Elizabeth Warren, Progressives Head for Detroit

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.

Not meaning to stick and run, or even more drift; but I
got stuck listening to buzz Aldrin across town Zzzz.
Maybe once the substance of the candidate can prove the
viability of the platform. Wait.. politicians have substance
through financing and campaign ads. Sorry I brought it up.

If November doesn't prove a 67 in the Senate, and GOd
forbid anything spicier than Ricky's winter chili comes
through the pipe to play Confuse-a-Cat for scandals...
I'm still impressed none the less by Liz Warren's albeit
short, but Joan of Shark track record with the day
traders' Big Cars and the bankers in general.
Sorry the Stroganoff was just as spicy and it just backfired.
Quote me anyway, gotta admit J.o.S. was funny...

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

She messed up badly when she gave up her Senate seat to be SecSt.

Personally, I think that's the exact moment when she lost any chance at the Oval Office.

As far as anointing? His support might just be the kiss of death, given how unpopular Mr. Obama is in some circles...

My thoughts are that she's not going to garner enough support to run, Warren, I mean... Nor will Clinton. I suspect it'll be someone like Bill Richardson. Ideally, it would be a youngish moderate democrat. Someone who will appeal to someone like me, I'm what they used to call a conservative Democrat... Yeah, I know... What's that? Think, if you're old enough, the late Henry Jackson, senator from Washington, and you'll be very close.

Something tells me though... That's unlikely. Someone from the old guard, and a young "progressive" woman, either Hispanic or Black.

In fact, they might be willing to lose this election cycle, in order to introduce someone to the electorate. If they win, great. But that'll be gravy.

a reply to: olaru12

I don't think you're wrong. That's the way I read it, too.

The Palin gambit would have worked, except they, the GOP, used McCain, instead of someone a bit younger. IMHO, of course...

I don't think a black man running on a GOP ticket would be seen as pandering, at least not in some circles. Provided, of course, he or she actually has character, and isn't a puppet who can't think for themselves. Only time will tell.

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
If Obama doesn't anoint her....does she have a chance?

She's got a better chance without Obama's backing.

Hillary was just on the Daily Show. He teased her and asked what shape she wants her next office to be ... with or without corners. She said back something like corners not being necessary or something like that. She's running. I have no doubt.

HIllary's resume is 1,000 times better then Warrens. She should have no trouble squashing that big-business lawyer / Native American Indian Imitator Warren into the dust beneath her feet.

That being said, Hillary's resume was also massively better than Obamas, but the Democrats went for Obama instead. It was surreal. If they had gone with Hillary instead of 'yes we can' catch phrases, this country probably wouldn't have as many problems as it does. Hillary can do the job. Obama and Warren can not.

I wish Bill Richardson was running for the Dems. He's the most capable and he can do the job. He has the least baggage as well. But for some reason the dems don't go with who makes the most sense ... it's boggling the mind.

originally posted by: seagull
I suspect it'll be someone like Bill Richardson.

Bill Richardson and Evan Bayh. That's a democratic ticket that is capable and can do the job. (which of course means that they won't get the nod but instead the dems will go for another cant-do-the-job-but-have-a-catchy 'yes we can' Obama type .... ARGH! )

originally posted by: ABNARTY
She is not friendly to big banking and it is hard to do anything in DC that way.

Shes big business friendly and her lawyer status is fuzzy. Sounds perfect for DC.

Other Warren Lies and Screw Ups

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

Her Bar status was inactive in Texas and yet she claimed it to be active.
She resigned from the New Jersey bar suddenly and without explanation.
She's been practicing law in Massachussetts without a license. She calls it 'dabbling'.

Elizabeth Warren Massachusetts Bar Controversy

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.[1]

Warren refused to disclose[2] 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.[3]

As of 2002, Warren had at least 10 private legal matters[4] and charged $675 per hour.[5] 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.[6] 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.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Don't get me wrong. No doubt she is political material. A lawyer with a questionable track record? Required at the beltway to get in. However, her public stance on big banking is pretty clear. Whether she would back up the rhetoric if in the Oval Office is a totally different story. I doubt it.

Would Hillary do any better? I guess I am so jaded I feel no matter who gets elected, the results will be the same. We send them swimming in the cess pool of DC and expect them not to come out smelling like a turd. Can't be done.

I apologize if Hillary is your dog in this fight. I hold nothing personal against her.

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"

It's because most American's don't even know what a Benghazi is, and even fewer care.

most American's don't even know what a Benghazi is, and even fewer care

They don't care because it's miniscule compared to everything else in the world and only fringe extremists are obsessed with it.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Well, mister or misses DontTreadOnMe ( i've never asked ) I'm going to Bump your thread instead of making a new thread.
I did a search and found your's.
This is the Title.

Liberals Seek Alternative to Hillary Clinton
Would-Be 2016 Challengers Test the Waters With Democratic Activists, Donors

Yup, they're looking for someone further left than Hillary,,,, Way, Way Left I think.

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.

LINK
You can read more at that site, but it looks as it they want to leave Hillary behind unless she conforms to a Progressive Platform .

Anyway, You know my feelings about Hillary and I'm not voting Democrat or Progressive anyway shape or form and I know my wife isn't.
But I read this article and after a search I thought it'd go nicely with your thread.