It doesn't take a degree in psychiatry, just common sense and rationality. When she says over and over again that she isn't running, and when she DISAVOWS the PAC asking her run, and when she virtually endorses Hillary Clinton, how much clearer does it have to be?

And then some have a hangup on the tense? That's just nutty. She is NOT GOING to run for president in 2016 and is even getting angry with reporters who keep asking if she is. Her INTENTION is crystal clear. Again, let's stop the insanity and move on.

type this "move on" till Hell freezes over. People want a choice. It isn't your choice.

we expect that politicians are not going to speak plainly, but that their words are going to be cloaked in clever equivocations. Then someone like Warren comes along who defies that and just says what she means.

If they really supported her as President they would toot her horn instead of nagging on something that isn't relevant for almost 2 years.

Senate accomplishments do not happen that quickly -- as you would see if you were asked to list all HRC's accomplishments in 7 years in the Senate. (No, I don't want the list of every bill where she signed on as a co-sponsor)

In Warren's case, what she may have done in the last month was to raise the issue that the Republicans intentionally slipped a provision to remove a key regulatory measure of Dodd/Frank into a must pass bill. She did not succeed in getting it removed, which would have been an incredible accomplishment for anyone - much less a first term Senator. What she did do was to raise the visibility of the issue and to pin the provision onto the Republicans.

It is possible that this, added to things like her work on student loans that the President credited when he did what could be done with executive actions could essentially be like the 2006 Kerry/Feingold ---- something that going into 2016 become (with variations of course) the Democrat position on those issues.

Warren has been Senator for 2 years -- having 2 main substantive issues where she is clearly the lead - in addition to the vaguer, but incredibly key important issue of income inequity seen as hers is amazing.

In fact, it is entirely possible that a HRC running as nominee will use Warren's positions on all three of these issues. Though Warren is not the first on any of them, she has spoken with a clarity that few others have on these issues.

Mrs. Warren is already great and so is Mrs. Clinton.

The intent of my comment was to speak HERE at DU, a place that has been a community that I have been part of for years to fall for that trap.

The trap I speak of is where supporters of one candidate speak of the other's accomplishments and characteristics in at best a way that minimizes them and at worst a jaundiced view that rejects them entirely. I referred to the Kerry 2007 comment (that I didn't bother to find because he surely was not unique saying this and it actually was observably true.) because it seemed that heading into 2016, it would be great to see our choice as a choice that ranges from good to mediocre -- but not worse.

I don't think it fair to attack HRC for not being Warren; or Warren's accomplishments diminished to make her less a competitor. Not to mention, there will likely be some HRC supporters who will diminish Obama's Presidency as compared to Bill Clinton's or diminish any Kerry success as Secretary of State to argue that she was a better SoS. In fact, neither of these comparisons are needed or relevant. Democrats should support good done by either Democratic President and realize that they faced different problems and circumstances. Likewise the question of who was the better Secretary of State would be relevant only if JK were running against HRC . He isn't and that would, of course, be just part of what goes into a Presidential choice. I am certain that neither Kerry or Obama will play that game from the other side -- out of loyalty to the party.

Todays political media creates the game and leads the DU discussion for them.


They should post an article for discussion and we can bump it to the front page like the pros.

Rather ironic, isn't it?

Imagine that things move in a direction where EW DOES enter the race, it would be hilarious to see Clinton supporters posting that all her statements that she IS not running were disingenuous -- as many spent years arguing that Bill was not lying when he denied he was having an affair because he used the present tense and the affair was in the past.

Unfortunately, I do not see this happening and think it highly unlikely that all the powers that be will allow anyone to fly long enough under the radar to beat Hillary.