Skip to main content



Dear Senator Warren,

Please consider this letter an urgent call for help.  Our nation is in distress, and when it comes to political leadership, there doesn't seem to be any.  At least not at the level needed to address the great challenges of our times.

The entire political establishment has been turned into a tool of the wealthiest people in this country; a tool that is increasingly being used to exploit and subjugate the citizenry.

Wall Street, acting as a criminal racketeering cartel, and protected by the establishment of both major political parties, did not only caused the 2008 economic depression as the result of rampant fraud, but to this day continues to engage in rampant looting with what appears to be total impunity.

The national security apparatus has been turned into a for profit, corporate-controlled massive surveillance police state which is increasingly being used against law-abiding citizens trying to exercise their constitutional rights.

Corporate and private interests are paying off politicians of both parties to help destroy the public commons in favor of profiteering.  Prisons are being privatized, and municipalities are being incentivized to produce a larger and larger number of prisoners in order to guarantee minimum levels of profits.  Profiteers, working in tandem with their paid off politicians are destroying public education, carving out profitable segments, and discarding the rest, securing a constant flow of new prisoners for the private prison industrial complex.

The corporate media conglomerate is being used to peddle propaganda and misinformation, 24/7.  Exploitative trade deals are being negotiated among on-the-take politicians and powerful supranational corporations.  Jobs are being shipped overseas, young people with little prospect of finding good-paying jobs are drowning in student loan debt.

The system has turned predatory, and the good people of this country have become the prey; the prey of powerful business interests and the rapacious greed of the wealthy and their puppet politicians acting in concert.

Nevertheless, regardless of these dire circumstances, the good people of this country are finally standing up against the abuse.  They have become aware of the lies, the manipulation, the greed-induced corruption.  There is a fast-spreading progressive rebirth across the entire country, and there is no better example than the election of Bill de Blasio to Mayor of New York City.

And as they do, as they take on the abuse and the endemic corruption, they have come to realize that we can not longer afford to do business as usual.  We are tired of political party establishments that represent the interests of the wealthy and powerful, to the detriment of the people.  We are tired of political dynasties, of accepting the conventional wisdom that points to the inevitability of pre-approved choices that somehow always end up benefiting the few, at the expense of the many.

And despite the fact that many people realize that our political system is corrupt, we haven't given up on democracy, on the idea that we the people should be able to elect honest, dedicated, selfless representatives who fully embrace the sacred duty of being a public servant.

And that's why we need you.  I fully understand that there have been reports that you have said unequivocally that you have no interest in running for presidency of the United States.  Nevertheless, I herein respectfully ask you to reconsider that decision.  I'm fully confident that there are millions of people who feel the same way I do.

And that's why in this letter, again, respectfully, I ask you about what would it take for your to reconsider your decision.  And I ask you that very serious and important question because at least when it comes to me, as a concerned citizen, I'm truly fired up and ready to go when it comes to a potential Warren For President 2016 candidacy.

I would put up thousands of posters; I would make thousands of calls; I would join with others in raising funds for your campaign.  I would knock on thousands of doors, talk one on one with thousands of people, I would write, send emails, help with social media campaigns... And I'm just one person.  Imagine what tens of thousands of people doing the same in every corner of this country could accomplished!

Senator Warren, in my heart of hearts I truly believe that sometimes circumstances are such that a nation in distress will call a specific type of leader for duty, and I think that in our times that leader is you.  And that's why I urge you to consider running for the presidency of the United States in 2016.

Finally, I would like to thank you for everything you've done as a senator thus far.  I especially thank you for telling the truth, for not mincing words when it comes to describing the injustices and the corruption endemic in the system.  You have inspired millions of people around this country.  You are a shinning example of what it means to be an honest politician, a dedicated and indefatigable public servant in the truest sense of the word.  Thank you!



DRAFT WARREN FOR PRESIDENT 2016


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market For The People |Ray Pensador | Email List | Twitter | Facebook

Originally posted to Ray Pensador on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 01:08 AM PST.

Also republished by Massachusetts Kosmopolitans.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Now if only she and Bernie Sanders could be (11+ / 0-)

    cloned and we could reach the voting public...to vote for them.   Without something to counter or stop the 24/7 corporate propaganda  most voters remain disinformed.  

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

    by leema on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 01:19:45 AM PST

    •  The "something to counter corporate propaganda" is (15+ / 0-)

      us. Every single one of us. This is the time for somebody like Senator Elizabeth Warren.

      •  Sorry, I disagree, Ray... (8+ / 0-)

        There is no doubt that Elizabeth Warren is indeed a national treasure. But I really think she would do better in charge of American monetary policy, i.e., fed chairwoman or secretary of the treasury. Her talents would be wasted in the White House, as far as I'm concerned.

        If you really think about it, the last five years have proven that the POTUS position doesn't necessarily wield all that much power. Yes, we need a genuine liberal in the White House, but if for nothing else, as a dual signer-in-chief and somebody that can make good decisions in appointing justices for the SCOTUS and the federal courts in general.

        We have to concentrate on gaining the House, and both hold onto the Senate -- and increase the numbers of (again) real liberals/progressives... in both houses of Congress.

        We also need a new Speaker of the House and a new Senate majority leader. Myself, in those crucial positions, I would prefer Alan Grayson and Bernie Sanders respectively. They both speak for the People... not corporations.

        We basically need to put the right people in positions of power around a generic, Democratic POTUS -- both in Congress and in the White House -- aiding him/her in pushing an [old school] liberal agenda.

        It's the only way that will save this country.

        Sorry, but after the last thirteen years, I've lost much of my faith in the U.S. presidency.

        'Cuz freedom can't protect itself ~~ EFF ~ EPIC ~ ACLU

        by markthshark on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 04:03:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But Mark, who would that generic liberal be? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aliasalias, angel d

          It ain't Hillary.  Not a liberal.  So we're down to Warren, Sanders, and Brown, plus those I don't know about.

          Of those, who's the most electable?  Which one could ride on - rather than obstruct - the widespread notion that it's time for "a woman President"?

          Cause this is what Hillary supporters are saying, and - on this - they're not wrong.  

          The problem is, Hillary's not the answer.  Who would you suggest, if not Warren?

      •  Just leave Warren alone. For christ's sake, Ray! (0+ / 0-)

        She is WAY too nice of a person to be begged to run for a shitty job like President.

        You see the way Obama is treated and if you don't think it will be even worse for her then I don't know what to say.

        Hell, look at how they treat her already!

        She has one life to live.  Why the hell would you ask her to throw it away like this?

        You know, Warren doesn't need any input from you or anyone else in making a decision about running for President.  Which is why she didn't ask for any input from you or anyone else when she made the decision.  She's a smart person.  She decided on her own.  Why don't you try respecting what she decided?  

        Try respecting her enough to accept what she decided.

        I still feel sorry for poor Al Gore after all the begging he endured.  I'm sure it was flattering, but not as much as it was just depressing to see people in a Democracy actually begging for a savior.    

        •  I adore Senator Warren (0+ / 0-)

          which is why I am so happy she doesn't want to be President.  She doesn't have what you need to run for President.  

          She's a happy, well rounded, sensible human being.  

          You can't be President if you are like that.

          To be  President, you need to be... well, to be blunt, you need to be paradoxically fucked up.

          If you are not, then forget about the job.  Just running will fuck you up.

          I would never wish that on someone as wonderful as Senator Elizabeth Warren.  Never.  Sorry, but the future of the country and even the planet isn't worth ruining her life.  

          That's how I feel about it anyway.  

    •  Many (not most) voters are not (5+ / 0-)

      misinformed as much as simply wrong. They fundamentally disagree with us. They are evangelical Christians, or racists, or the overly greedy and selfish, etc. When people fundamentally disagree with me on virtually every issue, I don't chalk it up to them being "misinformed". People for example who don't "believe" in global warming are not lacking in information; they have decided to actively ignore information in order to hold their opinions. These people are going to be our adversaries for life.

      •  I agree with you. One thing, though, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Vetwife, Sylv, serendipityisabitch

        it's those  people who are constantly screaming at the media and have them cowed. (I don't chalk it all up to the "corporate" nature of media companies. I know these people are constantly trying to intimidate.)

        This impulse to find a "savior" or a "Joan of Arc" I think speaks to the desire to find an easy way out of this long conflict we have ahead of us.

        I think Warren could conceivably be very influential as a Senator. Whoever is chosen as Dem President will be pushing to make rather modest gains toward progressivity
        and will be looking to make tweaks to the ACA and some tax reform that will end the talk about cutting SS and medicare, etc, and building upon finance reform, restoring and preserving the idea of public education, etc.

        Circumstances outside DC may create opportunities for the next President in terms of job creation in clean energy, climate change mitigation, infrastructure.

        If we have the House and a strong leadership cadre of progressive Senators, the opportunities for the next President will be greatly expanded. Without that, I think Elizabeth Warren would pretty much be in the same boat as Pres. Obama, and it wouldn't be long before we start hearing about how she "sold out the left" because she didn't wave her magic "lefty" wand.

        You can't make this stuff up.

        by David54 on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 05:39:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  She definitely can be an effective voice (4+ / 0-)

          for the left, and if she knows how to navigate the senate she can have some real power. But the Democratic Party would not, and should not, take such a huge risk as to nominate someone as far to the left as she is. The mere fact that she makes everyone here so giddy should make everyone here who considers themselves politically astute to question her electability.

          •  and even if she were somehow elected, (3+ / 0-)

            the demands  and restraints of the job of President are going to nullify a lot of her most popular qualities as an advocate.
            i agree with you about electability. If there is someone far enough to the left, the establishment goppers and Dems are going to find a Jeb Bush to run down the middle-right. Then there goes the scotus for decades.

            You can't make this stuff up.

            by David54 on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 06:07:21 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Dunno about this. We're in a generational shift (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              karma13612

              leftward, imo and according to some demographers.  This could last for 30 years or so but is not "written in stone." (See Millennial Makeover for this argument.)

              My question is related but opposite...mightn't Hillary lose - being disliked for many reasons, especially by the right & middle?  What would we be left with then, under a Bush 3 or Christie Presidency?

              Are the voters ready for a Warren?  More than ever, I'd say, though I don't know if that means Yes.  But I fear they've long ago lost their appetite for another Clinton.  And the Repubs are totally ready to take her on.

          •  Being "far to the left" (0+ / 0-)

            isn't her biggest liability. There's a whole list of them.

            Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

            by anastasia p on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 11:09:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  No, it's been proved they ARE misinformed (0+ / 0-)

        The "why" might relate to the fundamental difference in beliefs. Those on the right have picked their positions first and tailored their "information" to support them.

        Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

        by anastasia p on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 11:06:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  If you need help, I suggest you vote... (0+ / 0-)

    because if Virginia was any indication you obviously don't.

  •  I often wonder what the vintners buy (0+ / 0-)

    One half so precious as the stuff they sell.

    Tea Party Ingredients: Cellulose gum, Trichoderma longibrachiatum, Alces spongiform encephalopathy, Polyethylene glycol, Diethyl parathion, H1N1, 5β-cholanic acid-3α,7α-diol, C7H5NO3S, tea.

    by yojimbo on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 02:07:00 AM PST

  •  She's definitely preferable (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Don midwest

    to Hillary Clinton but her hawkish foreign policy views and her unwillingness to speak out against government violations of our civil liberties prevent me from being "fired up" about her.

    "Americans have a strong devotion to afflicting the afflicted and comforting the comfortable. They have a hard time contemplating any meaningful overhaul of the rules of their political system" -- Alec Baldwin

    by Sagebrush Bob on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 02:25:19 AM PST

    •  What (3+ / 0-)

      hawkish foreign policy views?  One of the reasons I haven't jumped on the Warren for Pres. bandwagon is that we simply DON"T KNOW her views or policies on so many matters.
      She is focused like a laser on economic justice. She can do that in the Senate.

      hawkish foreign policy views?

      Warren has been so focused on taming Wall Street and achieving economic justice for ordinary people, that on most other matters--from foreign policy to the environment to civil liberties--we simply DON"T KNOW her views.  And anyone wanting to draft her for POTUS should find out first.

      In the Senate, she can focus on her mission--as Russ Feingold did his.

      "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. http://www.kynect.ky.gov/ for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

      by SouthernLeveller on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 03:03:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Regardless of whether or not Warren answers (19+ / 0-)

    the call, and I certainly hope she does, there's one thing I grow ever the more certain about:

    Hillary ain't the one. Not for me, at least.

    Thanks for the diary, Ray.




    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

    by DeadHead on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 02:31:24 AM PST

  •  I think she can do more (6+ / 0-)

    in the Senate.
       Presidents are not everything.

    "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. http://www.kynect.ky.gov/ for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

    by SouthernLeveller on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 02:56:26 AM PST

    •  I crack up every time I see this type of comment. (15+ / 0-)

      Obama probably should've stayed in the Senate, too.

      Because after all, presidents aren't everything.




      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

      by DeadHead on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 03:32:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  She is our Sr. Senator in Ma now. The outcome of (5+ / 0-)

      The midterm in 2014 may help determine if we can afford to lose her from the Senate. Ted Kennedy and his staff crafted and championed an amazing number of bills that positively altered the fabric of this country over many years.

       Not many Senators or Representatives are in a position where their seats are safe enough to do the people's bidding, and others are are clearly there to work for the corporate interest that put them there from day one. We need some strong members in both house with some staying power that can attract and build staff with the depth and talent required to create the legislative machine that is required.

    •  Well, that is sort of silly. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      David54, Vetwife

      Presidents are far more powerful than first-term senators. You wouldn't lose her in the senate unless she actually won the White House. But really folks, how's that going to happen? The US is not Dkos. Nominating someone on the extreme left is going to do for us what nominating people on the extreme right does for the GOP. Let's let them keep going for people who are unelectable, and we'll keep going for left-leaning moderates. That is our best path. Plus, we really cannot afford to fuck around trying to shoot the moon when if we miss a modern-day Republican will win the presidency. Eight years of Bush/Cheney was enough Republican presidency to last a lifetime.

      •  I would have . Look at the massive volume (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama

        of bills that Ted Kennedy authored during his tenure.

        If the Democrats can hold the senate a regain the house, some substantive legislation can be passed
        From what I know of Senator Warren, I'll take her legislative ideas over what Ed have see the last 8, or even a potential Scott Brown or reasonable facsimile  that might  try for the seat

      •  E.W. is not "extreme left" (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ray Pensador, cybrestrike, karma13612

        I am extreme left. Elizabeth Warren is a moderate.

        George McGovern was among the most politically left presidential candidates. A completely different political vision! There were many who would today be regarded as "extreme left" elected to congress in 1974. Today, we have just a few like Sanders and Grayson who have the courage to advocate fundamental systemic change. The drift to the right has been so strong for so long that America's "Left" looks like Europe's center-right neoliberals, and the American "Right" is in fact fascist.

        I believe that if we continue to be pragmatic, as you suggest, we'll just continue enabling the right wing and Sinclair Lewis's American dystopia will soon be upon us.

  •  I'm on the Warren bandwagon. (10+ / 0-)

    It seems there are silly trolls reading this, Ray, cuz they are making silly comments that we know wouldn't come from kossacks.

    Keep it up, Ray!

    WARREN, 2016

    11:11 being mindful and keepin' it real

    by Raggedy Ann on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 04:33:23 AM PST

  •  Wall St did not "caused" the financial crisis. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    6412093

    How absurd.

    The slimy mortgage banking industry was not "Wall St".   Countrywide, Ameriquest, Great Western, Washington Mutual, IndyMac and the like were not part of Wall Street.  None of them were even located in New York.  

    "Wall Street" generally refers to the investment banking sector - three of which perished in the credit crash (Bear, Lehman, and Merrill).   Those three bought bad mortgages from the mortgage shops so they were more accurately victims.   But so were the federal housing agencies.

    No wonder this place can get so ridiculous sometimes.  

    "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

    by shrike on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 05:08:48 AM PST

    •  Wall Street was trading around credit default (4+ / 0-)

      swaps which leveraged the price of those mortgages up to 100x their actual value.

      Goldman Sachs was hawking them to Greece and Spain, etc, which is one reason they got in trouble and became easy prey for austeritists.
      There wasn't a "Housing Bubble". It was a "mortgage backed security" bubble.

      The cons selling the mortgages expected the foreclosures to trickle in, and be absorbed, but what happened was that the speculation on oil drove the price of fuel up and that created a cascading recession that brought the whole thing down.
      It did happen on Wall Street.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 05:57:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with most of what you say, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        David54, Deep Texan

        but there was indeed a housing bubble (that tragically coincided with a mortgage backed security bubble).

        To me, that's the beauty of science: to know that you will never know everything, but you never stop wanting to.

        by JeremySchro on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 06:13:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I know that's true, because I framed houses (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan

          during this period, and we had no idea where the people buying these big houses were working that they could afford them.
          However, it was really dwarfed by the scale of the "money" being tossed around by the big financial banks around the world.
          At least as I understand it.

          You can't make this stuff up.

          by David54 on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 06:44:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  You could say Wall St enabled the mortgage (3+ / 0-)

        crisis but not that they caused the mortgage crisis.

        Millions of bad mortgages went into those hundreds of MBS.  Had the underlying mortgages been sound there would have been no financial crisis.

        "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

        by shrike on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 06:45:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  while technically true (0+ / 0-)

          how could they not plan for a drop in the housing market?

          greed blinded many. however, i do agree the crash wasn't caused by Wall Street. they were just adding fuel to the fire but so was just about every other player out there. Regulations shouldn't have been relaxed. Rating agencies shouldn't have conflicts of interests. The failures were everywhere.

          -You want to change the system, run for office.

          by Deep Texan on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 06:52:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  If there hadn't been the demand for the mortgages (0+ / 0-)

          on Wall Street, there wouldn't have been the temptation to push risky mortgages.
          If Countrywide had known it would be stuck with the bad mortgage when the homeowner defaulted, they wouldn't have taken the risk.
          Again, it was oil speculation unrelated to supply and demand that popped the bubble. That's another thing that's breaking the backs of the middle class.

          You can't make this stuff up.

          by David54 on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 06:58:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The demand came from the retail level. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            serendipityisabitch

            People wanted in on the house appreciation mirage.  Condo high-rises in Florida had individuals buying 8-10 units each and flipping them.   TV shows encouraged flipping.  Home ownership became a public and government goal for all.

            Like all bubbles there was mass get-rich euphoria.  Certainly Wall St (who did not operate at the retail level) saw that and wanted in.

            "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

            by shrike on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 07:09:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So Wall Street is just a passive rider on the (0+ / 0-)

              great American economy. Gotcha.

              You can't make this stuff up.

              by David54 on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:14:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I don't agree with this. It's basically the Repub (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              David54, aliasalias

              pov, that mortgage standards got lowered and people who didn't "deserve" houses got ahold of them.

              Wall St caused it.  Watch the Frontline series on the crash.  Wall St created new products that had to be sold, so they sold them, making fortunes.  They sold them to poor people, towns, counties, and countries, all over the world, many of which they drove into bankruptcy.

              Jeez, they had mortgages with no property underneath them, which they re-bundled into new mortgage products, then they re-bundled these into even more ridiculous new products.  With absolutely nothing securing the original loans! (ref: The Restructuring of Capitalism In Our Time)

  •  A proposed action against ALEC (7+ / 0-)

    is up on DK right now

    this is important at the state level

    Why ALEC is Harmful to Democracy

    can our democracy be saved?

  •  Ray I hope you have a fall back candidate (5+ / 0-)

    Warren isn't going to run for President. Her ego just isn't that big and more than likely should Hillary run she will throw her support behind her.

    If you are against sane gun regulations then by definition you support 30,000 deaths a year by firearms.

    by jsfox on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 05:53:51 AM PST

  •  she cannot win in this climate. (6+ / 0-)

    It pains me to say this because I wish it were not so.  I am also trepidatious because every time I speak my truth about this some people get pretty flip and some won't even entertain what I have to say even though I may have data some others do not. I get it feels good to dream about voting for someone who you actually Want and crappy for someone to rain on the parade, but a lot is at stake in this election -it almost seems like the fate of our country and the lives of its most vulnerable citizens are at risk if we risk a Republican win at this particular time.

     It was so very gratifying  to work on her campaign and then vote for her. And I am thrilled with how she has been as our Senator who is also the People's Senator. But I would not have voted for her in a primary if I thought she was less likely to win than another Dem. We needed to keep Scott Brown out. The priority was to keep the Republican out. When others didn't prioritize that way in the previous election it hurt our country in allowing Rep fillibusters.

     Yet, to be our President she needs to succeed in playing the crappy distastful political games required (which I think she hates and isn't therefore good at), as well as appeal to a wide and purple audience of different genders and educational backgrounds. I was able to watch her run very closely, as many MA residents did, and thus had that advantage of being aquainted with further sides of how she comes across and appeals or doesn't appeal to different kinds of people. And I think her Senate election was much more sheltered than the general in a Presidential ellection. Outside money was not allowed, and voters are in general more educated and less hateful of (good) government so were in general more accepting of Harvard academic Warren. I think they are more open to perceiving her motivation as passionate integrity,.which it is.

    She has characteristics when she is campaigning that will be weaknesses in having to appeal to people not already inclined to vote for her. I think these characteristics that are not issues in her role as Senator so they might not be obvious. In her Senate election, do you know she lost the Male vote by quite a bit? It was something like 10 pts...will look it up. It was women who won it for her, possibly in part because MA had never had a female Senator and we were sick of that. She lost to mediocre Republican Scott Brown. In supposedly true blue Massachusetts!After wiping the floor with him in debates and never going negative! Please look into this lack of appeal to.men before you push her to run. She will win the Dem nomination and loose the general as far as I can tell. I hear politically moderate men especially working class men judge her as shrill. To clarify, I have heard this directly many times over. Someone like Christie with his blue collar earthy appeal (no I do not like him but he has something for others) very likely will swamp her...and the gender gap would be huge. HRC has some similar problems but she is known by people everywhere and is less passionate than Warren so it would be blunted. I loathe hearing how many moderate or less political men judged what is obviously an admirable passion in her convictions as Warren being "strident" and "shrill". I heard it even from some Dem and centrist women. She was likened to a scolding schoolmarm.

     It is, I guess, a remnant of misogyny. Most of us see passionate integrity, to our delight, in her, but so many others read that
    as being strident. I have not seen all female politicians or most so judged but EW is more passionate in her stand for us all. Ironically I think that admirable quality would be misjudged by people as it was in MA but with the additions of what the Republicans and their endless money and lies would do.with it. As well as how horrible the msm is now. She will never play dirty. She will not get personal and hit back as she didn't to Scott Brown's smears. I am not sure she would defend self and am pretty sure she eouldn't adequately do do. Horrible isn't it?Our politicsare so f'd up that a pillar of integrity and decency has little hope of winning in significant part due to those exact admirable traits.

    •  sorry about typos, lost it at end (0+ / 0-)

      Thanks for reading my long post. It is all related for me.

    •  Unfortunately I suspect you are correct. (5+ / 0-)

      Esp concerning the gender gap.  Women in Ohio and North Carolina would not support her in the numbers needed to win those states.

      "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

      by shrike on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 06:49:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  She can win. I think a lot of the naysayers are (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lostinamerica, cybrestrike, blueoasis

      beginning to sound like they are repeating talking points.

      We've have enough "dirty play" for far too long.  It's time to stand up and be counted when it comes to speaking truth to power, and doing the right thing.

      It's a new era and that will become apparent soon.

      •  Labeling something a "talking point" (3+ / 0-)

        doesn't effectively refute the point raised. Rather, it is a means for dismissing the arguments of others without presenting a counter argument. It is the rhetorical equivalent of burying one's head in the sand.

        Moreover, it is an implicit attack on the integrity of the person raising the point in question.

        Nothing human is alien to me.

        by WB Reeves on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 11:14:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Here's what I'm beginning to notice as (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WB Reeves, DeadHead, aliasalias, blueoasis

          talking points:

          1. Sen. Elizabeth Warren signed a letter in support of Hillary Clinton, therefore it is impossible she could ever change her mind and decide to run.
          2. Sen. Warren is too far left, and therefore unelectable in a general election.
          3. Sen. Warren is too professorial (and wears tiny eyeglasses to boot), and lacks the charisma necessary to win in a general election
          4. Sen. Warren will do better to stay in the Senate a few "cycles" and try to reform it.
          5. Sen. Warren doesn't have what it takes to win in a brutal presidential campaign.

          If you notice in my comment I wrote that the naysayers are "beginning to sound like they are repeating talking points," because I see these arguments (or different versions of them) repeated over and over.

          Those arguments, IMHO, are kind of meaningless and superficial.  What are her positions about important issues?  What's her background?  About her education, her accomplishments, her views?

          Either way, the type of statement that raises a flag for me is something like "she cannot win in this climate."

          I think at one point people were saying the same thing about Bill de Blasio.

          Look at the two arguments... I my diary I'm asking her to consider running, and explain why.  

          I would argue that any reasonable person could conclude that not only she could run, but that she could win.

          I'm glad to engage in debate with someone who puts forward a cogent counter-argument, but when you start with a definitive state like "she can't win," it is hard for me to take that seriously.

          You know why is that, right?  If you go by logic, reason, etc., that statement, "she can't win," does not make any sense.

          •  Ray, the points above aren't all the same (4+ / 0-)

            People have doubts about her electability. Some of the reasons given for this are less valid than others. Lumping them all together and dismissing them as though there are no distinctions to be made simply won't convince anyone who doesn't already share your perspective. As tiresome as it may be, you have to provide specific counter arguments for specifics points if you intend to reach a larger constituency.

            Logic and reason is a two way street. The proposition that "she can win" is no different in that regard than the assertion that "she can't win." Both require evidence and argument to support them. The arbitrary assertion that either of them is false absent these is simply an empty rhetorical appeal to existing bias.

            Such tactics will doubtless garner applause from those who share your perspective but they won't gain much traction with the skeptical. Implying bad faith only aggravates the difficulty.  

             

            Nothing human is alien to me.

            by WB Reeves on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 12:02:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I supported my reasons and was not arbitrary. (2+ / 0-)

              That is why my comment ended up so long. So that people would be less likely to label me a concern troll and what I have to say as "talking points". It was laborious to write. I did it because I had a perspective from inside MA that some others on the outside did not have.

              I really think a Republican House, Senate, President will hurt or even kill people. Privatising Medicaid alone will result in deaths. It isn't a huge stretch for.them to win it all and we have data from Republican led states on what they will do if the gain all executive and legislative power. That makes the argument that it is best to run a candidate who can win a general election not crazy and doesn't deserve dismissal. Disagreement is fine, dismissal is condescending.

          •  you do not notice that I do not (4+ / 0-)

            say any but 1-2 of your talking points. Sounds like you heard what you wanted to hear before completely dismissing my observations,.data, and thoughts with a wave of your hand.

            Just because you said prior that people were repeating talkingpoints doesn't make it so.that I am.just because you then repeat the accusation.

            I do not even need to argue.with you,.am not even coming from there. I'm in MA,.I saw her run very closely, more than some people here probably. My data, though anecdotal,.should be of interest.

            I find your accusation condescending.

    •  gender gap similar to Obama's (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      serendipityisabitch, Hey338Too

      According to the exit poll, Warren lost white men in Massachusetts 42/58; Obama won them, 50/48. But the swing was almost as large among white women. If she makes an especially bad impression on men, it barely shows up in the exits (whether or not the analysis is limited to white respondents).

      Brown actually had higher favorables than Warren did in the exit poll (60/38 for him, 56/43 for her), but about a quarter of the people who viewed him favorably voted for her anyway. (I don''t have crosstabs by gender for the favorables.) Obama was at 63/36. For comparison, this month in the New Jersey governor election, Christie was at 64/33 (although comparing a sitting governor with a U.S. Senate candidate is iffy). 56/43 is pretty good, but obviously not stellar.

      In New Hampshire as of last month, Warren was +32 among (so-called) likely Democratic primary voters -- but Clinton was +76. In the straw ballot, Clinton was at 64% and Warren at 6% --  and a lot of those Democrats (but I don't know the proportion) hear a lot of news from Massachusetts. Warren has a very long way to go even to win the primary, never mind the general. She would have to really want it, just for starters, and I'm not seeing that.

      "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

      by HudsonValleyMark on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 11:49:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Facebook page needs an 'h", as in (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador

    Should Elizabeth Warren run for the office of the presidency of the United States?

    (It now says: Should Elizabet Warren run for the office of the presidency of the United States?)

    Nice letter.

  •  Problem? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jeremimi, 6412093

    Isn't the fact that Warren--along with every Democratic woman in the Senate--has signed a letter encouraging Hillary to run a problem for this scenario?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site