Elizabeth Warren Is Waiting To See Just How Progressive Hillary Clinton Is

[RiverLover]

Elizabeth Warren Is Waiting To See Just How Progressive Hillary Clinton Is
2/24/2015

Liberal hero Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Tuesday that she's waiting to see how progressive a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would be.

Asked by the Rev. Al Sharpton on MSNBC's "Politics Nation" whether Clinton would be a "progressive warrior," Warren didn't exactly give a ringing endorsement.

"You know, I think that's what we gotta see," Warren said. "I want to hear what she wants to run on and what she says she wants to do. That's what campaigns are supposed to be about."

Warren's comments follow her private meeting with Clinton in December, when Clinton asked Warren for policy recommendations, The New York Times reported....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/24/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton_n_6748588.html

Well, this is one of the few times I disagree with Elizabeth, because we all know now that people can talk & run as progressives during campaigns while actually being Third Way Centrist corporate tools.

But at least she didn't endorse HRC just yet. And I hope down the road, Elizabeth doesn't say, "Oh look, Hillary actually IS progressive, look at all she's said that sounds so progressive..."

Time will tell!

[merrily]

1. Warren implying that she will go by campaign rhetoric?

Last edited Wed Feb 25, 2015, 09:18 AM - Edit history (1)

[RiverLover]

3. Not good. nt

[leftofcool]

2. And if she doesn't like what she hears?

[RiverLover]

5. I guess she'd be the one to ask.

Are Democrats a brand that must be protected, or a party that truly represents & stands up for people & planet before profits & stock prices?

How this all plays out will answer ^ this Q of mine.

[Romeo.lima333]

4. she's not a progressive she's a democrat

[Gman]

9. True

Being a Democrat has never been the same as being a progressive. I'm one example. There are millions more.

[RiverLover]

12. That's part of the problem. Progressive policies do well in elections that Dems lose.

The disconnect is hurting US.

While Democrats Did Terribly, Progressive Policies Did Very Well at the Ballot Box
http://elections.firedoglake.com/2014/11/05/while-democrats-did-terribly-progressive-policies-did-very-well-at-the-ballot/

But the true Democrats who ran as Progressives in 2014, who owned it & didn't run as republican-lites, won. Like in MN & CA for example.

So Democrats who are really republican -lite (not progressive) are dragging the party down, imo. I guess that's why Hillary will attempt to sound progressive for her 2016 bid. It sure worked for Obama.

[NYC_SKP]

6. I take this as a very good sign, the possibility exists for a Warren run.

If Warren isn't going to say nice things then I take that to mean that she might run herself.

At the very least it shows she's got too much integrity to lie about it.

At best if means that if HRC doesn't step up, then HRC might not get an endorsement and might, in fact, have a challenger.

I hope.

[RiverLover]

8. I like your sunny outlook NYC_SKP, thanks!

I think I have the winter blues, looking at this too cynically. I've also read too many articles proclaiming that Warren wants to lead HRC left in the campaign from the sidelines.

[daleanime]

10. Best way to look at it.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

26. Elizabeth's runnin - Hillary can "bank" on it, along with her Wall Street buddies.

[hedda_foil]

33. That was my reaction too, NYC_SKP.

Sure sounds like she's just dipped a toenail in the water to me.

[Frosty1]

7. Let's hope Hillary listens to her

...and then has the balls to actually follow through and implement Elizabeth's recommendations. That being said, IF we have to have Hillary as POTUS vs Jebbie or someone far worse

[pocoloco]

15. Well she listened to bush*!!

Even believed him.

Don't know about Warren?

[JDPriestly]

35. Hillary owes too much to Wall Street to run honestly

and believably as a progressive. Hillary has committed herself. It's too late for her to change her course.

[Frosty1]

38. That may well be true BUT...

...she is still better than a rethuglican

[on point]

11. HRC should just declare as a moderate republican and open up the democratic field IMHO

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

27. Hillary could win the Republican nomination, tho it might be a close race between her and Jebbie.

[djean111]

13. I think Warren is just being, correctly, very politically correct.

After all, if she had said, yes, Hillary will be Progressive, imagine all the "See! Heads are exploding! Warren LOVES Hillary! And see! Hillary IS TOO progressive, 'cause Warren says so!!!!!!"

So - I am willing to wait, because I sincerely think I will need to quit internet politics if Hillary is the candidate. Can't see any way around it. Be restful, in a way.

[spooky3]

16. I thought it was an answer with perfect pitch.

She is indirectly pressuring HRC to listen to the base rather than only to big money. EW is not putting herself in the position of being wrong in making a prediction. And if EW is dissatisfied with what transpires, the door is open.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

28. Exactly, which is why progressives should make Hillary WORK for our vote...

By pledging our votes in the general election NOW, Hillary doesn't have to move left to accommodate our progressive issues. She'll be more likely to take us for granted, figuring she's got us no matter what and cowtow to the mushy middle and, perhaps, even further right.

If, however, Hillary worries she might lose our votes in the general - even if we ultimately decide we'll vote for her over the Rethug candidate - it makes her have to work harder for progressive votes. That might actually buy us something in exchange for our voting for Hillary.

Why sell our selves short by pledging our loyalty to Hillary NOW? Yet, so many DUers are willing to telegraph their intentions and harangue those of us who are playing it cool for now and are waiting for Hillary TO COME TO US, rather than the other way around. This is the ONLY way to give ourselves leverage to continue Obama's legacy of bringing real change to America.

Why can't others see this? No, we have to declare we'll vote for Hillary if our candidate loses, or else we're bad Democrats or should I say "progressive Independents." That's total bullshit andjust a plain dumb thing to say.

The smarter strategy I think is to just play it cool and make Hillary WORK HER ASS OFF to secure our vote, not just in the primaries, but in the general election as well. JMHO.

Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now.

Peace.

[hedda_foil]

34. Especially because there is no mushy middle.

And if there was one, it wouldn't have any reason to show up for mushy third way talking points. The whole idea was a fiction the DLC boys and girls made up to justify their behavior so we'd vote for them anyway.

[JDPriestly]

36. Look. People with money do not pay out just to be listened to.

They pay for services rendered, for loyalty and for work.

Once Hillary takes as much money as she has from Wall Street, she owes. Wall Street with its influence in the media and its cash can control her and will control her.

There is no way she can win on Wall Street money if she doesn't serve Wall Street. And I use Wall Street almost symbolically to represent big business, big oil, big retail, all who don't have to worry about paying their cable bill or for their kids' college.

[Sancho]

14. Even as a new politician, Warren isn't stupid.

She is doing the right thing: wait and see how the campaign plays out. I'm not a spring chick...and I've been a political junkie since the 60's. We really don't know what a candidate Hillary or a President Hillary would do in every situation.

I'll vote for the Democratic candidate no matter who it is because they will reflect my values better than the Republican no matter who it may be.

When 18 year olds got the vote (a great victory), I voted for Jimmy Carter. I saw him on the campaign trail and he was impressive then and now. I remember (as we were just finishing our retreat from Vietnam) that a lot of my buddies thought that Carter was ex-military and a submariner; so he would be a hawk and expand the cold war. They were so wrong. He did not send any troops into war and negotiated peace at every turn.

A lot of people here jump the gun to assume they know what will happen in the future. As my computer once told me as I pounded on the keyboard, "Patience mortal!"

[JDPriestly]

37. Rich people hire people to do their bidding. They give to charity

but they are not giving money to Hillary because they think she needs their charity. They are giving her money because they expect something in return -- policies that will make them even richer than they now are.

We ordinary people also give the little money we can because we expect something in return. We expect the candidates we support to support us in our issues and in making our lives better.

That's the money aspect of politics.

Hillary owes Wall Street and Walmart and her other donors.

That's the way it is. She will not be able to take money from her donors and then implement the regulatory oversight, etc. that America needs at this time.

That's politics.

You can't elect an elephant and expect it to act like a donkey.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

17. love it!!! love her!!!!!

Examine where the candidate stands. Champion humanistic values (aka Progressive Values).

Why didn't anyone *ahem*flying monkeys media* ahem* think of this before?
[/sarcasm]

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

30. Wait, u sayin we shud elect a candidate based on policy & issues ratha than blindly throwin our support 2 them? That's crazy talk! haha

[BlancheSplanchnik]

31. ....

I'm irredeemable.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

32. haha, good to hear!

[beemer27]

18. We are all waiting to see if she will run on a progressive platform.

Warren is a sharp cookie to say it the way she did. The door is open to either support HRC or to run against her. This puts pressure on HRC to tone down the Wall Street line and make like she is going to represent the people. If she runs on progressive ideas enough she will actually have to deliver on a few. Do not misunderstand me-Just because HRC SAYS she will do something means little, but if she is on record strongly supporting a certain position, she will have to deliver something or lose all support from the left. Warren's position is changing how HRC will campaign, and possible how she will govern if she wins. Hillary is not Bill. He could get away with almost anything, and make the people think that he did them all a favor. HRC is not nearly as smooth, or as smart. Bill is promoting her, but she will have to be quick on her feet to win this one. She may have what it takes, or not.
We still don't know who will run on the other side. If they are smart enough to pick a likable candidate with little baggage, many voters will vote for him because they do not trust Hillary. It is WAY too early in the game to make any kind of meaningful predictions.

[ALBliberal]

19. Didn't Warren sign a letter encouraging HRC to run and pledging support?

I am confused.

[RiverLover]

20. This interview explains the letter & how she studiously avoids endorsing Hillary~

STEPHANOPOULOS: You've been pretty clear, and we showed it in Jeff Zeleny's piece, that you say you're not running for president in 2016. It seems like you've just affirmed it again. You also signed a letter -- several senators signed a letter earlier this year encouraging Hillary Clinton to run.

So is she your candidate in 2016?

WARREN: You know, all of the women -- Democratic women, I should say, of the Senate urged Hillary Clinton to run. And I hope she does.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You hope she does. And if she does, she is your candidate, you're going to endorse her?

WARREN: If Hillary -- Hillary is terrific.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, you've said she is terrific very many times. You say that again in this book, "A Fighting Chance." But this book leaves out something of a pointed criticism from your earlier book, "The Two Income Trap."

There you praised first lady Hillary Clinton for her opposition to this bankruptcy bill pushed by the big banks, but go on to talk about how she, as New York senator, seemed she could not afford that principled position.

Senator Clinton received 140,000 in campaign contributions from banking industry executives in a single year. Big banks were now part of Senator Clinton's constituency. She wanted their support, and they wanted hers, including a vote in favor of that awful bill.

So do you think that -- are you worried that somehow she will bow to big business, those were your words in that book, if she becomes president?

WARREN: Look, I've made it clear all the way through this book and really what I've been working on for the last 25 years, that I'm worried a lot about power in the financial services industry.

And I'm worried about the fact that basically starting in the '80s, you know, the cops were taken off the beat in financial services, these guys were allowed to just paint a bull's eye on the backsides of American families.

They loaded up on risk. They crashed the economy. They got bailed out. And what bothers me now is they still strut around Washington. They block regulations that they don't want. They roll over agencies whenever they can. And they break...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Did they rollover Hillary Clinton?

WARREN: Well, that's -- they break the law, and still don't end up being held accountable for it, and going to jail.

One of the things that I focus on really hard throughout this book is that that is one of the prime examples of how the playing field is tilted and how we've got to push back against it.

It's a central issue for me. It's something I'm going to keep talking about. And I'm going to keep talking about it with everyone.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Right. But -- I understand. Do you think Hillary Clinton will push back on that as well?

WARREN: Well, I'm going to keep talking about this issue. And I'm going to keep pushing on this issue.

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/abcs-stephanopoulos-makes-elizabeth-warren

[ALBliberal]

25. I like both of these "terrific" women but this back and forth is hurting our chances in 2016

IMO it is fatiguing and a turnoff to the general populace.

Bernie Sanders on the other hand is a clear ray of sunshine. No cat and mouse.

BTW thanks for posting that transcript!

[Buzz Clik]

21. I can this. Hillary is a newcomer with essentially no track record...

[ProudProg2u]

22. WAITING.....???

Hillary is a "Master Black Belt Politician" Eliz is not. When a Master politicians mouth is moving...? They are either lying or obfuscating, or diverting attentions by not directly answering ANY questions...SANDERS/WARREN...WARREN/SANDERS 2016...!!! Other presidents have been what would be called Socialists by today's RepubliCONS most Americans just don't realize this.

[Divernan]

23. This is AFTER the meeting w/ Warren, held at HRC's request.

So what was HRC's purpose in requesting/having this very private (no aides/witnesses present) meeting w/Warren, if NOT to "say what she wants to run on and what she wants to do"???

Trying for innocence by association? Hoping some of Warren's credibility would rub off? A little arm-twisting? A few veiled threats? Some quid pro quo promises (those have worked so well while the Clintons have accumulated their many millions of personal wealth)?
It was also interesting that no joint statement/announcement was issued afterward. Instead it was months before a report of the meeting was leaked by a "Democratic insider." The meeting was in December; the leaks in mid-February.

For a very provocative analysis of this meeting, and the pro-Clinton spin put on it by an anonymous "Democratic insider", check out this link:
http://www.news.alayham.com/content/%E2%80%8Bhillary-clinton-meets-privately-elizabeth-warren-politico-speculates-why

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/02/17/hillary-clinton-met-with-elizabeth-warren-in-december/

But she wants something else as well. The Politico article suggest that Clinton wants more than just "cred" from Warren — she wants a bit more silence: The one-on-one meeting also represented a step toward relationship building for two women who do not know each other well. And for Mrs. Clinton, it was a signal that she would prefer Ms. Warren’s counsel delivered in person, as a friendly insider, rather than on national television or in opinion articles.

About Warren and "insiders," consider what she told Bill Moyers. And again, where did the writers get such an idea?

What's the Source of Politico's Many "Speculations"?

Now let's look at the layer below the Clinton-Warren layer. This article came from somewhere. Does it contain a large amount of speculation on the writers' part, or is there an "unacknowledged source" from the Clinton team whispering into the writers' combined shell-like, helping to feed the article that helps to feed Clinton's cred?

Again, feel free to make up your own mind, but know that pieces like these don't come out of the wild blue, and the writers, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Martin, are connected to people who know the people who know how to get things in the press. With that question about "unacknowledged sources" in mind, note the writers' ending:

Both Mrs. Clinton and her husband appeared eager to keep a close eye on Ms. Warren; Bill Clinton has appeared sensitive to her oblique criticism of his deregulation of financial institutions.

The word "appeared" appears twice in this sentence. Under what hedge do you have to be looking for these appearances to be seen? Or is it a matter of to whose mouth your ear is tuned? I'd be shocked if this piece — with all its insider-y motive-guessing — came from any source but the Clinton camp. If so, with Ms. Clinton's knowledge? On that, your speculation is as good as anyone's — and as obvious.

If you do think Clinton is ultimately the source of so much in this article, I strongly suggest you reread it carefully with that in mind and find, phrase by phrase, Clinton's likely contributions to it. What information can only come from Team Clinton? You too can hear like an insider.

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2015/02/hillary-clinton-meets-privately-with...

[RiverLover]

24. Fantastic article.

Thanks so much for the link. Bookmarked!