A recent article in the Boston Globe is urging Elizabeth Warren to reconsider her decision to run for president. They seem to think that Hilary running unopposed is bad for the democratic party. Personally I would love it if Elizabeth would run. I just don't trust Hilary Clinton. http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2015/03/21/democrats-need-elizabeth-warren-voice-presidential-race/TJkJtbu3UYaJYBmVHcrAcI/story.html
Elizabeth but,big money is like a big ocean and they will not have her be in control plus,the closed minded people will not vote for her. Sad that there is not enough money to create a lot of jobs but enough to buy a pol.
You really think so? As long as their base hates women and immigrants I think she'll be ok. Remember people come out in droves for Presidential elections. If this was a congressional vote you'd have a point.
I heard Elizabeth won't be running, but will be kept in the limelight to keep Hillary far left of center, or else. Per the question: Don't know if Warren is the choice or Democratic answer, but no shady Hillary for this country.
My answer is Warren WITH the caveat that I'm not sure she has the chops for the job yet. "Politics is war without bloodshed." I agree with Mao Zedong's quote & would consider Warren too green (as in inexperienced) for the job. So far. As for the big prize, it's faaar too early to tell. No one saw Obama coming in '08. We're not even in June.
I am going to guess Bush vs Clinton. Pick your poison... The country already made the choice of Clinton over Bush. Most people have loving memories of the 90's with Bill in charge. We are basically thinking that Bill will be in there. prepare for a woman president!!!
I'm all for a women president, I just worry that some people want a women Prez so bad that they aren't really looking at what Hilary Clinton represents. She was pro war, she has deep ties to the bloodsuckers on wall street. And let's not forget the thinly veiled race bating her and her husband used against Obama in the 2008 campaign.
You are preaching to the choir. as a man said to me at work... She was a corporate lawyer. how liberal can she be?!?!? It is that I prefer her over Bush and warren over clinton. I know the reality. Warren will not win against Clinton. Booker is too wet behind the ears and deval doesn't want to run so....guess who I am left with. edit:I take that back. I am going with Biden if he runs. Someone once argued with me for clinton but I really think he could win if he manage to not slip up.
Former Congressman Barney Frank said Sen.Warren is toast if she runs. He means Warren would lose her effectiveness.
Speaking from a general standpoint and not just on social issues. From a social front, they could be considered leftist in that regard, but the one that came closest to being left-leaning would be FDR. Beyond that, they were varying degrees of centrist-right wing politicians. With Kennedy's case, he was reluctant on tackling the issue of the Civil Rights. His brother had to convince them to actually engage in all this. I think this link here can provide some incentive on the political ideology. Every nation has their own definition on what defines left, right, center, etc...but, it is also important to note that there are some definitive perspectives that are unwavering when it comes to defining those labels. And one such question does stand out... ____________________ You've got liberals on the right. Don't you know they're left? This response is exclusively American. Elsewhere neo-liberalism is understood in standard political science terminology — deriving from mid 19th Century Manchester Liberalism, which campaigned for free trade on behalf of the capitalist classes of manufacturers and industrialists. In other words, laissez-faire or economic libertarianism. In the United States, "liberals" are understood to believe in leftish economic programmes such as welfare and publicly funded medical care, while also holding liberal social views on matters such as law and order, peace, sexuality, women's rights etc. The two don't necessarily go together. Our Compass rightly separates them. Otherwise, how would you label someone like the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who, on the one hand, pleased the left by supporting strong economic safety nets for the underprivileged, but angered social liberals with his support for the Vietnam War, the Cold War and other key conservative causes?
Don't trust Hilary at all. Never have, never will. However, the American people have VERY short memories. The fact that her 2016 run was a backroom political deal made with the Dems 7 years ago to unite the party behind Obama evades most of you. It's already set in stone. The only reason she is being tight lipped and shady is because the strategists are working hard and keeping it all close to the vest. The last 8 years of your life have been scripted, whether you're too ignorant to realize it or not. She can't lose IMO.