Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Video: Elizabeth Warren definitively declares she is not running for President in 2016 [View all]Laelth
(32,017 posts)36. You make a good point. She does know what she wants.
The thing about Elizabeth Warren, and what makes her refreshing, is that she doesn't care how she gets it. She wants economic justice--how she gets that is of little concern to her. If she felt that being President would be the best way to achieve her goals, she just might try.
This essay is particularly relevant:
The proper interpretation of Warrens prodigious p.r. efforts, then, isnt that shes especially taken with the idea of media stardom. Its that she is relentlessly, perhaps ruthlessly, maybe even a bit messianically, focused on advancing her policy agenda. Everything else is merely instrumental.
This is what the banking industry and its Republican allies (as well as internal opponents like Geithner) didnt fully appreciate when they effectively killed Warrens hopes of permanently heading the consumer agency in 2011. Anyone who knows Warren will tell you she had no particular ambition to be a senator. She decided that the Senate would suffice as a way to agitate for her issues only when Obama stiffed her for the CFPB joban enormous disappointment after she spent months lining up support among banks. Its poetic justice. At end of the day, if the banking community hadnt been so apoplectic, everyone could have decided its this little tiny agency, who really cares? says Anita Dunn, Obamas White House communications director in 2009. Instead, she ends up as a senior senator from Massachusetts on the banking committee, blocking Larry at the Fed.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare
This is what the banking industry and its Republican allies (as well as internal opponents like Geithner) didnt fully appreciate when they effectively killed Warrens hopes of permanently heading the consumer agency in 2011. Anyone who knows Warren will tell you she had no particular ambition to be a senator. She decided that the Senate would suffice as a way to agitate for her issues only when Obama stiffed her for the CFPB joban enormous disappointment after she spent months lining up support among banks. Its poetic justice. At end of the day, if the banking community hadnt been so apoplectic, everyone could have decided its this little tiny agency, who really cares? says Anita Dunn, Obamas White House communications director in 2009. Instead, she ends up as a senior senator from Massachusetts on the banking committee, blocking Larry at the Fed.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare
Great essay, in case you haven't read it.

-Laelth
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
43 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Video: Elizabeth Warren definitively declares she is not running for President in 2016 [View all]
stevenleser
Nov 2013
OP
She knows what she wants. And it's not the Presidency, or Vice Presidency.
CaliforniaPeggy
Nov 2013
#1
You read a lot more into her statement than many. And it's a woman's prerogative to change her mind
Scuba
Nov 2013
#27
So, you're saying that Warren is as much a political sellout as Obama is, right?
brooklynite
Nov 2013
#34
thanks steve. pitting ms warren against ms clinton is totally counter productive
spanone
Nov 2013
#8
No. I said 2006 **OR** 2007, and he said he wasn't in 2006. YOU'RE WELCOME. nt
LaydeeBug
Nov 2013
#31
I guess then progressives need to find another candidate they can coalesce around in 2016
Douglas Carpenter
Nov 2013
#38
Too bad. Hopefully, there will still be a liberal/progressive challenger to Hillary.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Nov 2013
#40