[Sixstrings]

Moveon.org has had this "runwarrenrun" petition site up for the last 4 months:

Dear Elizabeth Warren:
Please Run for President


“The game is rigged, and the rich and powerful have lobbyists and lawyers and plenty of friends in Congress. We can whine about it, we can whimper about it, or we can fight back. I’m fighting back!”
—ELIZABETH WARREN
https://runwarrenrun.org/

She's been on a media blitz lately.. I'm not sure what to make of it.. was it just to promote her new book? She keeps saying no, she won't run for President. Now she's taking on Obama, in public. A bit odd.. she's campaigning an awful lot for someone that's not campaigning.

Might she run, after all?

Campaigning hard for a candidate who isn't
The drive to elect Elizabeth Warren president has everything but Elizabeth Warren.

DOVER, N.H. — Kurt Ehrenberg spent three hours one day last week trying to convince people to try to convince Elizabeth Warren to run for president.

Republicans in the Granite State, with its first-in-the-nation primary early next year, are telling their nearly 20-strong glut of candidates, will-be candidates and would-be candidates to not beat up on each other too bad. The Democrats, meanwhile, have the opposite problem. They just want Hillary Clinton to have to run hard against somebody other than herself.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/elizabeth-warren-2016-new-hampshire-117332.html

Run, Warren, Run
Elizabeth Warren can run for president. She should run for president. And despite her denials, she probably will.

Elizabeth Warren today told Fortune magazine that she won’t run for president. If Warren stands by that decision, she’ll do a tremendous disservice to her principles and her party.

Warren is the only person standing between the Democrats and an uncontested Hillary Clinton nomination. She has already made clear what she thinks of the Clintons.

Warren has suggested that President Bill Clinton’s administration served the same “trickle down” economics as its Republicans and predecessors.

Warren has denounced the Clinton administration's senior economic appointees as servitors of the big banks.

Warren has blasted Bill Clinton’s 1996 claim that the era of big government is over and his repeal of Glass-Steagall and other financial regulations.

...

If Elizabeth Warren did seek the Democratic presidential nomination, she’d seize the party and the national agenda. Rank-and-file Democrats seethe with concern about stagnant wages, income inequality, and the malefactions of great wealth.

Left to her own devices, Hillary Clinton will talk about none of that. Hillary Clinton is a candidate so cautious that, compared to her, Michael Dukakis seems the second coming of William Jennings Bryan. Everything about her is polled, focus-grouped, and second-guessed. Her policy positions are measured in millimeters to the left of center. Her speeches are written first and foremost to ensure they can never be quoted against her. How many people remember what Hillary Clinton accomplished as a U.S. Senator? As a secretary of state? Since the fiasco of her 1993 healthcare initiative, Hillary Clinton has so feared doing the wrong thing that she has almost always opted to do nothing.

...

Could Warren do it? Of course she could. More than almost anybody running in 2016—more even than Republican insurgents like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul—Warren has both her message and her constituency ready to hand. Hillary Clinton speaks to those Democrats who feel that Barack Obama went too far. Elizabeth Warren speaks to those Democrats who feel he didn’t go far enough. And if Warren’s supporters aren’t as spectacularly wealthy as Clinton’s, together—as Barack Obama proved in 2008—they can give more than enough to fund a winning campaign.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/run-warren-run/384490/

The above article is from January, but here's an uptick though lately in "warren running" speculation. Again, it's odd that she'd taking on the President, in public. That's spending political capital. That has consequences, politically, power wise. So why would she do that, for no reason.

Frumm had a piece out recently, saying she should run, it's logical, and that she probably will run:

David Frum: Elizabeth Warren is probably going to run

Following a brief feint in which the White House masterfully exploited the servility of congressional Republicans to create the impression that Barack Obama was still firmly in command of the country’s destiny, the revolt of liberal lawmakers over a proposed free trade has made it clear that the president is very much a lame duck.

...

Frum is skeptical of the notion that Warren can be much of a force in the Senate as a junior senator unless she retains her current role as something of a spoiler of pragmatic Democrats’ ambitions. Moreover, Chris Christie’s experience suggests that popularity in politics is fleeting, and Warren’s window to win her party’s nomination is rapidly closing.

And if Hillary Clinton wins in 2016, what role for Warren then? President Clinton will face Republican majorities in both House and Senate. Like her husband in the 1990s, she’ll have to do business with them—and squash any Democrat who objects. If Hillary Clinton loses in 2016, Warren’s role in the Senate will quickly be eclipsed by the next generation of Democrats competing for their chance in 2020. By then, Warren will be nearly 70, older than most presidential candidates, even in our geriatric political era.
“If Elizabeth Warren did seek the Democratic presidential nomination, she’d seize the party and the national agenda. Rank-and-file Democrats seethe with concern about stagnant wages, income inequality, and the malefactions of great wealth,” Frum noted. “Left to her own devices, Hillary Clinton will talk about none of that.”

“If a politician expresses ideas that are shared by literally tens of millions of people—and that are being expressed by no other first-tier political figure—she owes it to her supporters to take their cause to the open hearing and fair trial of the nation,” he concluded. “It would be negligent and irresponsible not to do so.”

Frum makes a good case, but the only factor he did not appear to consider is the possibility that Warren is as career-minded and ambitious as the next politician. If she is a truly selfless ideologue, she might take Frum’s advice and take a stab at the queen. If she misses, her supporters will find her sacrifice admirable and will respect her for enduring the subsequent consequences. And there will be consequences.

As anyone who didn’t back Clinton in 2008 and found themselves on her “enemies list” will attest, the former first family has a long memory. An attempt to unseat Clinton from her present perch as the Democratic heir apparent to Barack Obama will not be forgotten. If Warren lunges at Clinton and misses, she can expect the remaining three years of her term to be especially frustrating. What’s more, as Frum suggests, Warren is unlikely to be able to retain her present status as progressive icon until 2020. Is that risk worth a presidential bid? Maybe not.
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/23/david-frum-elizabeth-warren-is-probably-going-to-run/

[vtsnowedin]

Hilliary's campaign is rapidly imploding from both her phoniness in public and the ongoing revelations of the families corruption. This latest about Russian donations to the foundation and their securing a large part of the USA's uranium supply will not play well in Iowa or New Hampshire. I doubt she will be the front runner coming out of New Hampshire and as that becomes more apparent the rush to move up a viable substitute will begin. Elizabeth Warren being as far left as she is might win the nomination but would most likely lose the general election and that is well known. I expect the Dems will look for and find someone with more centrist policies that is not plagued with scandals to run against her. It should be an interesting year.

[Timo]

I hope Elizabeth Warren runs, and wins!

I fear that she will be a re-run of Adlai Stevenson.

[Plantagenet]

If she misses....there will be consequences.

As anyone who didn’t back Clinton in 2008 and found themselves on her “enemies list” will attest, the former first family has a long memory. An attempt to unseat Clinton from her present perch as the Democratic heir apparent to Barack Obama will not be forgotten. If Warren lunges at Clinton and misses, she can expect the remaining three years of her term to be especially frustrating. What’s more, as Frum suggests, Warren is unlikely to be able to retain her present status as progressive icon until 2020. Is that risk worth a presidential bid? Maybe not.

Also consider that Hillary has been planning this run for the presidency for 8 years. Her detectives and minions have been doing opposition research on all her opponents---and especially on her possible democratic opponents.

Rumor has it Hillary has dug up some "dirt" on Warren that she will leak if Warren runs against her---and thats why Warren won't run.


You tell Elizabeth we know her little secret, and we'll keep quiet as long as she does't run against Hillary.........

[Pops]

I think I mentioned in the politics thread that I'm seeing lots of Hill-bashing on lefty media. Not the "who took money from whom" and "who runs the email server" kind of talk radio fodder, that's for folks who will never vote D anyway.

It is that the Liberal version of the TEA party is not enthused and probably just doesn't trust her, I don't. Libs were all in for hope n change and not much did, and on several fronts they got worse. I think it is great gay people can get married and whatever but the NSAs Total Awareness and Global Droning continue apace. Did any of the people like Jamie Dimon who stole billions from taxpayers get even a slap? On and On...

HC in my book is just exactly the same as any other ego candidate, be it Comb-Over Man or whoever that R was last time that is now back to shilling for a reverse mortgage scheme (maybe he was then too, LOL). I have no idea what it is she stands for or what policy she would back aside from just the "centrist" (read "republican light") pro business, pro wall street, pro globalization, pro Clinton platform of Bill (or maybe it was her's all along)

I don't know if it is time for Lizzy yet, or to rephrase, I don't know if the citizenry is ready for a Lizzy yet. She may not get the chance. Of course, my thought as usual is, it depends on the economy and the economy depends on the price of oil. If WTI stays low, as in <$60 through the end of the year and then only slides up slowly, the economy should do OK. If people aren't pissed they aren't going to haul out the pitchforks and Lizzy doesn't win if people aren't mad.

--
I just took a quiz at Isidewith.com and turns out that 96% of dems, 93% of Greens, 64% of Libs & 23% of Rs side with me on a range of issues. That one was kind of interesting.

Obviously I'll vote D unless something crazy happens, in 30 years I vote once for another party, a Lib, and that was because my vote was a throwaway in that district anyway.

[Sixstrings]

When you add it all up I plot exactly in the middle of the political spectrum on their graph----I'm the perfect everyman! I'm the perfect centrist swing voter!

Yeah, seems like a pretty good test.

What were your percentage breakdowns? Just curious how they'd match with Pops then me (and Ibon).

And back on topic, I have to say, barring WWIII concerns / foreign policy -- I really do like Warren lately. She seems like a DECIDER for the left. So see folks, it's not so bad to be a "decider," that's really just called leadership and conviction and unwavering principles. If someone can be a decider, yet actually right about things, then that's when you have an historic Great leader.

We sorely need one of those, again, another "great." I wasn't liking Liz before, because she won't run, she won't take a stand, she won't take any hits.

But then she stood up to Obama, that has political consequences. That's taking a stand. That's some leadership qualities and something I respect, and would like to see more of out of her.

[Tanada]

I was about to post my Igowith results when I realized that those posts were more of the thread than posts about Elizabeth Warren. So instead I split off the posts that were only about Igowith results into their own thread isidewith-testing-t71303.html (fixed it, I think, Ppos)

As for Ms. Warren, she says a lot of things I agree with but she says more things I disagree with so I would probably vote against her if it ever came up. I am willing to be convinced she is worthy of my vote, but so far I hear a lot of the same old rhetoric and do not see a whole lot of action.

[careinke]

Tanada, when I click your link I get "the requested topic does not exist. Which is strange, since I have already posted on it.

[Tanada]

Tanada, when I click your link I get "the requested topic does not exist. Which is strange, since I have already posted on it.

That is odd, I just tested it and it worked for me. Maybe you need to reboot? Or maybe the site is just messing with you? I was unable to get on for a couple hours with a cloudflare warning earlier so maybe it was just a matter of timing?

Here try this one, isidewith-testing-t71303.html

[Sixstrings]

Some Warren criticism, in National Review. Saying that Warren isn't a banking reformer for all banks but rather she's just in the pocket of the slightly smaller banks:

Bankers’ Lobbyists Love Elizabeth Warren

Ryan Lizza, writing in The New Yorker, has an interesting piece about Senator Elizabeth Warren getting into bed with bank lobbyists. In bed with bank lobbyists? Please don’t pretend to be surprised by that. Every regulatory effort creates winners and losers, and in the case of Warren’s campaign for the Dodd-Frank bill and the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, there were financial-services firms on both sides of the line. Because the most cumbrous and invasive of the Dodd-Frank provisions apply only to the largest firms, the smaller firms saw an opportunity to use regulation to create for themselves new competitive advantages and profit opportunities.

These aren’t mom-and-pop businesses, but banks that often have hundreds of millions of dollars in assets — not Goldman Sachs, to be sure, but not Mayberry Main Street, either. Warren developed a working relationship with Camden Fine, “the head of the Independent Community Bankers of America, who is considered by some to be one of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington,” as Lizza puts it. Fine held the academic-activist in contempt — “this loopy woman,” he called her — but saw that she could be useful to his clients’ financial interests. Oddly, Lizza concludes: “Warren effectively co-opted Fine and his members as allies against Wall Street.” In reality, that is almost the opposite of what actually happened, as Lizza’s own very interesting piece makes obvious.

Warren did not coopt the bankers’ lobby; the bankers’ lobby coopted her. ICBA members together hold more than $1.2 trillion in assets, the poor dears. Walk around lower Manhattan and you’ll see plenty of its member banks. Giving First American International or Provident a leg up on JPMorgan Chase isn’t banking reform — it’s political favoritism. You expect that from the lobbyists — that’s what they’re there to do. And, if you are paying attention, you should expect that from Senator Warren, too. She is not what she pretends to be.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/417551/bankers-lobbyists-love-elizabeth-warren-kevin-d-williamson

But still -- even if Warren has smaller banks on her side, it's not a baby and bathwater situation.

The central concern about the largest banks is the "too big to fail" scenario. Simply put, smaller banks, even if they are still horrid banksters that nobody likes, can do less damage precisely because they are smaller.

The whole point is trying to avoid another Lehman, AIG, and the new massive banks from needing trillion dollar public bailouts AFTER their exotic financial schemes collapse, again.

If the banks are smaller, if there are more smaller banks versus just a few massive banks, then I think that makes sense.

I'm not sure what National Review's point is -- they are, in fact, for deregulation and anything goes, for all the banks. National Review is for repealling all post great recession banking reg.

They don't have a good argument here, just nit picking that not all business hates Warren. It's logical that smaller enterprise would be for Warren, logically seeing opportunity there for them, in competition against the largest businesses. Just because there's money to be made still, with Warren's ideas, doesn't mean it's not still in the public good.

The same was true of old Teddy Roosevelt -- he was a "big trust buster," but certainly not against business in general. He was against too big to fail, and monopolies.

So I guess Warren is too. So what, she's not against all banks, just the ones that are too big and can do so much damage.

[Sixstrings]

Some other Warren news:

Obama’s war with Elizabeth Warren is heating up

“When I keep on hearing people repeating this notion that it’s ‘secret,’ I gotta say, it’s dishonest,” Obama insisted. “And it’s concerning when I see friends of mine resorting to these kinds of tactics.”

And Elizabeth Warren has done precisely that. “The government doesn’t want you to read this massive new trade agreement. It’s top secret,” Warren said in a statement released on her website last week.
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/27/obamas-war-with-elizabeth-warren-is-heating-up/

The "you're not allowed to read this" statement from Warren:

You can't read this
April 22, 2015 | By Elizabeth Warren

Have you seen what’s in the new TPP trade deal?

Most likely, you haven’t – and don’t bother trying to Google it. The government doesn’t want you to read this massive new trade agreement. It’s top secret.

Why? Here’s the real answer people have given me: “We can’t make this deal public because if the American people saw what was in it, they would be opposed to it.”

If the American people would be opposed to a trade agreement if they saw it, then that agreement should not become the law of the United States.

Let’s send a loud message to our trade officials: No vote on a fast-track for trade agreements until the American people can see what’s in this TPP deal. Sign this petition right now to make the TPP agreement public.

The Administration says I’m wrong – that there’s nothing to worry about. They say the deal is nearly done, and they are making a lot of promises about how the deal will affect workers, the environment, and human rights. Promises – but people like you can’t see the actual deal.

For more than two years now, giant corporations have had an enormous amount of access to see the parts of the deal that might affect them and to give their views as negotiations progressed. But the doors stayed locked for the regular people whose jobs are on the line.

If most of the trade deal is good for the American economy, but there’s a provision hidden in the fine print that could help multinational corporations ship American jobs overseas or allow for watering down of environmental or labor rules, fast track would mean that Congress couldn’t write an amendment to fix it. It’s all or nothing.

Before we sign on to rush through a deal like that – no amendments, no delays, no ability to block a bad bill – the American people should get to see what’s in it.

Sherrod Brown has been leading this fight, and he points out that TPP isn’t classified military intelligence – it’s a trade agreement among 12 countries that control 40% of the world’s economy. A trade agreement that affects jobs, environmental regulations, and whether workers around the globe are treated humanely. It might even affect the new financial rules we put in place after the 2008 crisis. This trade agreement doesn’t matter to just the biggest corporations – it matters to all of us.

When giant corporations get to see the details and the American people don’t, we all lose. Let’s level the playing field: No vote on fast-tracking trade until the public can read the TPP deal.

We’ve all seen the tricks and traps that corporations hide in the fine print of contracts. We’ve all seen the provisions they slip into legislation to rig the game in their favor. Now just imagine what they have done working behind closed doors with TPP.

We can’t keep the American people in the dark.
http://elizabethwarren.com/blog/you-cant-read-this

Some more "will she run" speculation, pointing out everything I've said before (lol), this is really her only chance, now's her moment and the stars lining up. She'll be too old in the future. Now's her only chance, if she wants it -- and that's the other question, does she want it, and does she have the guts to do it.

ELIZABETH WARREN — WILL SHE OR WON’T SHE?
For months, I’ve heard rumors that Elizabeth Warren wants to take on Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination. The rumors are plausible. Warren is 66 years old. It’s probably now or never, if she wants to become president. And why would we doubt that Warren wants to become president?

On the other hand, running for president against the Clinton machine takes guts. What has Warren ever done that demonstrates that level of fortitude? Becoming a law professor isn’t a gutsy move. Neither is running for the Senate as a liberal Democrat in Massachusetts.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/elizabeth-warren-will-she-or-wont-she.php

Bit of a small issue, but also in the news Warren is investigating annuity retirement salesmen's perks:

Warren questions sales perks for retirement advisers

The lawmaker sent a list of questions to 15 of the largest annuity providers Tuesday, pressing them about a business arrangement where retirement advisors can reap “a vast range of perks” from high sales activity. Calling it a “clear conflict of interest,” Warren said the rewards encourage advisers to steer clients towards pricier investments, rather than focus solely on providing solid retirement investment advice.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/240285-warren-questions-sales-perks-for-retirement-advisers

Guys this woman's good, she's a real watchdog for the consumer. And that's good for everyone, business too -- they actually need somebody to help keep them honest. I have to say I'm getting more respect for her, you know, just investigating these things can do the consumer a lot of good, because what will happen now is that these corporations will take a look at it and make some changes.

The issue of sales perks and such, for brokers, is an old story in "a sucker is born every mintue" America. If you're going to any kind of broker, just buyer beware, you need to ask the questions and know if they are getting kickbacks for pushing otherwise crappy stocks onto you. Better yet, do your own research.

But good on Warren, looking out for the People. If she can't be President, somebody should put her in charge of something regulatory, that has teeth and power to the job.

Also in the news, Warren "slams" department of education:

Elizabeth Warren Slams the Education Department for Failing Student Borrowers

“These borrowers—people who were cheated and people who have been buried in debt— just keep on paying and the government just keeps on collecting,” she continued. “This is wrong…. The government should not be making a profit off the backs of people who are trying to get an education. Can I get an amen on that?” She did.
https://www.thenation.com/blog/205489/elizabeth-warren-slams-education-department-failing-student-borrowers

One last Warren update, she criticized Obama for refusing to use the word "genocide" regarding the Turkish genocide against Armenian Christians. She told reporters her message to the Obama admin is "to tell the truth:"

Markey, Warren fault Obama for not saying ‘genocide’

Warren did not mention Obama by name, but, in remarks briefer than Markey’s, said, “If we do not recognize the horrors of the past, we risk seeing them repeated.”

Later, in an exchange with reporters, Warren said that her message to Obama about the issue would be: “Tell the truth.”

“The Armenian people just want the truth acknowledged,” Warren said. “And if we’re not willing to tell the truth, then we really do run the risk that this will happen again in other places around the world.”

Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of Armenian-Americans in the country, about 30,000, and the use of the word “genocide’’ is of great importance in that community to describe the mass killings. Turkish leaders targeted the Christian Armenian population under the pretext that they would cooperate with the Russian enemy after World War I broke out.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/24/markey-elizabeth-warren-urge-obama-acknowledge-armenian-genocide/MT6n2lryuiYjHt0Ke8R2IO/story.html#

(edit: I do have to take some issue with her on the Armenian thing. She is likely playing easy politics on that -- a senator representing Armenian Americans can say that about Turkey, sure.

But Turkey is in NATO. A President can't just dig up old crap from WWI just to annoy the Turks with.

UNLESS -- Turkey is on our sh*t list. Which Turkey happens to be, a bit, lately. So then okay, then sure you can start dragging out insulting things from the distant past. I'm not sure of Warren's geopolitical views, or if she is even aware that Turkey is becoming a bit of a problem ally lately. So she's actually right -- almost -- Turkey's been going fundy muslim more and more lately, and drifting from the allies. But it's still not quite at where it's okay to just upset Turks over WWI stuff. Just adding this to be objective.

And OTOH, it is nice to see she is capable of standing up for Christians, I just don't know how political that is, if it is just because she is a senator and it's easy to do that, and just because she happens to have some Armenian constituents. But still -- that's a real buzz word there, usually on the right -- that Obama doesn't stand up for Christians, well, here's Warren standing up for Christians versus muslim atrocities.)