social Security recipient receives about maybe $1300 per month. That is the middle class for the many, many Americans who rely on Social Security for all or most of their income.

Hillary and most of D.C. are way out of touch.

Or someone who will actually take stances on critical issues?

But it's Hillary, so the pillorying never ends. If this same interview had been between Gross and Warren, or any other Leftist darling, they would be running to defend that person and not Gross. Since it's Hillary, then the rocks start flying.

This place may be a lot of things, but it sure is not a welcome refuge for all Democrats.

I love in the below interview her story how President Obama and Hilary Clinton crashed a secret party (at a spur of the moment decision) when they were in China together. The Chinese secret police didn't want to let them in! Mrs Clinton was a great SOS! If she runs, President Obama will back her 100%. I can understand why republicans are terrified.


A wonderful interview with Diane Sawyer, 6/9/2014 here's a link to the entire interview.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-interview-21-revealing-quotes/story?id=24064953

Mrs. Warren is an awesome Senator and she said she wasn't going to run.

Mrs Clinton just said (in the 6/9/14 interview) "after this year is over" before she even declares if she will run or not.

I thought we needed Kerry in the Senate.

We need Elizabeth Warren in the White House so that she can appoint as Secretary of Treasury, a Fed chair and to the regulatory commissions as well as the Supreme and lower courts people who are on the side of working Americans rather than the 1%.

Hillary is too close to the 1%, Wall Street, hedge funds, the bankers. She will never be free to serve the American people. See my post # 15. She will have a terrible time running because she will have to answer for everything that happened in the past that was wrong whether she was responsible for it or not.

Elizabeth Warren said about campaigning in Kentucky for the Senate seat in 2014, right now candidates are and will increasingly be judged by whether they are on the side of ordinary people or on the side of the 1%ers.

Hillary cannot honestly answer that question to the satisfaction of the American people.

Elizabeth Warren can. She spent much of her career studying bankruptcy issues and discovering why ordinary Americans have fallen so far behind financially. She understands the problem. Everyone else is ignoring it.

Hillary has been on the wrong side of too many economic issues.

The Brat victory over Cantor was yet another indication that populist ideas are becoming more and more popular in the US. Hillary is not believable when she tries to espouse populist ideas. After all, Clinton reappointed Greenspan to head the Fed.

See my post # 15.

Hillary has far too much conservative political baggage. She could, of course, argue that she has found Jesus and repudiates her past sins, but that will take a lot of thunder out of her campaign.

The problem that Clinton defenders don't seem to understand: how much do we progressives all hate . . . I mean truly deeply hate the Bushes? That's how much the other side already hates the Clintons. And when you factor in that neither of the Clintons support the economic interests of the 99 percent, electing a smart progressive like Elizabeth Warren makes more and more sense.

how she remained a Republican during the Reagan era anti gay frenzy and the ensuing, ignorant refusal to admit to the AIDS crisis, she voted for those people and those policies. I have never heard her admit to being wrong nor speak of her own opinions about what her fellow Republicans were doing in her name at that time. It is conservative political baggage she carries as well. Sorry but she was part of the Republican Party during their most deadly bigotry and she has never spoken of that as yet. To get my vote, I need to know she is not still harboring that mentality and seeking that set of horrific policies. Her Reagan caused undue suffering and death across the world with his hate. Clinton was so much better back then than the Party Warren was part of then that it is impossible to overstate. Reagan was a merchant of death, racist, homophobic and merciless. She supported him.