Esp. on the front that she's a "one issue" politician.

But she's so good at explaining that issue, and that issue is so central, that I find myself to be a "follower".
She's teaching me stuff, and I like it.

On the fact that she's been very "one issue".
That "one issue" fits a weltanschauung, to give it direction.
Much as HRC's lectures for Goldman Sachs give a certain weltanschauung direction.

I'm unsure whether Elizabeth Warren understands how those two directions are contradictory, at the deepest levels, particularly with respect to military spending, with military policy, and the military industry that drives the USA.

This sort of highlights the problem of the media defining her in sound-bites, which is what the article is stressing we need to be wary of.

She's very good at articulating the problems with Wall Street corruption in our govt. And her speeches on the senate floor are compelling, its easy to see why the media highlights these.

But she also has other issues she's working towards, like, in her own words found at link~

Those just round it out.

I think she has to stop the "War on Terror" cold in its tracks, to achieve anything.
She has to say how she's going to do that.

Her opponent will be totally gung-ho MIC and the warmongering rhetoric so common and so repugnant at DU today will be as nothing to when her opponent gets the game going.

In my 60+ yrs experience watching politics, US Americans always go for the warmongering hero. Always. US Americans never look back on the devastation that they leave behind, they always blame the victim, pretending that they, themselves, are peace-loving civilized folk. That's their birthright, to tell those stories, being born winners. That's the path that led to today. To the problems that Elizabeth Warren will face as leader.

Platitudes about how the "middle class" got screwed and how it can be fixed with this and that can't do it.
There has to be a dedicated change from a military to a civilian economy. But hey, nobody who gains a buck or two from the military economy will gainsay the source, so good luck with that, since no other economy of import exists in the US. It's all military.

but how can that be done if the over-riding rhetoric of war, terrorist menaces, Islamic enemies, Russian enemies, and on and on, isn't replaced by a rhetoric which addresses those same issues in a different and more benign way?

I've yet to hear that. I'm sorry (I feel contrite, ffs) for saying that, but I'm pessimistic to infinitely close to the nadir with the whole business of US politics. I have no fucking "belief" in it left.

The rhetoric of war, terrorist manaces, ..., has $trillions$ riding on it, and in fact the entire US economy rides on it.

A lot of middle-class US American folk have put their $$ into the war making machinery, whether directly or through their investment accounts. It is, in fact, almost the only game still going for the US economy. War. The total devastation of the planet wherever the war machine lands.

My German sucks just one year of college German

I wish she would realize that, as President, she would have the bully pulpit, could veto bad legislation, and could appoint to government people who have the same vision and work ethic as hers.

We need to replace the crowd that has been installed period.

But she's smarter than the average bear too, so I doubt she wants to face the guns just yet. I've never heard a book tour sound like a stump speech. Something is going on. But she is not now, currently, running.

She's right up behind Clinton, letting the focus be on her. Then she's going to change her angle, like in Formula 1 when they use the DRS to change the tailfin to take advantage of the car in front. I think she's also waiting to see who the Republican is/are. Maybe Clinton can take out Jeb. Maybe Warren can beat anyone but Jeb. Who knows, but I'm sure there are quite a few people on her team looking at all the possibilities. I've never seen so many calls for someone to run in my life, never. So she's in a very good position.

But she is not now, currently, running!

good article~

Elizabeth Warren for President--A Plan for Posterity
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Elizabeth-Warren-for-Presi-by-Roger-Copple-Elizabeth-Warren_Ukraine-141220-258.html

That half measures and tepid social liberalism are all that we need. Some Democrats only care about social issues and don't think economics are that important, so EW doesn't appeal to them. But it's obvious that the political strategists have figured that out and can now run campaigns with good graphics and liberal slogans which have nothing to do with the actual philosophy of governance.

We do need a plan. We need a vision. The best presidents have always been very forthright in sharing their vision, sometimes calling it The New Deal, The Fair Deal, The Great Society. That really helps to bring focus and move a huge country like the US forward.

I believe that EW is hammering out her message. She is focusing on economics because she is expert and she can not be pushed around in that arena. I can't believe a person who is fighting for the rights of everyone would be crap on social issues. The big question is how does she take on the MIC? Though I saw she was talking about reducing the size of the military. So she is feeling her way, gaining confidence, learning the ins and outs. It's fascinating to watch. At the very least, maybe she will take over for Reid in 2016 though I am not sure she wants to be in charge of procedure as that takes its own kind of wonkiness.

But she is not now, currently, running!