Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

warrenswil

(60 posts)
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 06:31 PM Jun 2014

Clinton ‘inevitability’ in 2016 a myth: Elizabeth Warren could pose formidable challenge

Cross posted from In the (K)now blog

With all the hype surrounding Hillary Clinton’s new book rollout this week, it may seem her victory in 2016 is increasingly inevitable.
But the punditocracy is overlooking a significant concurrent development that could turn the conventional wisdom on its ear.
The same week as the headlines trumpeted the military precision of the Clinton machine, the White House embraced student loan reform – an idea first proposed over a year ago by freshman Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.
If there is any meaningful threat to Clinton’s inevitability, this is where it lies: the Senator from Massachusetts already has an organic national constituency begging her to run.
While this week’s headlines are dominated by Clinton’s “Hard Choices” memoir and its relentless, ubiquitous rollout, Sen. Warren’s own book “A fighting chance” has been on the best seller lists for weeks.
Warren was first out of the gate on student loan reform. Her first piece of legislation, after her surprise trouncing of former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown in 2012, was on the topic, as we reported in May 2013 in Senator urges action on student loan crisis
That attempt was largely successful at preventing a massive hike in student loan interest rates last summer.
Her latest bill on student loans is now before the Senate as S. 2432, the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act
In a statement of administration policy released after President Obama’s press conference on the issue this week, the White House said:

“The Administration strongly supports passage of S. 2432, which would provide Americans with student loans the opportunity to refinance their loans at the lower interest rates available to current students."

While Republicans killed this bill in the Senate on Wednesday, it is just one battle in a continuing struggle.
With the election more than two years away, there is plenty of time for an upset.
From all the hype, it is easy to conclude the Clinton memoir is a carefully scripted paean to her time at the Department of State. Some have even described it as “boring,” others have called it “safe.”
In contrast, the Warren book is personable, folksy in tone and pugnacious in its treatment of those who shipped boatloads of cash to the banks without any strings attached while leaving financially troubled borrowers to fend for themselves.
Sen. Warren is unabashedly a populist. It is a refreshing change.
But political memories are short. Everyone seems to have forgotten that Hillary Clinton also seemed “inevitable” in 2008 – until an upstart from Illinois proved otherwise.
If there is a remote chance that anyone can challenge the emerging Clinton lock on the 2016 presidential race, it is embodied in Elizabeth Warren. Let’s all hope she is up to the challenge.

41 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Clinton ‘inevitability’ in 2016 a myth: Elizabeth Warren could pose formidable challenge (Original Post) warrenswil Jun 2014 OP
There is no indication that she has any intention of running missingthebigdog Jun 2014 #1
I thought she said that she was not running? Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2014 #6
She said she's finishing her term, which puts her OUT of the running. MADem Jun 2014 #12
Right Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2014 #14
I know she repeatedly said that, but I would look at the Obama precedent karynnj Jun 2014 #19
Obama never made a Sherman statement. She did. She PLEDGED to complete her term, which ends in MADem Jun 2014 #20
I agree with you on Massachusetts karynnj Jun 2014 #24
Well, I'm not going to revisit the 08 campaign. Obama and Clinton are different MADem Jun 2014 #25
Great analysis, MADem... DonViejo Jun 2014 #28
good analysis, Karen! CTyankee Jun 2014 #37
Its the leading fantasy around here customerserviceguy Jun 2014 #31
No matter WHO our nominee is, the Republicans will run someone worse than Hillary DFW Jun 2014 #40
The Democratic Party is in a wonderful place, several members are very capable to be the President Thinkingabout Jun 2014 #2
there is only one that gets trashed day in and day out.... VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #26
Their trashing is sorta turning me away from whom they are trying to Thinkingabout Jun 2014 #32
Clinton/Cuomo 2016 blkmusclmachine Jun 2014 #3
Really? You do know that ticket will never happen, right? eom DonViejo Jun 2014 #29
Yep, I laugh every time I hear that combo! juajen Jun 2014 #33
I want to get past the 2014 midterms before we worry about 2016 Gothmog Jun 2014 #4
Agreed, the media obsession on Hillary so early is getting really annoying ShadowLiberal Jun 2014 #8
Media obsession davidpdx Jun 2014 #11
media obsession? VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #27
Agree with almost all of your post mimi85 Jun 2014 #9
Amazing! When Hillary was running for the juajen Jun 2014 #15
I don't believe it is a waste of time. juajen Jun 2014 #34
I honestly think the republicans are gonna win the Senate... WhoWoodaKnew Jun 2014 #5
If people sit around talking about 2016..... Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2014 #7
Ted Cruz could also form a poseable challenge. Kablooie Jun 2014 #10
LOL, bring it! Elizabeth would make mince meat of Ted Crudz. InAbLuEsTaTe Jun 2014 #30
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. We need her as a Senator, hopefully for many years. Sunlei Jun 2014 #13
How about a Hillary Clinton & Elizabeth Warren ticket? WilliamTuckness Jun 2014 #16
Really? juajen Jun 2014 #35
May The Best Man Or Woman Win The 2016 Democratic Nomination! Corey_Baker08 Jun 2014 #17
"Sen. Warren is unabashedly a populist. It is a refreshing change." Not so sure about that. yellowcanine Jun 2014 #18
When I tell people about her strong support for the military (which she attributed to the fact that MADem Jun 2014 #22
Isn't she supporting fellow New Yorker Hillary Clinton? WI_DEM Jun 2014 #21
Warren, "... I hope she does (run) …. Hillary is terrific.” But Warren doesn't actually endorse. yellowcanine Jun 2014 #23
Hillary did not say she was inevitable Evergreen Emerald Jun 2014 #36
This...... Beacool Jun 2014 #38
Yes, it's one of their "crooked-as-a-corkscrew" ways of trying to bring down one of their Cal33 Jun 2014 #39
No. But Warren would make a good running mate for Martin O'Malley! madinmaryland Jun 2014 #41

missingthebigdog

(1,233 posts)
1. There is no indication that she has any intention of running
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 06:35 PM
Jun 2014

She has denied that she will run, and has stated that she thinks she is where she needs to be.

Yes, she would make an awesome candidate, and an awesome president. As would any number of people who also are not running.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
12. She said she's finishing her term, which puts her OUT of the running.
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 05:47 AM
Jun 2014

I love all these people who show up with a big wooden spoon, to restir a cold pot! They're like clockwork.

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
19. I know she repeatedly said that, but I would look at the Obama precedent
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:53 AM
Jun 2014

Consider the following scenario - though as with any scenario, the likelihood of everything happening is pretty low.

Assume that there really is a move to populism on both sides of the aisle. Whether you call it occupy or the tea party, there are - along with enormous differences - similarities. Notably a very strong current against big banks and corporations.

Assume that the student loan bill passes. It did get 57 votes (if you correct Reid's that became no for procedural reasons). The question is whether enough pressure could be put on 3 or more Republicans to pass it now or in the lame duck session. Consider that you have a population that would benefit enormously that is big, educated, young, and likely very easy for any energetic organizers to both find and organize. ( Think of how many affected people the average recent grad has links to on social media - and how big the network would be even at step 2 if a large percent of their contacts spread the word for action to their contacts. ) Consider that most of the affected recent college grads have parents who are directly impacted - even if they have no financial obligation. Consider what would happen if this originates at colleges in a few RED states. )

If that happens, you have a very junior Senator who will have done something very unexpected and enormously consequential. It could be the key to revitalizing a middle class that has been hurt very badly by the last decade. In addition, before she was a Senator, she was instrumental in creating the Consumer Bureau that was created by the Dodd/Frank.

Imagine this happens and some Senators become excited with the idea of running on these issues - that many likely believe strongly in. You could have the same thing that happened in 2007 - many Senators PUBLICLY talking Hillary, privately pushing Obama to run. In Warren's case, it is even easier to argue that the time would be "now or possibly never" than it was for the young Obama. Consider that if the leadership is involved, she could even be put as lead sponsor on - say - a bill that helps rein in the too big to fail banks. )

It could be that the defining issue in 2016 will be the economic gap between the rich and the rest of us. Clinton already seems to being trying to run a populist campaign. It is true that the Clinton years saw gains for everyone, but the gains were greatest for those in the top 10%. The Clinton years showed a huge widening of the gap between the rich and the working class (or middle class). If that is the defining issue, it might be that a Warren could be better as our candidate than Clinton.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Things that work against this are:
- There is already an incredible effort behind Clinton

- In terms of the primary, Clinton is already seen almost like an incumbent President. Even VP Gore had more chance for a real primary challenge at this point in 1998 and Bradley was not an insignificant opponent.

- The fact that Clinton beats each and every Republican in almost every poll (all recently - there were a few earlier ones showing her a point or two behind Christie) is important. (A bird in hand is worth two in the trees.)

- Foreign policy. If the world is still a mess - which seems likely, Clinton has far more experience. I can't think of any Republican challenger with any real experience. Rubio, who is not a top Republican, has several years on the SFRC, but that is like nothing compared to Clinton.

- The Republican smear machine will go after any Democrat. It is completely impossible to never say anything that could be distorted - especially as they have no qualms about using even parts of sentences to say you said something that you actually didn't or at least as qualified. Here, the less known you are, the easier for them to lie about. There is no one eligible to run better known than Hillary. (As a MA friend told me in 2007 - the SBVT could not work in MA, because people there knew Kerry. They did hurt -even if most people ultimately knew they were lying - in the country as a whole.) Given the uneven playing field, do we give up the advantage of having someone as well known as Clinton?

Personally, I would bet HRC will be the nominee. However, let me try to honestly say what I thought in June 2006. I thought it was going to be incredibly difficult for anyone other than Hillary to get the nomination, though I wanted Kerry to run again(and obviously to win) at that point. In the end, he did not run -- but HRC did not get the nomination. In June 2006, I would have argued that JK was the most likely one to stop her. He was far bind then, but I thought that the primary debates could change that. I would have pointed to Kerry/Feingold ( which HRC voted against- though by the early 2007, after Kerry was out, had a position very similar to) and the fact that he was positioned very very well on the issues and he was not an unknown. I knew that Edwards was all hype and useless in 2004 - but I would have never guessed he was not faithful to Elizabeth then. I believed Obama when he said he would not run -- and thought it too early.

To summarize, at this point in 2006, I was wrong on everything -- other than thinking that HRC could be beaten.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
20. Obama never made a Sherman statement. She did. She PLEDGED to complete her term, which ends in
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:19 AM
Jun 2014

2018.

She's not stupid--she knows that those of us in the Commonwealth (who worked very hard to get her elected--and just in case people think it was a coronation...she ALMOST LOST) would be BULLSHIT if she went back on her word.

Go have a look at how many Senators we've had in MA in the past few years. Count them up. ENOUGH. We want some stability.


One thing that race pointed out is that she's NOT ready for the national stage when it comes to making a run--she doesn't have the thick skin that a HRC has. She handled the whole Cherokee business a bit ham-handedly; it was only that Scott Brown's SUPPORTERS couldn't help but be bullying little shitheads that saved her. Their nasty, racist-tinged mocking undid them--it turned people off. People looked at that vicious shit and said "WTF?" I wouldn't discount the vote AGAINST Scott Brown and his bully boys being a factor in that race--not simply votes "FOR" Warren.

No one likes a bully, but frankly, we expect our national leaders to be able to take a direct hit on the chin and come back out swinging. She wobbled, but Brown was just a little turd. She can't count on a sense of Commonwealth racist/bullying revulsion to give her a point or more.

Also, she was debating a certifiable MORON. Intellectually, there was NO contest. She wiped the floor with him--in debates not enough people saw, apparently. You have to wonder why it was such a close race right up until the end, when finally, at long last, people made up their minds and broke for Warren? She should have won by double digits, really--the difference in quality of candidate supported that kind of outcome.

Bottom line:

She made a pledge and she's going to keep it. She's a person of her word.

If she were planning on running, she'd have a ground game in place by now, and she doesn't. She'd have people in all fifty states, getting together delegates, money, fundraisers, that kind of thing. That's not happening. She'd be running all over the country, shaking hands, meeting with organizers. She isn't doing that. She'd be fundraising for HERSELF, not helping OTHERS with their races.

You know what she does on the weekends when she's not helping someone else? SHE goes HOME--to her STATE. That's not the behavior of someone running for higher office.

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
24. I agree with you on Massachusetts
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 12:11 PM
Jun 2014

I also agree that hers was not an easy win, but it true that - with the very easy puff coverage Brown got for the first year and a half, he did go in as a big favorite. It was also clear that she was a first time candidate.

However, I think Hillary in 2008 was completely overrated as a candidate. Had SHE been anywhere near the candidate she was said to be, it would have been an easy win. The first point where I saw cracks was in the Philadelphia debate where she poorly answered the drivers' licenses for aliens question. The answer (s) were not the problem, the problem was the next few days. It was a complex question and she could have simply said that the problem was it did not fit the format of responding in a minute or so -- and put out a thoughtful statement of her position. Instead, she went to Wellsley and spoke of how it was the guys ganging up against the gal. In fact, they were ganging up against .... the frontrunner. No difference than when Howard Dean faced the same thing 4 years before. Worse, Bill Clinton, followed by a Wesley Clark, who should have been ashamed of himself, both blasted the other Democrats for "swiftboating" Hillary.

That kind of kneejerk reaction is something I hope we see less of - especially on Bill Clinton's part.

I suspect that Warren and Clinton have one thing in common -- they are far better people, leaders, and statewomen than they are politicians. Neither ran a great race. It is hard to think of anyone - not an incumbent President or VP who had more on their side starting out than Hillary did. To win, Obama had to not just run a fantastic campaign, but she had to run a mediocre to poor one.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
25. Well, I'm not going to revisit the 08 campaign. Obama and Clinton are different
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 12:29 PM
Jun 2014

people now; that was a long time ago, and what's done is done.

If you don't think Bill Clinton is going to vigorously defend his wife, no matter what, you'd best think again. He'd be regarded as a cad if he didn't--especially after his past behavior. He OWES her.

A woman has a higher bar than a man, even in this day and age. The playing field is being leveled but a woman, like a person of color, still has to be as good and THEN SOME, at least at the national level and sometimes, in places where women are still ceiling-breaking, at state and local levels. They have to bring "value added."

I don't think Obama ran all that great a campaign, or a lousy one, either, and I don't think Clinton ran an especially poor one. Obama got some huge help from Oprah and Jesse and Caroline and Ted Kennedy--imagine if that support had gone to HRC instead? It would have been a completely different outcome, I'll wager. Picture Oprah, doing that huge rally...for Clinton. Picture everyone screaming as "Bill" comes out and gives her the hug, and she's announcing everyone...and here comes "Hill" and they do the Sister Hug and the hands in the air... and every network on the air is breaking in and covering that.


It doesn't matter, though, because it's history. It was what it was.

I think things just shook out as they did. I also think that the GOP erred when they thought HRC was the more formidable candidate. I think they were so fearful that GOP women would defect to HRC that they helped, a lot, in small and subtle ways, in getting her out of the way, only to discover, to their horror, that their efforts, in the end, energized groups of people beyond just black folk to vote for BHO.

People wanted a different President, a more inclusive one that looked like more of us. And that's what we got.

Now we need to do it again, and elect someone whose spouse will redefine that "First Spouse" role in the WH!

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
28. Great analysis, MADem...
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 12:43 PM
Jun 2014

even out here in the provinces of Boston, that's our view of the election that was and the election coming up in 2016.

CTyankee

(63,768 posts)
37. good analysis, Karen!
Sun Jun 22, 2014, 08:00 AM
Jun 2014

First, I'd like to say that with regard to your first scenario, "children's crusades" in the fashion that you imagine, rarely materialize as fast as they need to. There will need to be some maturing of that population of students suffering under such oppressive debt. And that looks like exactly what will happen, if you look at their terrible prospects for jobs after college. The Vietnam War protests were eventually successful but that was life or death, not life with crushing debt. And it took a bit of time.

I also remember (with some bitterness) my one time support for John Edwards. That dream died hard. I recall being interested in him primarily because he was the only candidate who was talking about the poor. But, alas, even Elizabeth Edwards was not entirely up front about what she knew and went along with. It understandably left a bad taste in my mouth.

At this moment, I'd agree with you that HRC is our probable candidate in 2016 and right now she has the best chance to win, esp. with Chris Christie in a mess of trouble. Warren will continue to make her way and her fame for her prescient attempts to reform a very nasty system for the American people. But my fear is that she will age out before her movement is established among a majority of voters.

In the meantime, let us all resolve to work harder than ever before on 2014. We simply must retain the Senate and make inroads in the House, a tall order indeed...

Thanks for your thoughtful analysis, Karen. Brava



customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
31. Its the leading fantasy around here
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 01:36 PM
Jun 2014

Some people here are so terrified of a Hillary Clinton Presidency that they lose their grip on reality, and imagine that Elizabeth Warren would announce, then beat Hillary for the nomination, then win the general election. None of those things is ever going to happen, especially not in this election cycle. Given that Hillary will want a second term, that pushes things off for Warren until 2024, when she's 75 years old.

Not gonna happen for Warren, unless Hillary gets defeated in 2016. And by Election Day, I'm sure the Repukes will have someone running who is way worse than Hillary, we will all fall in line.

DFW

(54,047 posts)
40. No matter WHO our nominee is, the Republicans will run someone worse than Hillary
Sun Jun 22, 2014, 12:16 PM
Jun 2014

Whoever our nominee is, he or she had better be prepared for an onslaught of dirty cash the likes of which our election process has never seen before. The Kochs alone are worth what? $40 billion? They will be approaching 80 by 2016, and Adelson will be even older than 80. I'm sure they have consulted their accountants and tax attorneys about their situation.

Unless they find a way to repeal "you can't take it with you," we can be sure that the print and electronic media will be so swamped with right wing propaganda, we'll all need scuba tanks to breathe.

As for who the Republican candidate will be, the only thing we can be sure of is that if they get in, we can kiss the Supreme Court goodbye for at least the next 15 years (and it hasn't been too great these last 15 years already). Civil liberties and voting rights will not be safe, and there will be nothing we can do about it. Preventative medicine needs to be administered BEFORE the 2016 election (a healthy dose this November wouldn't hurt). If your health, geography and time situation permit, volunteer for the ground game. If not, and you can afford it, contribute. If none of the above, at least VOTE.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
2. The Democratic Party is in a wonderful place, several members are very capable to be the President
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 06:58 PM
Jun 2014

of the US, this is good. What we do not need the down playing against any of the candidates, leave this for the GOP, they do this well. We need to work together to elect the next president, don't help the GOP and the Rove bunch. Yes, Elizabeth Warren has worked on worthwhile projects, and so has several other candidates. This is why we are lucky to have a good field to choose.

juajen

(8,515 posts)
33. Yep, I laugh every time I hear that combo!
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:39 PM
Jun 2014

Cuomo is not going to win anything, let alone a place beside Hillary Clinton.

Gothmog

(143,998 posts)
4. I want to get past the 2014 midterms before we worry about 2016
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 07:28 PM
Jun 2014

I will wait until the 2016 primaries to worry about the 2016 nominee. Right now, I am focusing on 2014. Texas has some key elections and we need to elect Wendy Davis and Leticia van de Putte.

I will vote for the Democratic nominee and beyond that I am not going to waste time on 2016.

ShadowLiberal

(2,237 posts)
8. Agreed, the media obsession on Hillary so early is getting really annoying
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 11:44 PM
Jun 2014

The media needs to just shut up about 2016 until we actually hold the 2014 elections. We don't need our 2 year presidential campaign to become two and a half years or three years.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
11. Media obsession
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 05:15 AM
Jun 2014

Look around DU and I think you'll find plenty of inevitability hype that has nothing to do with the media. I do agree with you that 2 years for a presidential election is long enough.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
27. media obsession?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 12:39 PM
Jun 2014

Its the haters right here on DU that are obsessed with her...they are the ones that start thread after thread here about her

mimi85

(1,805 posts)
9. Agree with almost all of your post
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 12:47 AM
Jun 2014

I think we should focus on the 2014 midterms as well. Although I really, really, really hope Hillary doesn't run. I don't know exactly why I feel this way however for one reason I don't want Bill in the White House again. I admire his work post presidency, but I think he could do more good staying away from the WH.

Plus Hillary has some baggage as well. I'd like to see someone fresh, like Warren or one of the Cruz brothers.

juajen

(8,515 posts)
15. Amazing! When Hillary was running for the
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 08:51 PM
Jun 2014

nomination against Obama, we heard so much about foreign experience. I, too, believe that any prospective nominee should have some foreign creds. Remember how she was mocked because she supposedly had none. I really like and admire Elizabeth Warren, but she has minuscule experience compared to Hillary Clinton. Bill is also very popular, and believe me, would be a great First Man. She couldn't have a better advisor than her husband.

juajen

(8,515 posts)
34. I don't believe it is a waste of time.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:43 PM
Jun 2014

We cannot let the momentum for Hillary slow down. It is imperative that we keep her in front of the pack until we go to the polls. I am sure many of us are contemplating her best running mate. I believe this might end up being one of the very interesting latino brothers from Texas. This would help energize the Texas vote, and the Latino vote nationwide. Makes sense.

WhoWoodaKnew

(847 posts)
5. I honestly think the republicans are gonna win the Senate...
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 09:19 PM
Jun 2014

and possibly the presidency (if Hillary doesn't run). Not saying I like her, just what I think is gonna happen.

Sunlei

(22,651 posts)
13. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. We need her as a Senator, hopefully for many years.
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 11:16 AM
Jun 2014

I'm confident Mrs. Clinton has the ambition to be President. She would win. Even if she doesn't run she will fully back whoever does. So will Senator Warren.

 

WilliamTuckness

(41 posts)
16. How about a Hillary Clinton & Elizabeth Warren ticket?
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 09:24 PM
Jun 2014

Could a Hillary Clinton & Elizabeth Warren ticket be successful?

juajen

(8,515 posts)
35. Really?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:51 PM
Jun 2014

We desperately need her in the Senate. I'm not sure how old she is, but she has time after her term is over to be VP or President. Frankly, she also needs the experience.

Corey_Baker08

(2,157 posts)
17. May The Best Man Or Woman Win The 2016 Democratic Nomination!
Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:59 PM
Jun 2014

Just because we would rather have candidate A as the Democratic nominee does not mean nor does it entitle to tear down candidate 'B'

Were Democrats, We Don't Tear Each Other Down, We Lift Each Other Up, we all know the Republican smear machine is up and running at full capacity, lets unite as one Democratic Party that will stand behind whomever the Nominee happens to be...

yellowcanine

(35,692 posts)
18. "Sen. Warren is unabashedly a populist. It is a refreshing change." Not so sure about that.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:56 AM
Jun 2014

For a populist it sounds as if she puts a great deal of stock in markets, to the point of voting Republican until 1995 for that reason.

Political affiliation
Warren voted as a Republican for many years saying, "I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets".[16] She states that in 1995 she began to vote Democratic because she no longer believed that to be true, but she says that she has voted for both parties because she believed that neither party should dominate.[24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren

Actually her political journey appears to be remarkably similar to Hillary Clinton's, with the exception that it took her a little longer to switch to the Democratic Party. At the least, I would like to hear from Sen. Warren a little more about what she means by "I thought that those (Republicans) were the people who best supported markets". In particular - what was it about Ronald Reagan that made you think that he was good for the U.S. economy?

MADem

(135,425 posts)
22. When I tell people about her strong support for the military (which she attributed to the fact that
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:38 AM
Jun 2014

all her brothers served) they don't believe me. They have this idea in their head that she's some kind of Jane Fonda with the Viet Cong type of person, because that image appeals to them.

Frankly, as someone who served, I find her support for service personnel very appealing, but to some here any support for the military is a negative. MA has a large military retiree population -- which seems counter-intuitive because of the Bay State's "uber blue" bona fides. Fact is, MA does NOT tax our retirement pay--what's not to love?

Warren is practical, too. She'll also cut a deal when she needs to--she's not all "dewy eyed idealism." That makes her a good SENATOR, too--a very good Senator, not necessarily a good President.

yellowcanine

(35,692 posts)
23. Warren, "... I hope she does (run) …. Hillary is terrific.” But Warren doesn't actually endorse.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:50 AM
Jun 2014

Yet, anyway. There is enough coyness there to feed the rumors that Warren might run herself or endorse someone else.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2014/04/warren-on-clinton-run-i-hope-she-does-187490.html

Evergreen Emerald

(13,069 posts)
36. Hillary did not say she was inevitable
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 06:06 PM
Jun 2014

The same people that create this meme of "inevitability" then knock it down.

Here is your argument:
"She is inevitable, how dare she think she is inevitable, she is not inevitable, I hate her for looking inevitable., she will lose because she appears inevitable"

Beacool

(30,244 posts)
38. This......
Sun Jun 22, 2014, 09:50 AM
Jun 2014

I have been arguing this point since she ran the last time. The media started that meme in 2008 and is pushing it again now. Hillary and Bill have repeatedly said that we need to focus on the midterm elections, but all the media wants to know is whether Hillary has made up her mind about 2016. They are a bunch of hypocrites. The same media that calls her "inevitable" tries to bring her down by challenging her inevitability. They make me sick!!!

 

Cal33

(7,018 posts)
39. Yes, it's one of their "crooked-as-a-corkscrew" ways of trying to bring down one of their
Sun Jun 22, 2014, 11:55 AM
Jun 2014

victims -- in this case, Hillary.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Clinton ‘inevitability’ i...