Warren isn't currently running.

I'm sure I can find other sources if you prefer, this was first in Google.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/04/27/elizabeth-warren-i-hope-hillary-clinton-runs-for-president/

Here's the quote from your link:

It's kind of rediculous to assume that her words don't count, but then still use them like the OP says.

I think she is well informed and very careful with her words. She doesn't typically say what she doesn't think.

I'm not about to have a flame war with you...

If Elizabeth Warren is your senator, then I am amazed you can't distinguish between her position on the issues and the empty lip service that politicians have to pay to one another. It's even worse with regard to Hillary because most D.C. Dems are afraid of the Clintons.

Warren and Clinton are on the opposite end of the political/economic scale. Warren is principled, Clinton is expedient. Warren cares about the American people, Clinton cares about Clinton. Huge difference.

I don't want to have a flame war with you either, because this isn't personal between us. But I'm really sorry you can't see through Hillary Clinton. It's a huge mistake, Agschmid.

Regard someone as principled and then say she signed a letter because she was afraid, or was worried about political fallout.

Either Warren is or she isn't. That's the end of it.

IMO just like when she said she wasn't running she meant it. And when she signed the letter she meant it, she encouraged Hillary to run.

To me that's it.

We either take her at her actions or she just like the other politicians doing things she doesn't really mean or support, for the point of political expediency.

also.

IMO at the time that letter was written to Clinton she was the only one planning to run. When you have a choice of a Democrat running or a R - you take the Democrat.

Anyone could jump into the race, and she knew that. That's why it's not an endorsement, but it certainly shows some level of support.

As Elizabeth Warren describes in that video.

supported Hillary since that letter. She is keeping rather quiet. But I note that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie use some of the same language, the same phrases.

Enough is enough is one of those phrases.

The game is rigged is another.

run, and when the link is supplied, they argue Senator Warren only did it for political advantage of some sort.

No one forces any Senator to encourage someone to run, unless they would like that person to run.

Joe Biden met with Warren a few weeks ago, and Senator Warren didn't say "I wish he would run"

The logic of some people is astounding

... that's so perfect

Hillary will ever have in her entire existence.

But politics is no place for absolute honesty and Warren HAD to sign that letter and throw pretty puff balls in Hillary's direction. To do otherwise would be to marginalize herself, probably beyond any hope of redemption.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention.

... I've been on DUP 2 hours enough to know

Worships money, raw power, and the 1%.

Live with it.

Just childish accusations about the messengers and no substance.

Warren can throw a lot more than Hillary. I would like to hear her motivation behind her new support for Hillary though.

... upteen million years (or 2) in US politics.

I don't expect perefection, that's setting a person up for failure to have these unreasonable expectations to live up to.

Out of the 1,000 tenets of the left I'm sure Sanders, Obama, Warren, Clinton have all broke a tone of them in word or deed...

Just ones that aren't important to some people so they're easier to look past.

None of these candidates can throw stones cause they're all human, all of them

By then Hillary had gathered considerable money and clout --and her reputation for vengeance was widely known. It would have looked very bad to stand outside that symbolic little clique activity. All the Dem women signed it, regardless of how they personally felt. Politics is politics.

This is all you've got, Agschmid, and IT'S WEAK.

How does that emptiness feel?

She either is a leader on principle or she isn't.

If she is principled then when she signed the letter she meant it. Why would she sign it otherwise? She is a leader, and she IMO certainly isn't afraid of Hillary.

The assumption that she is afraid of the "Clinton Machine" assumes that Warren is weak, and feeble.

And I didnt elect a weak and feeble senator. I know who I voted for, and she signed the letter.

ETA: I certainly don't personally feel "empty" about anything, what an odd statement?

I don't hold that against her. All the Democratic women senators signed that letter. It was a show of cohesion, not a sincere statement of belief. To refuse would have dried up a senator's cooperation from the group. Politicians have to "stay alive" if they want to be effective. In case you haven't noticed, all Democratic politicians are afraid of the Clintons. The Clintons are rich, powerful, unprincipled, and vicious. Law of the jungle still operates, even in suits and pants suits.

As for "feeling empty," that's how I imagine it would feel to be backing anyone as devoid of values, principles, ethics, conscience and soul as Hillary Clinton. But of course I have no idea how you feel. I like your sig line images, so there's that.

... can get along and not stand on what I believe.

Sounds like Sanders and his rural BS in regards to his gun votes

If you don't understand that, sit quietly for a few minutes and think about it.

No, uoponit7771, "wingerish" is a set of attitudes, values, insecurities and life styles.

For those of us holding traditional Democratic values, dislike of Hillary is based on the fact that she is more dedicated to her own money and power than to the rights and and interests of the American people.

You can call that "wingerish" all you want, but your words are empty.

Hillary's is.

Warren signed a letter urging a candidate to run.

Warren has been quite silent since that letter with regard to Hillary.

And Warren is not running for president.

Hillary is. And this video is about the lack of integrity of Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton has a huge integrity problem.

She announces that she is against the TPP because she knows we support Bernie in great part because he opposes it. But a couple of days after she announces her claimed and sudden opposition to the TPP, she comes out with the announcement that she would SUPPORT THE TPP if the wage and labor provisions are tweaked.

First, we would all like to know whether perhaps she has seen a version of the TPP that is complete, because if she hasn't, how does she know that the labor provisions in there now are not satisfactory to her?

Second, we know that the TPP would serve certain corporate purposes such as setting up kangaroo courts that would permit corporations to sue countries for lost profits. Would that, for example, include the loss of profits should we decide to end fracking in some areas of the country? We have the right to a jury trial in controversies worth over a certain sum. If our country agrees to the TPP, we will, as we have done with some other trade agreements, give up that right when a corporation wants to sue any of our governments. I object strongly to such a provision. Apparently Hillary does not.

Then there is the extension of certain copyright and patent rights. Until we have the full text of the agreement as it now stands, we don't know what that aspect of it entails. But I am thinking about the patents on certain seeds, on human genetic material, on computer technology, on all kinds of things that should eventually and not too long after they are invented, be released to be copied without penalties. And when it comes to certain genetic material, I wonder whether the patents on it should be in the private domain at all. I think we need to look at that very carefully.

Hillary Clinton is really a person with little integrity in my book. She lacks caution. She voted for the Iraq War. She admits that was a mistake, and we all make mistakes.

But her lack of real questions before making that vote is what bothers me. And the situation in Syria and Libya, to what extent are her decisions as secretary of state implicated in the chaos there now. I don't know. I want an answer to that question before the primary is over. That's for sure.

Hillary is a lousy candidate. That's my opinion.

I will never vote for her. Never. If she is the candidate, we are truly lost.

She is publicly trashing Obama because he didn't attack Syria hard and fast enough.

Some architects of the Iraq war (actual friends and colleagues of hers) and PNAC are "comfortable" with her foreign policy, according to the NYTimes.

She had real power on a range of issues in Bill's White House, but refuses to acknowledge that now or take any responsibility for it.

That, and her positions on TPP and Glass-Steagal is why I'll never vote for her.

I bet Warren would have stayed mute if she had pre-knowledge of Bernie's coming campaign.

We do know she choose to sign the letter... And that's about all we know.

I think it's great Warren pushes our candidates, all of them, to be better on fiscal policy.

I think people attach a lot more importance to this letter than it merits. "Yeah, you should run; why not?" is a long way from "I owe you fealty unto death and you're the only person who could possibly ever be President; you must run!" and Warren could be anywhere along that spectrum.

Frankly, if I'd been a female Senator at the time this supposedly private letter was written, I likely would have signed it, too. Not signing could look like a big "fuck you", signing it doesn't commit me to anything, and I'm one of those "everyone who's interested should go for it and may the best person win" people.

But to pretend Warren is anti Hillary's run is obviously not factual.

which hc carries water for

Warren asked Hillary to run? I never heard that. When? Where?

The Moyer's video starts out nicely but it ends on a real sour note.

I won't say the obvious.

It wasn't an endorsement in any way but she certainly encouraged her to run!

The guys has been involved in politics for decades, it's not like him an Elizabeth Warren had never met. It's not like we'd never seen a race where a front runner candidate lost to an underdog. Sure he may have not announced, for that matter no one had when the letter was written.

So she made a choice to encourage Clinton to run, pre anyone else.

It's not an endorsement but it certainly shows some level of support.

Nice to see you back.

Please review the subthread.

But I don't support him. I just support the idea that if he wants to run, go ahead, run.

I don't think Hillary shouldn't run, I just won't vote for her in the primary.

The more, the merrier. I support running if it is what you want to do.

If you wanted to run, I would support it. I may not vote for you..or I may.

Nothing will change their minds.

Thank you for posting.

Have a safe and wonderful weekend.

Frankly, I was hoping we could get through this primary season without resorting to it. My problem, of course, is that it implies so strongly that Clinton supporters are like robots, that they don't have brains of their own, and have to be programmed by ...I'm not sure who is supposed to be programming them. Would it be Sec. Clinton herself? Or some master manipulators in her employ?

At any rate, I wonder if I could make a personal request to drop that term in favor of another? "Supporter" would be nice. The thing is, if you want to convince a group of people, like Clinton Supporters, to change their minds, it would be better not to start by insulting them. Just a thought.

YOUR COMMENTS

Let's see if the jury system will stop the "Hillbot" labeling this time around...

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:17 PM, and voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Please, let's not use terms like "Hillbots." You can make your point without the insult.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: If a Clinton supporter used the same hateful language to the Sanders people, they would be banned. A hide seems appropriate.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

My side of the aisle are called, "Berniebots" and I don't consider that particularly offensive.

Berniebots is often used and at that crappy site they call Bernie supporters BernieBaggers among other charming names.

K&R

They do that when they're desperate.

Indeed you did Madam.

. . is Hillary's change of course.

She got it. She stood up for the people. Then she turned around and took the other side because of the pressures on her.

Here is someone who wants to do the right thing but in the end succumbs to pressure. It sounds like something that can happen to anyone.

Bernie may be less vulnerable to such pressure than Hillary is, because of his policy of taking money only from small donors -- i.e., the people whose interests he is supposed to represent. But that's not to say he'll always be able to stand up for our interests.

I feel we are in deep doo-doo.

Bernie has stated this emphatically himself numerous times. He says he can only make reforms with an organized movement behind him.

And I think he can do a lot even if he does not win the White House.

I intend to vote for Bernie in the primary, and to do it with enthusiasm, joy, and hope.

But if he loses I will not cry, because the movement he has started will live on under his leadership, even if is not from the presidency that he leads.

to become the first woman president of the u.s.

This was her focus then and it is her focus now. She'll do or say anything to become the first woman president. Damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead. Don't worry about who gets caught up in the wake.

eom

Her entire adult life as a politician has left her completely corrupt and soulless. Every single thing she does is a calculated political move.

Last edited Sun Oct 18, 2015, 07:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Bill, but the fact she is beholden to special interest makes her a no go for me.

I know how you feel, but please keep in mind that we, the people, still hold the cards -- barely -- in the voting booth and in crowd situations.

We do have power, and we must use it.

behind the scenes on a RANGE of issues, not just healthcare. And she is misleading people now into thinking she has no record or positions from Bill's era that she should be judged by.

There is also that thing about Hillary having control over Bill's cabinet -- you can to be on good terms with Hillary to keep your position there.

IMO, Hillary should answer for the outcomes of Bill's policies. She has too much power then in the White House to get off scott free.

"work with" (get funded by) big money when she ran for Senate. Bill found out where the money was when he was president. He helped "reform" banking rules. No way can I vote for Hillary. I have tried voting for the one I thought could win -- a defensive strategy, but I am mostly done with that. I am voting for the person I think would try to solve the most important problems. So, the question is, What are this country's most important, most basic problems? I say Bernie is the one who is zeroing in on them. Secondly, I will vote for integrity. Clearly that is people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, maybe Joe Biden, but not Hillary.

but she is still stuck within that system, unfortunately.

He respects her. He blames the system for what she's pressured into doing. Maybe he's right.

At the same time, Bernie seems to stand up to pressure much better, largely by seeking his support from people who make small donations rather than from corporations and the wealthy.

But she does not.

The system couldn't make him support it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/02/us/vote-on-bankruptcy-bill.html

Sanders was in the House at the time. These Senators voted No:
Brownback
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Harkin
Hutchison
Kennedy
Kerry
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Wellstone

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2001-03-15/html/CREC-2001-03-15-pt1-PgS2343.htm (bottom of the page)

It makes it harder to declare bankruptcy, and prioritizes paying credit card companies when someone does declare bankruptcy.

Sanders voted No because he opposed those changes.

eom

eom

eom

eom

If she gets the nomination it will be all brought out!

eom

opportunist who will say anything to get elected

eom

It's rediculous.