MSNBC is reporting that Elizabeth Warren is scheduled to appear on The Rachel Maddow Show, and will endorse Hillary for President. Be careful of the splash zone, because some heads at BMG are about to explode!
Footnote: I tried to find a GIF of an exploding head to include with this, but there were none that were not a little too disgusting.
Please share widely!
My head already exploded when Warren *didn’t* endorse Bernie prior to the MA primary! I will lose all respect for her if she becomes $hillary’s running mate.
…but if the above is not an example of Democratic “Tea Party” with the worst possible connotations to that term I don’t know what is. You would really give up on a progressive hero rather than follow the lead of said hero? Fine, don’t even stay home in November, but rather please cast your vote for Donald Trump because that would make just as much sense!:(
…staying home in November, not would I ever vote from Drumpf! I almost threw up when I read the last sentence you wrote! I’ll be voting my conscience, just like I hope everyone else does. I want Elizabeth to stay in the Senate where she’ll be in *majority* (fingers crossed!), where she will be way more effective and powerful than just another person under Billary’s thumb!
… I agree with this. Aside from the substance, a dead giveaway is the use of insulting names like “$hillary” or even “Drumpf” or “Billary” (in Betsey’s comments below). Who thinks this way? I think the question answers itself.
Apparently unlike Christopher, I encourage you write in Bernie Sanders or whomever else you like when you vote in November.
I think there is very little likelihood that Elizabeth Warren will be asked to be on Ms. Clinton’s ticket, and I join you hoping she will decline if asked.
because the Supreme Court is possibly the most important thing a President ever does. Seriously, scorch earth is not a progressive position.
…but I digress. Please don’t tell me who to vote for (I haven’t even made up my mind completely, plus apparently my vote here in safe blue MA doesn’t count anyway). I’m not telling you who to vote for. But I digress again, if you want to talk about positions that aren’t progressive, just look at the person you’re voting for!
…trying to prove that Clinton is very progressive. I’m sorry if people feel this thread brought out my worst, but I’m out of patience now that the primary has been decided.
Because many progressive Dems believe Hillary is a step backwards? You are out of patience because there is still a convention and Hillary may have to go through a roll call? Why do you care?
Do you really think that undecided voters will vote for Trump because many Dems preferred Sanders over Hillary?
What makes you so passionate about Bernie getting out? Does Hillary need Bernie supporters? I feel as if her campaign and supporters have taken down to Sanders supporters. Even now when they are trying to woo them.
Same hereat BMG.
I suggest win or lose the campaign is last hurrah for the out of touch and establishment entrenched Democratic generation that went to Woodstock and gave us Hilary and Bill.
…saying it would be fine with me if the convention had a full roll call. I’ve never had much patience for the purists and I’m out of patience with any speculation that she somehow won’t be the nominee.
Seriously, you should stop the martyr bit and vote for whomever you feel like voting for. The “You” in my statement, could just as easily have been read as the generic you. Rather than jump on me for a minor typo, perhaps you could have seen that I meant, what I was trying to say, was “If anyone is going to vote their conscience, then they should vote for who will fill the current vacancy and soon to be other vacancies on the Supreme Court…”.
Otherwise, I would have written, “Betsey, if you are planning to vote your conscience, then vote for Hillary..” But that is not what I wrote, was it?
No, it wasn’t.
Voting is not an act of self-expression whereby we set our highest aspirations down on paper and hope that the Spirit of Ben Franklin will bless them with success.
It’s a political act. It should be calculated. If it is not calculated, it is dumb. The goal is create a better world; anything not carefully calculated to achieve that is irresponsible.
Honestly, all this “voting my conscience stuff” is so much self-indulgence. Please get over it.
There is no way that a presidential vote in Massachusetts is anything but self-expression. Hillary Clinton is going to win all of the Massachusetts electoral votes in November. That’s just a fact.
I’m an engineer. One of the things an engineer learns rather early in his or her craft is to avoid unnecessary calculations. ANY calculation done in the voting both in November, regarding the presidency, is unnecessary.
It doesn’t stop at the presidency. Each one of our representatives is Democratic, and there is no indication that that will change in this election.
Self-indulgent or not, the ONLY reason to vote in November is self-expression.
…of fulfilling your obligation as a citizen in a democratic republic. Your comment sounds a little too close to a why bother argument for my tastes.
I enthusiastically agree with you about our obligation as citizens. I’ve voted in every national election since becoming eligible.
My comment was directed at both kbusch and betsey (and other Massachusetts supporters of Bernie Sanders). In my view, the comment that “anything not carefully calculated to achieve that is irresponsible” exacerbates divisions in an already polarized Democratic electorate.
One of the disadvantages of being a true-blue died-in-the-wool Democrat in Massachusetts is knowing that my vote will almost never make or break a federal election. Neither Ed Markey nor Elizabeth Warren is up for election this year. Mike Capuano is going to be my Representative, whatever vote I cast, and I’m very happy about that. Hillary Clinton is going to carry Massachusetts by a comfortable margin.
I don’t see any “political calculation” that matters, and I hear betsey (and many others like her) saying that she is weary of voting for Presidential candidates that she does not support. If we were having this exchange in Florida, Ohio, or even New Hampshire, I might feel differently — but we’re not.
We have an obligation to vote. We fulfill that obligation whether we vote our heart, our head, our gut, or all of the above.
First, because if no Democrats bothered to vote in MA, then the Republican would win. Second, because the fact that you voted is in the public record. Both major parties have databases of everyone who has voted along with whatever other demographic information they are able to gather about you. If you don’t bother to vote, they know that and will act accordingly. If you want Politicians to care about what you care about, then you should vote.
I’m not being self-indulgent, and I think you’re quite rude for saying that and telling me to get over it.
is ruder still.
So let me get this straight. You think it’s perfectly fine to vote “your gut” or to vote based on some kind of inner sense (your “conscience”) without bothering to think through the consequences. In other words, self-expression is more important to you than achieving the common good. Someone playing the saxophone at 1 am may make a similar claim. If that’s not self-indulgent, what does the word even mean?
Or looking at it somewhat differently. A number of politicians, in recent memory, have been the beneficiaries of excellent marketing campaigns. (Think G. W. Bush.) We’ve all come to “know” — in an emotional, unthinking kind of way — what their “personalities” are. G. W. Bush was very good at appearing likable and trustworthy. Claiming that you’ll follow your “conscience” without thinking about consequences is not very far from saying, “I will let the marketing guys lead me by the nose.” Nixon’s marketing guys were particularly good. A substantial majority of Americans, per Gallup, thought he was more honest than McGovern.
I’m sure they all voted “their conscience”.
Tom, I really appreciate your civil and thoughtful reply (as opposed to referring to me as a tea partier)! It gives me hope that we can bring everyone in the BMG community together…someday?
you might want to lay off the $hillary/Billary language.
have you said the same to folks who keep using terms like “BernieBros”?
I really try not to use obnoxious language when talking about an opponent whose supporters I want as an ally. I don’t make a point of going around and policing every comment, but yes if I saw someone calling for unity but using the term BernieBro I might call that out. Of course, your term was not referring to the behavior of some of Clinton’s more over-the-top supporters. You were referring directly to the candidate herself.
In any case, if you really want a civil discussion for real (and this goes for people on both sides), you should drop the obnoxious language. It’s just that simple.
seemed to be based on some kind of criticism of a sector of Sen. Sanders’ support. I personally haven’t dived into this criticism. I don’t know whether it is based on reality or not.
If it was describing a real phenomenon, it’s not illegitimate.
…that some of his supporters’ dislike of Clinton has a gender basis.
My first question would be whether misogynist-tinged male Sanders supporters are even a significant percentage of Sanders supporters. There are a few kooks in every club; one only starts to worry when they take over the bake sale.
From what I read, there is a personal loyalty to Senator Sanders expressed heatedly in on-line forums. Hence the posted comments about Sen. Warren being a “sell-out” on Facebook, say. Possibly the misogynist-tinged male supporters are so prolific that they seem more numerous than they are.
…of a speech to the American Constitution Society. I’m no good at this, but if someone can find and embed that video it would be great.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzLMf6QGONQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACAend5Vfc
This is a remarkable speech, by the way. Warren draws a clear line from Trump to the mainstream GOP.
It said that she was instrumental in stopping President Obama from cutting Social Security and his new position to expand it. It also said that she was key in Hillary’s announcement that she would never cut or privatize Social Security. Yeah, and when I posted in BMG that Bill Clinton wanted to privatize Social Security, y’all went Bozo on me and called me a troll, eh?
…still runs very counter to my recollection. I recall him insisting that we “save Social Security first”.
Sorry but your recollection is faulty. The Center for Economic and Policy Research, whose board of directors includes Joseph Stiglitz wrote:
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/bill-clinton-whos-known-for-his-plan-to-cut-social-security
You managed to push back on what you perceive as bad information from me without insulting me in the process – that wasn’t so hard, was it?
That said, the article you linked and quoted seems to assert something about Clinton without backing it up and the NYT article linked from that was about Medicare rather than SS. As I recall the discussions at the time, the goal, at least from the Democratic side, was to put these programs on sound fiscal footing so as to ultimately preserve them, though the politics of the time would not allow for discussions about aggressively expanding them.
Poking around a bit shows that Clinton does appear to have considered partial privitizing, but I guess that reflects the good shape the markets were in at the time. However, he was still I think committed to saving it on balance.
You were wrong in so many ways when you wrote that your did not recall Bill Clinton’s desire to cut Social Security that I thought if I posted just one authoritative and referenced story I might stop people from believing your faulty memories. The story I posted was about Bill Clinton’s proposals on Social Security in the context of a larger conference hosted by the right wing Pete Peterson Institute. Please go back and read the quote from CEPR. It is not about Medicare.
Your interpretation of the NYTimes story is wrong, as is your failure to even read the words that I quoted.
Try these stories that are from sources as diverse as the Cato Institute to Martin Feldstein to the US News & World Report to the Economic Policy Institute (libertarian to right to center to left sources):
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/clinton-wanted-social-security-privatized
http://www.nber.org/feldstein/amecpol90.html
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/05/29/the-pact-between-bill-clinton-and-newt-gingrich
Sometimes it is best to either admit you are wrong on the facts or go silent. You chose to double down on your mistake and make it personal. Knock it off.
Here we go again.
It was fun while it lasted:(
Here is how you started your response to me
You don’t think that is making a post personal?
…with yes, maybe a bit of ribbing about your usual modus operandi thrown in:)
who so enjoys downrating comments. Such people make an excellent impression, don’t they?
…that the NYT article was about Medicare. Which one of us has the reading comprehension problem now?:) I did see the articles you linked and acknowledged as much in my final paragraph.
Your initial comment about Social Security and Bill Clinton was
I responded by gently pointing out that you were wrong. You came back at me first with a nasty comment and then ignored the facts. Very simply, he wanted to cut benefits. Your reference to the NYTimes article that was referenced in the CERP blurb ignores the obvious intent of their post, contained in the first sentence of the portion I quoted, which was a direct criticism of the NYT
You decided to double down by questioning my reading comprehension. And you think I made this personal? That was your second personal insult in this thread alone.
You see, I was actively involved in protection SS and remember the Clinton back door assault. Rather than ask any readers here to trust my recollections, I post third party sources. Yours were clearly wrong and mine were correct.
You have to be right, I know. You bring out the worst in me:(
There was some thread like a week or so back where he managed to be wrong 2 or 3 times.
I’m human, but I think my record for accuracy on “basic facts” is pretty solid.
Why, exactly —
Oh, never mind.
BernieBros, as classy as ever.
..about being VP, but also gave Rachel a definite yes when asked if she felt qualified to step into the presidency if something were to happen.
I think we all could have done without the OP’s “head exploding” jab.