...our next President.

[img][/img]

Truly, Elizabeth is being wormy in this situation.

Or she'd be able to say it. She's a smart person. She knew what she was saying.

THE REAL DEAL ~ BERNIE SANDERS
DO Not Underestimate Bernie Sanders, Former Long Distance Runner

K & R. Warren is the best, a brain AND a fighter who has my utmost respect!

It's great to see the good Dems getting some press.

I love Bernie. I don't think he is going to be able to fend off the big machine of Hillary, but his voice is so damned important to get out. Can you imagine what it would be like if he wasn't in the race?

I'm glad, in a way, that Sanders and Warren will most likely remain in the Senate. That is 1/50th of the whole Senate, and those two can LEAD the flondering Democrats and any other independents that happen to surface.

Be we MUST get as many repuKKKes and dead beat democrats OUT of Congress!! God, I wish dws wasn't in charge of the democratic party strategy. What a loser. We need to get "what's his name" back. Damn...I'm having a mental lapse in remembering who the governor was that was the DNC head prior to shultz.

She's WORTHLESS.

But we lost Obama, Biden, Clinton and Kerry and no one seemed to care because they were going to a more important job. Perhaps that is a comment on how effective they were as Senators.
But I guarantee you Sanders and Warren would be much more effective than them as president and VP.

and the creds to sell it. Hillary has "the machine". And while one could be forgiven for thinking it's a waffle machine, it's really Wall Street and it's luminaries. Which purveyor would the burgeoning crowds prefer?

It would be non-stop HRC vs. the freaks on the right. And if Bernie weren't getting the turnout he's getting, he'd get zero media time, too. You know the media is dying for a way to bring him down, like they did with Dean & the "Dean Scream." I think Bernie will be hard to take down. Howard had a good message & I liked him. Bernie's message is even more liberal & The People have had 8 more years of Wall St. bullshit. Now, with talk of TPP & even more corporate influence, Bernie's message resonates even more.

Has HRC come out against TPP yet? I haven't kept up.

And ditto on DWS. There are a lot of repubs with D's behind their name.

He'll leave the race only if he decides there isn't enough support,
but I don't think that is going to happen.

folks that come with her like the Goldman Sachs crowd, Larry Summers, a Geithner clone, etc.

We need a new broom to sweep our government clean. Bernie is the only one out there who is independent of the machine politics and can do it.

Yes. We need real liberals in Congress. Bernie has been in Congress since 1992. It's time for him to move into the White House.

I leave it up to Bernie to choose his VP. Might not be Warren much as I like her. It's up to Bernie.

Government is a matter of compromise. DLC types like to think that we Bernie supporters don't accept that. We do. We are realistic.

So since government is a matter of compromise, the question is who do you want leading our side, representing our interests at the table when the compromise is negotiated.

I want someone who knows what side he/she is on and has always lived and acted on that side. That person is Bernie. Not Hillary.

Obama was a weak negotiator. Hillary will be even weaker. Look how she came down on the Iraq War, on the Bankruptcy Reform, on so many other issues on which she claimed to be for justice but then gave far too much to corruption and too much to her desire to please the powerful.

We need Bernie in the White House at this time. And we need to get big for-profit corporations and rich PACs out of politics. Individuals vote, not corporations. When it comes to fundamental rights that relate to elections, only humans who have blood running through their veins, who are born of mothers and fathers and who die and are buried should have any input. Corporations should be silenced.

If you agree that Citizens United should be overturned either by constitutional amendment or other means, then you will back Bernie. There just are no two ways about it. Hillary will give lip service to ending Citizens United, but her entire campaign style depends on all that money.

I'm 100% behind Bernie, and I talk to everyone I can and tell them why they should back Bernie.

renewing what Paul Wellstone advocated for years. Yes we as a Nation has endured Austerity since the days of Ronnie Raygun. If you think we haven't,wake the heck up please. LaFolleit advocated the same in 1924 and it changed Wisconsin until the Koch Brothers bought the state a couple of years ago. Senator Warren will support who ever the Democratic Party selects.

Great post, I hadn't thought of it that way. I'm so sick of conservatives in the WH since Reagan. We have been living in austerity.

Damn! That's some pretty hefty requirements. I'm so happy I'm not a "D" then given that they don't have the freedom to vote for whomever they choose. So sorry to hear that.

Blindly voting for a letter makes no difference if it is a D or an R.

Relax.

I'm for ABC, ANYONE BUT CLINTON. Just to be clear.

*And my point, was that no matter what is in Warren's heart, publicly she will endorse Hillary or any Democrat who is running on the Democratic ticket for president in the GE next year. All elected Democrats will.

I've got a great cup of coffee and some nice breakfast roll. I'm relaxed.

Very, very good to hear.

since Carter. We need to do everything we can to restore the FDR Dems back into power or the D will become obsolete.

but Carter was anything but an FDR Democrat. He was the first president to fall for the deregulatory gobbledygook the Chicago School of economists was selling, he was no friend of unions except when he wanted their votes, and his luke-warm, half-hearted support of reproductive rights was well beyond disappointing.

Jimmy Carter, when you look at the entirety of his life, is a good and decent man. But he was no FDR Democrat.

I am a HUGE Bernie supporter, and the thought of voting for a Wall Street puppet like Hillary Clinton makes me sick to my stomach.

But in the end, if it is Hillary Clinton vs. any republican I will vote for Hillary Clinton. There are other issues, matters of life and death. I realize that it would be difficult to feel smug about my protest write-in vote when bombs start falling on Iran. I want Sanders with all my heart, but if he is not an option I will vote for the candidate that is less likely to murder people all over the world in our name.

Nixon's wage price freeze 1972 thru 1977,most of us that were represented by Unions took it in the shorts. No contractual raises for 4 plus years and then the Union shops started to disappear in 1977 with a wave of Bankruptcies and moves offshore. Jimmy Carter screwed things even worst with his war on the ICC and the Airlines. Everyone had already eaten about two per cent inflation,and most would say what,well do the research,remember how we working dummies had to do with less in order to right the ship of state from Nixon,think Oil Embargo. Another head fake from Wall Street. When Ronnie the Raygun captured the White House,that's when the shit hit the fan. With major help of our Democratic Party,we seen the real nightmare,the first round of anti consumer laws and regs. The biggie,changes in Bankruptcy laws giving everyone except Labor a set at the table when it came to dividing what ever was left of a Bankrupt entity. As a former Teamster,out members were shut out of several of these scenarios,seeing hundreds of fellow employees denied due wages or pensions,we finally had to use Lien Law to capture some of these loses. And most thought Raygun was such a nice guy,bullshit,when they in the White House heard what was happening,all hell broke loose. Every BK was stretched to the ten year max before settlement and then if you did receive anything monetary,you might get 10 cents on the dollar. And the real kicker,you were hit with a 28% withholding. Some of our members ended up owing more withholding than their final payoff. Yes,many of our fellow Americans have been living with Austerity for quite some time.

Time for REAL change, not more of the same old corporatist bullshit!

It's been a pretty crappy journey for Progressives, over the last 30+ years.
Down, deeper into the toilet, year-by-year.

If we don't reverse direction soon, somebody's going to pull down the "flush" lever.

Grand kids we worry. . My spouse and I grew up dirt poor,and battled the Swells in our hometowns to receive a great Public Education and able to attend State College which we paid our way. Forget that idea in today's world. In saying that,we made it but our Kids are like most,looking forward to a very unsure future. Got a feeling if we do not stop this middle class distinction,we will mirror Somalia. Mr. Sanders is stirring the Populace much like two previous Senators namely Humphrey and Wellstone. Just hope the Public Debate continues,and what it will take is our vigilance calling the Media out when false and misleading stories are placed as fact.

History in real time. Such a telling re-telling of your experience. I'm sure you & Elizabeth would have much to discuss regarding bankruptcy laws & corporate rule over labor. She's been fighting your fight!

modern day Senator. But,what the hell,he got the money and the Palatial Estate in Connecticut. And to top of the insult to the average working stiff,a discharged Mortgage form Country Wide,who said crime does not pay.

The Perpetual Truths (often forgotten):

Not all Democrats are the same.
Some Democrats suck as badly as GOPers.

Great pic.

Stir the pot, Elizabeth.

A big story and this cover helps advance the narrative.

I'm so thankful to the people of Massachusetts for electing her.

about? Really glad to see Warren there.

and Hillary loses the General, I think she'd be a great candidate for 2020.

to build for her -- and make us weary of -- beginning the day she lost the primary and they went to work defeating her in 2016. No accident at all on their part, they're bringing out what was dormant, passive demand for what we want of her. Bless them! Just remember the 2014 midterms disaster.

As for him, I'd never thought of him as presidential and I'm liking him more every day as he shows some power. Deja vu. 2008 all over again.

Since Kerry won't run again.

I'm buying a copy of this one.

Go Bernie Go

it's that common sense and courage shining out.

Right wing magazine, playing people like fiddles, as they do....

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2015/07/09/hey-look-another-magazine-cover-story-about-elizabeth-warren-scary-ghost/yYnPjN8Ez7Kkukk8EPgnHJ/story.html

aspect of the TIME cover. And its echo of the first back in 2013 (which actually IS hideous)~

and unhinged. Normal people of her race are not GREY in their skin tone. They've taken every wrinkle that woman owns and enhanced it, unnecessarily.

It's called "Damning with faint praise" and it's a Luntz technique. One more time, since you apparently missed this piece, along with the TIME cover, at the link:

The cover portrays Warren as a Hound of the Baskervilles-like presence, “haunting” and “hounding” the political powers that be. If that sounds familiar, that’s because Time is the third magazine to recently put the Massachusetts senator on its cover next to some description of her scariness and ghoulishness.


See?? The article says TIME is the THIRD magazine.....? And given that she's gray and wrinkled on the cover, I guess "ghoulishness" serves?

Believe me--they aren't doing her any favors with this 'scary words' coverage or the creepy 'tone' of the photograph--they are painting her as a "crazed harridan" while affecting a praiseworthy tone about her achievements, (Isn't she great, and hard-working, and effective--for a CRAZY LADY???) and giving us an uglied-up photograph to look at, to boot.

That article I provided you isn't making things up--just do a compare and contrast with that cover, and how Warren actually looks:

(This is an image of the TIME cover straight from the LINK I provided to you--she looks bruised, beaten and drained of blood)



(And here she is with normal skin tone, without all those gray and mottled blotchings on her skin, as though she's post-autopsy)



Time is capable of taking a good picture of her--here's one from last year--surely she didn't turn into an extra from Night Of The Living Dead in just one year? Gosh, and her hands don't look like veiny, bruised claws, either! And look--she doesn't look like she's been desanguinated, either!! Amazing what FAIR --as opposed to harsh and brutal--lighting can do!




TIME has done this before--this is especially blatant. That article I provided simply pointed out what is OBVIOUS to anyone with a discerning eye. Republican framing from a Republican magazine....

though the article makes sense and I do not disbelieve you.

I just think she looks beautiful. Veins wrinkles and all.
So if they've attempted to make her look ghoulish, they
have failed.

It's in her eyes. People see her eyes. That can not be
photoshopped out. It's hard to avoid her eyes, they're
the brightest most attention grabbing part of her face.
Clear honest eyes. A rare jewel. People will notice.

I didn't see it. She looked pale, but she comes from New England. Not a lot of sun! Her ethnicity. Beautiful, and I do think the photo of her at the desk MADem used was photo shopped...but that's okay.

at least 20 years younger.

Here, look: http://www.people.com/article/elizabeth-warren-interview-youtube-treasury-secretary-hillary-clinton

Now you're starting to take my point, the reason she "looks younger" in the PEOPLE picture is because the TIME cover makes her look OLD--go to your google images, and pull up recent pictures of Warren (I have provided a few in this thread already). She is not OLD looking, like that magazine cover--she is a very fit and vibrant woman with blood in her veins. She's not a vampire. I have seen her up close, and that TIME cover makes her look like herself in twenty years--or a walking dead character... or something.

Her older pictures, when she was in DC in an appointed capacity, she had a completely different haircut:



It's easy to suss out the 'old' pics if you know this.

so I don't see what you see, and no amount of other pictures of other hideous people will make me see it.

I see what they, and Bloomberg, and others are trying to do to Warren, and I don't care for it.

She lived in TEXAS, and in New Jersey, and in PENNSYLVANIA, before landing at Harvard in 1995. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren

And she has ostensible native heritage.

Caucasians from New England are not gray. They're assorted shades of pink and tan, for the most part.

Don't mistake the state a Senator represents as their native "home." She lives in DC most of the week, she's in the commonwealth on weekends.

Good grief. Was the picture I posted in front of the fire truck photoshopped, too? Do you think they "adjusted" her skin color?



GRAY is not a normal skin tone, unless you are deceased--the photoshopped image is the one on the cover of Time Magazine.

I didn't see it. I don't know her history. I don't know where she was born, went to school, vacationed at...

I only know that I like what she says and that I like how she looks.



Can I get up now?

I gave her money, I campaigned for her, and I absolutely did drive a SHITLOAD of mostly little old ladies to the polls to vote for her. It wasn't an easy stroll, that campaign was a tooth-and-nail fight and every vote counted.


You can get up now!! (Hee hee)....

I am rather protective of her when I see the right going after her, and I don't want people to be snowed into thinking that a surface polish over a pile of shit thrown at her makes it all OK...people do see what they want to see, and this image does her no favors when it comes to those who do not yet know her.

It infuriates me when that Frank Luntz jerk's tactics are used to disparage her--and that's what they are doing here with this creepy cover, making her out to be "the other" while playing the "Whaddaya meeeeeaaaaan?" game.

She was lucky to have someone so fiercely in her camp during the elections.


At least I didn't fall for the tactics and a few of us out there didn't either. Maybe that is the result of looking at the pre photo shop image v the photo shopped image that Buzzfeed likes to post on FB. We may be all realizing that an image is always filtered in a certain way depending on the narrative---and we look deeper? I like this idea even if it may not be true.

And I don't argue that point. But take a look at any autopsy imagery, vampire imagery, zombie imagery, and you get that same stark white/pale/bruised/harsh lighting thing going on. I've seen better lighting in mugshots.

They weren't trying to do her any favors--they wanted to associate her with fear-ghoulishness-haunting. People who like her will see those eyes as good things--people who hate her will see those eyes as intrusive. People who don't know her will see an image of someone who is slightly "undead."

Here's a photo of her taken at the end of May, just this year (she is an attentive Senator, this was at a MA event)--does she look old and wrinkled and "undead" in this snapshot? Of course not--because that's not how she looks, that's not how she presents herself, and that is not how she is perceived. She is quite vibrant, and she is vibrant without any TIME magazine "scary" words, dire photoshopping and harsh lighting:



She's being caged by the rightwing (and TIME is rightwing) with words and images, to paint her as "unhinged" and a loose cannon.

Now, time for some "compare and contrast."

Look at the pic they used quite recently to do a background piece on "Jeb!"

?quality=65&strip=color&w=280

No scary-creepy pictures or words, there....

Look at the swell pics they used of the Pope:

?quality=65&strip=color&w=421

?quality=65&strip=color&w=600

Not undead or spooky, he!

This woman is a right wing, racist NUT JOB who is the leader of a hateful, xenophobic political party in France--she's a chip off the old block, her daddy was a racist hater too. She reserves special ire for people from the African continent and Muslims, who have ties to France. Look at the favorable lighting and pose TIME gives her in their international edition cover:

?quality=65&strip=color&w=556

Even PUTIN got better lighting!!! AND better WORDS--the message here is "Putin-STRONG!!!" (Which of course means "Obama-WEAK!!!). It doesn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows:

?w=640

Here's how they light you when they LOVE ya:





And here's how they light you when they don't:

"The medium is the message"

But then I don't think older women can't look beautiful. She is looking self composed, self assured and self aware. What is not beautiful about that?

See post 67.

...

The photographer didn't do her any favors with that shot--her hands look like claws.

Of course, it's TIME, and they lean right. TIME for the GOP, Newsweek for the Dems...funny how the rightwing always wants to paint Senator Warren as a creepy, scary STALKER -- like she's unhinged, clawing, grasping....it's noticeable, what the right is doing with their Luntzian phrases and creepy pictures.

I'm not the only one who thinks this, too:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2015/07/09/hey-look-another-magazine-cover-story-about-elizabeth-warren-scary-ghost/yYnPjN8Ez7Kkukk8EPgnHJ/story.html

Hey look, another magazine cover story about Elizabeth Warren as a scary ghost

....The cover portrays Warren as a Hound of the Baskervilles-like presence, “haunting” and “hounding” the political powers that be. If that sounds familiar, that’s because Time is the third magazine to recently put the Massachusetts senator on its cover next to some description of her scariness and ghoulishness.

The trend was memorably started by The New Republic with its Being John Malkovich–inspired cover in November 2013. “HILLARY’S NIGHTMARE,” the spooky headline screamed, buttressed by dozens of people holding up blank-faced Warren masks.


The story documented Warren’s rapid rise among liberals for her pointed criticisms of Wall Street executives and the politicians in their pockets. “When I recently asked a top Clinton campaign operative from 2008 if there’s any Democrat who Hillary should fear in 2016,” Noam Scheiber wrote, “he immediately named the Massachusetts senator.”

Just last month, Bloomberg Markets picked up on that similar “fear” theme with their cover portraying Warren as a lurking threat.....

My hands look like that too! I find a small measure of comfort there.

that photograph has aged her CONSIDERABLY. It does not convey a fair impression of what she actually looks like.

The lighting is designed to highlight every wrinkle and vein, and cause them to look deeper and more profound than they actually appear when you are standing right in front of her.

These pictures were taken twelve days ago, on 29 June:





She was on a visit to businesses in the Worcester area--no make up, no blow drying, no fancy-schmancy stylists, she just threw on her shit and went to see the people. Those pictures look way better than the TIME cover, and those pictures are not terribly flattering, compared to others she's been in.

Too bad TIME is such a crappy zine though.

But as a senator will criticize her when she takes positions that are are not progressive.

Warren is in it for the long haul and wants to do her job. She does not need to endorse right now. Honestly has more power if she waits.

Warren, Sanders, Brown, Wyden, Whitehouse, Gillibrand. . .that is the best of the best in the Senate.