originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: derfreebie
Yeah, and part of the problem is the overly long time we run the presidential elections.....the rest of the world mush laugh.
Now, my state is running for a new governor this November....I think.
Both parties are running uncontested in the primary.....so no campaigning so far.
And, it's nice.
I'm sure after the primary things will pick up, but why the hell do we need to go through this circus for more than two years?????
No wonder more don't vote...they become comatose.
originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
If Obama doesn't anoint her....does she have a chance?
originally posted by: seagull
I suspect it'll be someone like Bill Richardson.
originally posted by: ABNARTY
She is not friendly to big banking and it is hard to do anything in DC that way.
Warren’s claim to fame, which made her the darling of proglodytes, is as a champion of the underdog against avaricious corporations. In the debate, Brown cast doubt on this image when he questioned Warren’s decision to represent Travelers Insurance in its 2009 attempt to avoid paying compensation to thousands of workers with asbestos poisoning. Warren insisted that by representing Travelers (“it was an insurance company versus another insurance company” she later explained), she actually helped the poisoned workers by getting Travelers to set up a trust fund, which was better than nothing. The settlement was later negated by the Supreme Court, leaving the victims with nothing.
Less clear is how Warren was aiding the downtrodden when she represented LTV Steel in 1995, when they attempted to renege on health & pension benefits to thousands of retired coal miners.
Warren has also served, in an advisory or litigating capacity, the following clients in their attempts to use Chapter 11 legalities to avoid liabilities for asbestos poisoning: Kaiser Aluminum; Dow Chemical; Johns Manville; National Gypsum; Fuller Austin; Fairchild Aviation; Piper Aircraft; Babcock & Wilcox Company; Pittsburgh Coming Corporation; Owens Coming Corporation; Armstrong World Industries, Inc.; W.R. Grace & Company; G-1 Holdings, Inc.; United States Gypsum Corporation; Federal-Mogul Global, Inc.; North American Refractories Company
In September 2012, it was revealed that despite rendering legal services from her offices in Cambridge, Massachusetts using her law school address since sometime in the mid-1990s, Warren was not licensed to practice law in Massachusetts.
Warren refused to disclose the full extent of her private law practice when asked by The Boston Globe. A list of cases later produced by Warren to The Boston Globe shortly before a Senatorial debate was incomplete.
As of 2002, Warren had at least 10 private legal matters and charged $675 per hour. Research revealed that there were at least 22 court cases in which Warren represented clients from her office in Massachusetts.
Warren listed her Massachusetts office as her “primary practice location” in her registration with the Texas Bar. In an interview with a local radio station, Warren acknowledged that she was not licensed in Massachusetts and stated that the did not practice law in Massachusetts.
originally posted by: IXIXI
It really doesn't matter to me which puppet is the face of our monster as long as it isn't hillary. She's done enough, or some may say in light of benghazi done far too little. At any rate she isn't suitable as a world leader and it's shocking she has gotten this far in her "career"
most American's don't even know what a Benghazi is, and even fewer care
KEENE, N.H.—Searching for an alternative to Hillary Clinton for 2016, some Democratic donors are meeting with potential challengers. Liberal activists are trying to coax Sen. Elizabeth Warren into running. Politicians not named Hillary Clinton are testing their appeal in New Hampshire and Iowa.
As formidable as Mrs. Clinton looks even before declaring herself a candidate, liberals are casting about for a committed populist to run against her in 2016. They see the former secretary of state and senator as too closely aligned with large corporations and question whether she can be counted on to narrow the income gap in America.
They hope to either recruit a candidate able to capture the nomination outright or at least give Mrs. Clinton enough of a scare that she embraces progressive policy goals. Their aim is to make the primary process a debate over the Democratic Party’s direction, rather than an uncontested march by Mrs. Clinton to the nomination.