Elizabeth Warren 2020?
Senator Warren gave a speech at Netroots yesterday, and I have to admit that I liked it.
Senator Elizabeth Warren used a speech to a grass-roots conference Saturday to take direct aim at Democrats’ diminished moderate wing, ridiculing Clinton-era policies and jubilantly proclaiming that liberals had taken control of the party.While not invoking former President Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton by name, Ms. Warren sent an unambiguous message that she believes the Clinton effort to push Democrats toward the political center should be relegated to history.
“The Democratic Party isn’t going back to the days of welfare reform and the crime bill,” she said, highlighting measures Mr. Clinton signed into law as president that are reviled by much of the left. “It is not going to happen.”
Yet Ms. Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat who is widely thought to be considering running for president in 2020, noted to about 1,000 activists here for the yearly Netroots Nation meeting that they hardly needed to worry about the party shifting to the middle as it did in the 1990s. Liberals, she said, have taken charge.
“We are not the gate-crashers of today’s Democratic Party,” Ms. Warren said, invoking a term first used to describe the liberal blogosphere that emerged a decade ago. “We are not a wing of today’s Democratic Party. We are the heart and soul of today’s Democratic Party.”
...
Recalling the moment earlier this year when Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, rebuked her for not following Senate rules — and said, “nevertheless she persisted” — Ms. Warren repeated the line that has become a rallying cry for her. When she vowed to the crowd in Atlanta that she “would persist,” chants of “Warren 2020” rose up.
And the full speech here.
“We’re not going back to the days of being lukewarm on choice,” Warren told a crowd of about 3,000 people at Netroots Nation. “We’re not going back to the days when universal health care was something Democrats talked about on the campaign trail, but were too chicken to fight for after they got elected.”Warren cited, and then mocked, a column by former Hillary Clinton adviser Mark Penn in the New York Times arguing that Democrats should “move back to the center.”
Centrist want Democrats to “Give up, keep your heads down, be realistic, act like a grown-up, keep doing the same old same old,” Warren said. But, she added, “we’re not going back to the days when a Democrat who wanted to run for a seat in Washington first had to grovel on Wall Street.”
I have mixed feelings about Warren. I like her, but I don't totally trust her.
To me she is half-way between an establishment Democrat and a Berniecrat.
I would support her running, because she's still a huge improvement over most of the other choices, but I won't embrace her.
I do like the fact that Wall Street hates her. I don't like the fact that she's been mostly silent on our wars of empire.
How do the rest of you feel?
Comments
"I know not which course others may take," but Obama
cured me of voting for U.S. Democratic Senators from blue states because they make speeches that sound good to the left.
As I just posted on another thread, as a Senator from Massachusetts, it behooves Warren to sound liberal. If not, she will likely get primaried.
What I know about Warren: She was a Republican for a lot of years. She stated her reason as her believe that Republicans were good for "the markets." Not a confidence builder. As her reason for becoming a Democrat, she stated that she decided Democrats were better for "the markets," also not a confidence builder.
Then, she went to DC to administer the TARP and got involved with the consumer protection stuff. Her recommendations centered around disclosure. I don't think that's enough. If all companies are doing the same crap, making them disclose that crap to customers doesn't help. The solution is forbidding certain practices and requiring others, plus disclosure.
Then Obama appointed someone else to head the agency and he and the DNC supported her for a run in the Senate. Also not a confidence builder. In the Senate, much like Hillary, Warren has not written a single substantive bill that has become law. (In fairness, that's true of many Senators.)
Before Sanders announced he was exploring a run, I did hope Warren would run because we all saw Hillary coming. Warren didn't. Instead, she signed that "secret" letter supposedly originate by Boxer urging Hillary to run. Then, I wanted her to endorse Sanders in the primary. Instead, she waited until someone got the nomination before endorsing, as Nancy once told us Reagan did.
That said, if I have a reason to vote for her other than speeches, I will consider it carefully. As of this minute, though I am voting Green again. Yes, with full knowledge that they will lose again, barring the return of miracles.
Perfect comment.
When I first got excited about Warren, someone who had been following her for much, much longer warned me that she says all the right things, but that's really about the extent of it. As I looked into her more and more, this seemed to be pretty accurate.
She spechifies very well on many progressive issues but she's not exactly on the forefront of the doing part of the equation. At best, she seems to get out in front of an already moving train, but at worst, well, she's confirming Ben Carson for HUD. Lol.
My biggest problem with her is I think for as passionate as she professes to be, she's been around long enough to have more than some speeches and talking down to some bankers on TV as her accomplishment. She seems to be someone who talks the talk but only walks the walk when it's the way things are going anyway.
If the Democrats were halfway smart they'd push Warren to the front. She sounds good and a lot of progressives still like her. But I don't think she offers any serious threat to business as usual. At best, she'd be incrementalism and worst, she would be the fabled "better branding" the Democrats dream of.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Thanks, Dr. John. Speaking of better branding, I forgot to
mention how Senate Democrats appointed her liaison to liberals in 2014, as Hillary was really ramping up for her run. http://thehill.com/policy/finance/224271-liberals-buoyed-by-warrens-prom... (Liberals buoyed, my ass. I bet thehill took that nonsense right out of a press release from some Democratic Party entity, maybe the Senate Caucus itself.)
Obama talked a great game on the strong public option with
no mandate, fixing trade deals, fixing his FISA vote, etc. Like Obama, Warren comes from a blue state whose voters eat up this stuff. Watch what they do, not what they say. Warren signed a letter in 2014 urging Hillary to run for POTUS and never endorsed Bernie during the primary.
@HenryAWallace
Yup, she talks a good game in front of the cameras and is a good deal saner regarding financial policy than the lunatics currently making it, but didn't that use to make her a Republican, before 'exceptionally' blatant lunacy and corruption became the norm first in that wing of the Two-Faced Corporate Party, even before it was matched by the other?
The Swamp needs to be taken over by someone like Alligator Ed...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
I'll be checking this gift horse out *very* carefully
and very thoroughly.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
gift horses
I think that might be the best approach, and one I intend to follow.
The facts here are unpleasant: we will be electing a new government in 2020, and the dupopoly being what it is, one or the other of the duopoly parties will be in power, will or nill us. So it behooves us to examine all opportunities that are presented -- as you say, most carefully and thoroughly!
I must say I like the slap in the face with a dead herring that Madame Warren delivered to Markos Moulitsas and his conserva Clintonista ilk with the above passage, however!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
There is no reason to trust her, or any other Democrat.
Even if her speech were utterly sincere, she would be mowed down by her party old guard should she actually tried to change things too much or too fast. The old hands would get their way, she would cave. I remember how quickly she switched from (sort of) supporting Bernie to embracing Her, while compliantly ignoring primary election abnormalities and "moving on".
Perhaps the party elite have finally begun to realize how truly fucked the party is, after seeing their recent three trial balloons go down in flames and a flurry of yawns, without the "radical left" and Democratic Socialist wing and are now grasping at straws.
It isn't going to be enough to bring me back into the fold, that's for sure.
“What the herd hates most is the one who thinks differently; it is not so much the opinion itself, but the audacity of wanting to think for themselves, something that they do not know how to do.”
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
Boycott the Duopoly 2018/2020
and any politician in the two oligarchy parties.
There's one way to do that
…and get a big return on the strategy.
1. Make clear demands, now. (For example, the resignation of all Party insiders.)
2. Warn the DNC that A) any Dem who does not renounce their vote on the sanctions Bill will be defeated if they dare to run in 2018; and B) if the Party leaders do not step down now, all Dem candidates will be defeated in 2018.
3. Create a Voters Coalition to pledge a 2018 defeat for the Dems unless the Party bosses resign en mass now.
4. Encourage the Right Wing Dems to put pressure on the Party and get the job done.
The moment they step down, the real Democrats can write a new platform that benefits and protects all of the American people. One that includes a pledge to enact policies that will restore personal economic security that is the foundation for building a better life. A promise that each new generation will be better off than the last — which is the only metric that guarantees a civilization will continue to thrive physically, intellectually, and morally.
We need to start thinking in "visions" if we are going to influence the future and prevail.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
As far as vision,
I'm with the increasingly large number of people who believe it has to include something outside the electoral, political party system.
They.know.what.we.want. They.don't.give.a.fuck.
I guess I feel about the same way you do
about a Warren candidacy in 2020. Yeah, she hasn't said much about the Empire and its wars but you could say the same about the whole progressive movement. Maybe Warren/Gabbard in 2020 ?
We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.
If by progressive movement, you mean Democrats, I agree.
If you meant the left of the left, however, I disagree. They've said plenty about wars. However, I'm no longer impressed by what Democrats say. What has Warren done about wars? Or anything?
Like many others I was furious when
she didn't endorse Bernie. I believed at the time it could have made the difference. I don't think she believed that. Maybe she was right. Who knows.
She made a political decision with her own career in mind. She thought Hillary would eventually be president and she knows what happens to those who cross Hillary.
It was cowardly.
That said, I still believe she's on the right side of all the important fights and I would be happy to vote for her if she's the Dem nominee. I'd support her in a Dem primary vs. just about any other prominent-enough-to-run-for-president Democrat I can think of.
I can say she's cowardly for that decision in the primary, but I can't say she's corrupt. Nothing I know about her indicates to me that she's a corporate sellout. She didn't bend the knee to Hillary to cash in, she did it to maintain her standing in the Senate to push her (progressive) agenda. It's exactly the same thing Bernie did once the primary (rigged or not) was over. I don't blame either of them for it.
Maybe.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/thornton-law-firm-straw-donor-scheme-bonuses...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/02/campaign-regulators-say-tho...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/02/campaign-regulators-say-tho...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/02/campaign-regulators-say-tho...
Given how Democratic Massachusetts is, I don't know what, if anything, will actually come of this. I'm sure they don't want Republican in that seat again. However, I cannot believe that Warren and the other recipients were clueless.
I had checked her donor list last time she ran, for big business donations. That would have been awful for her. As soon as I saw so many law firms on the list, my radar went. Then, I rationalized. She's a lawyer and a Democrat. Boston is blue; they're her fellow lawyers; Republicans like to limit recovery from tort law suits. No biggie. Very understandable, in fact.
Whether or not other law firms on her donor list were laundering, I don't know. I do know Thornton is not alone among Boston law firms. Other Boston lawyers have lost their license because of laundering for a variety of organizations, including mafia clients. Republicans don't have to worry about this. They've never hidden their love of lobbyist donations and their base is fine with it. The left of the left in the Democratic Party lately, not so much.
The mafia one I know about was a neighbor, lucky me! He was not young when he lost his license and went to prison. He had never done anything but law. After he got out of jail, he had to go live with his daughter in NYC. So, in one way, you think, Mafia? He had it coming. But, it was still sad. After a few years, I saw his obituary.
Follow the money. Still brilliant advice.
I'm willing to listen.
I expect intellectual honesty, however. So, she will have to evaluate the Russian hack deception using only solid verifiable evidence and return a reality-based analysis that demonstrates critical thinking skills. Clock's ticking….
Assuming her aforementioned critical faculties are intact, and if she is willing to campaign to stop funding for all current wars immediately and without delay, I can overlook how she debased herself at the Democratic National Convention and offer her my support.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
Nope.
Did they think I was joking when I demexited?
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
OT: Redneck Revolt
interesting group
@gjohnsit
I knew there were actual, non-psychopathic Republicans hiding out somewhere...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
We have much on our plates in the next few years.
I don't think anybody gets out unscathed. The very office of the presidency is compromised. It is the nature of the system we have built. You are in charge of a lot when you are president and you are in charge of killing people. It is a heartbreaking job. Warren is as smart and good a politician as most.
Didn't she cast a vote to confirm Ben Carson?
I doubt I would vote for a democrat again. I will have to have more than speeches.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Yes she did
and she quantified it by this statement on her vote:
"I voted to confirm Carson because I thought if I didn't, then Trump would nominate a person worse than Carson"
My thoughts on this is that I would not vote for Carson or any other unqualified candidate until Trump nominated someone who could do the, not just dismantle it. Which is what Carson and most of the others who were appointed plan to do.
Perry has a record of fighting against the department he is head of, and we have seen what direction the Keebler elf Sessions wants to do with the drug war and medical marijuana. He wants the sentencing to go back to where it was under Clinton's administration.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Democrats are great at rationalizing their rightist votes.
It's what they do. It's what they feel they have to do to win elections. Especially Warren, who is Senator from Massachusetts, in the seat that once belonged to Ted Kennedy. Remember how Obama was going to fix his FISA vote once he became President? He was not even President Elect then. So, he gambled OUR 4th amendment rights on his election? And his fix was expanding the NSA and allowing Clapper to lie to Congress about it. Like he fixed Clinton's trade deals by wanting to fast track the TPP. Good times.
"Watch what they do, not what they say" is still good advice.
As far as Trump's nominating someone even worse, decent Democrats would vote against him or her as well. And keep blocking until Trump got the message. Duh. It's not rocket science. Just ask Garland, who was basically a pro-choice Republican, blocked by McConnell. (And now, Democrats say they're fine with anti-choice Blue Dogs.)
Elizabeth Warren opposes the BDS
...and that is very important in my eyes,but she didn't support that dangerous legislation from AIPAC.
Which I see as a safe spot for her to politically stand, not that she suddenly cares about the plight of the Palestinian people suffering under the heel of the Zionist govt. of Israel.
"..Despite her reputation as a firebrand progressive, Warren has never been courageous on the question of Palestinian rights. Nothing symbolized her fear better than when she was caught on video hurrying away from a question about Israel’s assault on Gaza three years ago that killed more than 2,200 Palestinians.
Warren, along with fellow progressive stalwart Bernie Sanders, joined every other member of the Senate in signing a letter in April reaffirming key lobby talking points that Israel is being unfairly picked on by efforts at the UN to hold it accountable.
Her opposition to BDS means she continues to stand against a nonviolent movement for equal rights by a people subjected to decades of Israeli occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid enabled largely by US military and political support."
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/elizabeth-warren-oppos...
One thing all our Congress critters
have in common, is an abject terror of offending AIPAC. One stern word from the Zionists sends them all scurrying off with their tails between their legs.
native
Yep. Israel's interference in not only our elections
but they also interfere with our foreign policies.
I don't think that there is any difference between Israel and AIPAC. And for some reason, people never bring this up.
The Russian interference with the election propaganda pales in comparison to what Israel has done.
One is truth the other is fictional.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
She opposed the anti-boycott bill on free speech grounds.
Gillebrand ended up opposing it, too, on the same grounds. However, Warren said,
"Liberal firebrand" is cliche often applied to Ted Kennedy, but he passed a list of liberal legislation that would choke a giraffe. Warren passed none. So, is she a firebrand, or showboater? Hard to say. Her constituents in Massachusetts not only tolerate liberal Senators, but expect them. If she were Senator from Alabama saying the same things, I might be more impressed. However, I hope I am over supporting pols because of their speeches. Been there, done that, got two Obama Biden T-shirts and a bunch of Christmas cards from the White House. No strong public option without an individual mandate, though.
@HenryAWallace
And the Republicans are very close to having a majority enabling them to rewrite the US Constitution to billionaire/corporate specifications, which would leave no rights at all to the official and disposable non-billionaire American serfs.
This is against economic boycotts, also creating a precedent against corporate economic boycotts, just as ObamaCare set a precedent that people could be forced to pay even for goods and services they could not afford.
This smells to me like the 'Investor State Protections' making the publics of involved countries liable, under off-shored corporate/billionaire-only 'law' courts magically superseding domestic law and the imperatives of survival of life on the planet, to provide - regardless of all else, including their resultant illness and deaths - the self-anticipated maximized profits of involved billionaires and corporate interests under privately made agreements between those having no right to do any such thing and labeled as 'trade bills'.
It's the optics of the patina of false 'legality' they wish to create, whether by illegal law or Constitutional warping still a con game played via word games - propaganda used against the law-abiding.
We know what they are, and we've seen what they've done; voting to have more and worse evil visited upon yourself and the world doesn't really seem like a valid option to me, among others...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
For years, Democrats mocked Republicans for voting
against their own interests. You'd never guess that now as Democrats do exactly that.
One speech does not a candidacy make
Does this match her private position?
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
actions
And does it match her actions? That's the real question!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
No clue. She's not my bestie. We don't chat off the record.
Warren was born in Oklahoma. She registered and
voted Repukelican, then switched to Democratic back in the 1990s. Is she still a Repukelican Lite? Rec'd!
Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.
Checked white when applying to teach in Texas, minority on
forms recruiters use. Supposedly, she did that so she could meet more Native Americans. Seems like an unlikely way to meet people. If that's what your goal is, there are scores of more effective ways--and Warren is no dummy.
Having a father who told tall tales (to put it nicely), and even seemed to believe some of them himself, I bought the family lore story, but the Texas application really made me skeptical.
And she claimed her parents had to elope because six or seven generations ago, someone had a tiny "bitty" of Cherokee blood? Sorry, but that sounds a lot like Hillary's stories about her mom and about trying to join the Marines. She can't prove 'em, but everyone involved in dead, so no one can disprove 'em.
Once the lineage came under scrutiny, while she was campaigning for Senator, her siblings backed her up on the family lore story, but my sib wouldn't mind a US Senator in the family, either. None of her cousins ever heard about it. I know this is heresy for the left, but I tend to think she made it up. If it got her an employment advantage, cool. If not, she was no worse off than she was before she checked a minority box.
She switched to Democratic after Democrats switched to
Republican Lite. And she explained both her affiliations based on what she thought was good for "the markets."
Sounds like any old school Republican: "What's good for General Motors is good for America." Job creators. Is there truth in that? Of course. But what's good for unions and workers and, yes, dammit, the disabled and elderly, is good for America and its soul, too. I'd rather vote for someone who phrases it from that perspective because they see it from that perspective and are not afraid to reveal that.
Signed a letter urging Hillary to run in 2014, but never endorsed Bernie in the primary. Stood by silently while her supporters donated millions of dollars to various "Draft Warren" movements. No! Not silently. I forgot She kept using ambiguous language like "I'm not running," which meant to them she had not yet begun running, but she might. All she had to do was say, I am not running, nor will I. My wonderful supporters, please stop donating to Draft Warren organizations." But she did not.
I started reading this thread doubtful, but willing to consider her if she gave me good reason. But, the more I see on this thread, the more I don't trust her. And people do a lot of things while considering a run for POTUS. Maybe I'll just go by her record so far
As far as the speech, anyone represents Massachusetts, is up for re-election in 2018 and goes to Netroots sounding like anything but a liberal firebrand is a fool and/or self-destructive. Warren is no fool and, from everything I know so far, acts in her own best interests
@HenryAWallace
A country consists of its people, not its personal-liability-evading legal constructions which we term corporations.
Corporations cannot survive without people to help produce and purchase the goods and services it's supposed to exist to provide; corporations do not exist to rule and despoil people and countries.
A country can survive without giant corporations and cannot with destructive, pathologically greedy self-interests despoiling the country and people for ever-increasing profits; people do not exist to serve corporate interests and provide their profits.
BTW, if corporations really were people, it would be illegal to own any part of one. At least until laws against slavery are re-written, a development which would not particularly surprise me at this point.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
She's not as high on my list as she once was,
but she's higher on the list than any of these "new" faces that the establishment is pushing on us. I'll give a tentative yes to voting for her if she's the nominee with an emphasis on tentative.
They both voted for the Russia/Iran sanctions
That stinks on ice. On banks and health care Warren talks a good game, though.
We'll See
I'm willing to consider her, but she's going to need to do a lot more than the typical bullcrap. And that means some specific plans. I'm not saying these are all necessary, but something along the lines of:
--putting together an economic plan that redistributes wealth towards the poor, and working and middle class
--tackling global warming/climate change (with specifics, as an impetus or engine for economic growth)
--promising to not but Goldmann Sachs or Citibank executives in charge of financial (or other) positions within the government, and maybe naming who she is considering
--shutting down unprovoked wars of aggression caused by us
I'm inclined to distrust her at this point, but willing to listen--and as others, willing to vote otherwise if needed.
She's going to have to show me far more
than one one speech before I jump on that train. This speech makes her sound almost like Bernie Sanders, but where was she in 2016? She supported just about every one of Bernie's positions, but just couldn't bring herself to support the man. Instead she sat on the sidelines afraid to act for fear of upsetting the coronation of Queen Hillary. People begged her to endorse Bernie, but she persisted! Had she enthusiastically endorsed Bernie early on, I suspect the results of the primary would have turned out differently. And look at where we are now?
No, it's going to take much more than one speech before I jump on her bandwagon.
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
George W. Bush
"Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do ..."
"Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe."
Meteor Blades 10-13-03 (october)
---
I tried searching the origin of that saying and failed to find a name other than "a civil rights leader in the 60s". That's all I could find, gave up after going around in circles a couple of times. Bad search fu, did the Internets shrink or something? heh
Just look at what Democrats have done in California, 20% poverty rate and failed education system in most of the BigAg areas, mostly immigrant populations. Exploit much? Nah, look at the shiny SV VC! 100 billionaires, who gives a shit about the poors? Die granny die! Politicians disgust me, they all lie and back stab to get what they want. Money.
It talks like a groovy liberal and takes action like a greedy conservative, goal achieved! "That's the system" "We're capitalists". Flip the bird.
Boycott 2018
Ditto 2020
peace
If Elizabeth is going to claim
that "we are not going back to the days of being lukewarm on choice", then why won't she come out and stand firm on Dem candidates needing to be totally pro-choice? Contrary to what she and Bernie and others are saying, there SHOULD be a litmus test on abortion and reproductive rights in the Democratic Party. I will NOT vote for a candidate who is not totally on the side of full abortion rights.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
No.
1. She can't win. Senate is the limit of her competence. I expect to see her as a very good Chairwoman of the Appropriations or Finance Committee when Merkley is Majority Leader.
2. Anti war sentiment, on BOTH right and left won't go away, the public having finally connected the dots between overseas wars of aggression and why half of mainstreet has closed down. That means any old halfway presentable Democrat won't do.
3. A winning neo-liberal Democratic ticket for 2020 would be Booker/Klobuchar. I am not saying it is a ticket I would particularly like--Klobuchar is a pro-Monsanto voter in the Senate--but it is one that could win. Both have at least paid some dues, and both, while being somewhat deluded (Klobuchar) and or corrupt (Booker, he is from NJ after all, one must make allowances) are presentable, very good on camera and in interviews, have no known history of outrageous personal scandal, have shown the ability to campaign and win elections, and are possibly not incompetent. Klobuchar, in particular, a former prosecutor, has a disarming combination of niceness and toughness which is hard to campaign against, while Rhodes scholar Booker can appeal to voters of color and to educated white snobs--at this point, about 10-20% of the electorate that votes--as one of us. The I Hate Hillary folks who, with good reason, stayed home, might come out for a ticket which would at least not be an international embarrassment.
4. It is by no means certain that Trump will run for president again. He already showed that he could win that one, and the WH is far less luxurious and fun than what he and spouse are used to.
Mary Bennett
In a word, no.
Elizabeth Warren is a coward. She did not answer the call. She remained silent in the wake of what could have been a difference making endorsement during the Democratic primary.
Depending on who the Dems nominate in 2020, I may be voting Green again.