Skip to main content

Last night, Stephen Colbert looked at Wall Street's hatred of Elizabeth Warren, who was his guest as well.

And now she's introduced the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, a bill so socialist, that socialist Senator Bernie Sanders praised it, saying:
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT (5/17/2013): The only thing wrong with this bill is that Elizabeth thought of it and I didn't.
(audience laughter at picture)

She's out-commie-ing the commie!

Video and full transcript below the fold.

But folks, whether you're an American or a Lady-American, things are going great in this country right now.  The Dow is over 16,000!  And that is a lot of Dows.  I mean, to put that in layman's terms, if you took 16,000 Dows and laid them end to end, that would be almost five Nasdaqs.  And I hope I don't have to tell you what that means, cuz I would have to ask someone else.  (audience laughter)

We've come a long way since 2008 when the economy cratered, thanks to Obama's misguided running for President.  (audience laughter)  I think.  I was preoccupied with the last season of According to Jim.  It was a dark time for everyone.  And folks, this recovery is all thanks to our heroic banks, who faced with possible extinction, hunkered down and got to work accepting the all the money in the world that we gave them.  And all they asked in return is that we not ask anything in return.  Or ever bring the subject up again.  (audience laughter)

But some want to destroy our banks, like Massachusetts Senator and school librarian you had a crush on, Elizabeth Warren.  (audience cheering and applause)  She is credited with the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and argued for its existence on the world's most respected financial program.


ELIZABETH WARREN: I want a strong consumer agency to make sure....

STEPHEN COLBERT: What would they do?

ELIZABETH WARREN: What they would do is make sure that we can all read our credit card agreements.

STEPHEN COLBERT: Can you read your credit card agreement?

ELIZABETH WARREN: Not the ones we have now.  They're about 30 pages long, tiny little print.

STEPHEN COLBERT: You're a professor of contract law at Harvard University.


STEPHEN COLBERT: And you can't read them.

ELIZABETH WARREN: That's right.  It's designed not to be read.

Good.  Because I can't read my credit card agreement.  It's against my credit card agreement.  I think.  I'm too scared to read it.

And Warren's not just attacking credit cards now.  Senator Buzzshackle here wants to take the adventure out of banking.

ELIZABETH WARREN (5/14/2012): Banking should not be this kind of high-risk activity. ... It should not be taking on risks.  If you want to take on those risks, you need to be somewhere else. ... Banking should be boring.
Banking should not be boring!  Opening a simple checking account should be a high-risk adrenaline-fueled balls to the wall extreme sport!  (audience cheering)  That's why my accountant Bill files my taxes while landing an inverted 360 nose bone butter slide.

And it's not making her any friends, folks.  


JOE SCARBOROUGH: Elizabeth Warren is loathed by Wall Street.  She's hated by Wall Street.

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Wall Street hates her.

JONATHAN CHAIT: They really, really do hate her.

It's just like the old Wall Street adage — if you don't have anything nice to say, it's probably about Elizabeth Warren.  (audience laughter)

And now she's introduced the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, a bill so socialist, that socialist Senator Bernie Sanders praised it, saying:

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT (5/17/2013): The only thing wrong with this bill is that Elizabeth thought of it and I didn't.

(audience laughter at picture)

She's out-commie-ing the commie!  Wait!  Hold on, hang on, Jimmy, put Warren's hair on Sanders.

Now put Sanders' hair on Warren.

Oh my God, now switch their faces.

Ah-hah!!!  It's the same person!!!

Now worst of all, folks, Warren supporters are lining up to make her President.  And she is doing nothing to dissuade them.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MA (4/22/2014): I'm not running for President.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MA (4/25/2014): I'm not running for President.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MA (4/21/2014): I'm not running for President.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MA (4/20/2014): I'm not running for President.

Oh, methinks she doth clearly state she's not running for President too much.  I mean, why else would she release this memoir, A Fighting Chance?  The only reason politicians write these things is because they're throwing their hat in the ring.  That's why I'm confident the Republicans are going to nominate Governor 50 Shades.

(audience laughter)

He promises to tighten Washington's belt... but I won't tell you where.  (hysterical audience laughter and applause)  Big Republican and/or bondage fans here tonight.  (audience laughter)  Pumpkin patch.  It's my safe word.  (audience laughter)

The point is, irresponsible media need to stop giving Senator Warren a platform to spew her destructive agenda.  Why?  I don't know.  I'll ask tonight's guest, Senator Elizabeth Warren.  We'll be right back.

Stephen also talked about older medical studies having been done only on male lab rats, which has caused skewed results for any women taking those medications.

He then talked about a real product called the Jerky Blaster.

Meanwhile, Jon again blasted the VA for the scandal on wait times.

Jason Jones filed his second piece from India, reporting on their elections.

Jon talked with actor James McAvoy.

Originally posted to Electronic America: Progressives Film, music & Arts Group on Tue May 20, 2014 at 05:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  As always, (19+ / 0-)

    your transcripts are mightily appreciated!

    Love the Sanders/Warren switcheroo. I knew there was something fishy about them.

    Is the date really May 17 2013? not 14?

  •  Elizabeth Warren, the new Ted Kennedy. (31+ / 0-)

    I love her as much as I loved the old Lion. We need more Senators that care about the people.

    Imagine if they served together?

  •  Elizabeth Warren (14+ / 0-)

    A record we can all be proud of.  Against universal opposition from Wall Street and the Republican Party, not to mention members of her own party, she willed the CFPB into existence over a decade of advocacy.  A fighter for the common American who the banks hate.  Man, she'd sure look good at the to of a ticket.

     Or I guess we could go with the ex-corporate law firm partner/Wal-Mart board member/leader of the failed effort to reform health care in the 1990's/Secretary of State with little to show for it/pick of the party machine who does well at Wall Street fundraisers.

    •  You're falling into the trap. (26+ / 0-)

      Every article about Warren and her book tour is ignoring her message by distracting with articles about a potential run against Hillary instead.

      Despite your stacking of the deck (shall we call Warren a former Republican who has accomplished nothing since she got in the Senate, ignoring the gridlock that exists today and a genuine change of belief on her part), your good vs. evil comparison of two strong Democratic women has no validity.

      Should Warren run, and should Clinton run, it will be the most collegial exchange of ideas are party has ever seen during a primary.  She doesn't share the contempt of Clinton that many of her avid supporters here seem to.

      I would imagine that two women of the same generation, who had to push down so many barriers and make so many compromises and deal with so much sexism, past, present, and ongoing, are quite sympathetic of, and protective of each other.

      Because as much as the media (and some here) want to make this the Great Catfight of 2016, both of these ladies are beyond their league in dignity, intelligence, decency, and commitment to the common good.  

      Their entire life stories back this up.

      •  Does having been a Goldwater Girl (8+ / 0-)

        with feet now firmly entrenched in the Rubin/Summers/Geithner school of economics and the John McCain school of foreign policy count as being a former if not current Republican?

        •  uh oh. i think a kos fight is brewing! (6+ / 0-)

          Elizabeth is coming out strong as a populist.  Wanting to help those who need it in this post recession situation.

          Both are worthy women.  Warren will not run if Hillary is running.  at least i doubt it.

          •  Agreed, Sen. Warren will not oppose Hillary. (9+ / 0-)

            But that's not the only scenario that puts Sen. Warren into campaign mode.

            There are three years to go - less, actually, with the run up to getting organizations in place. Hillary Clinton has no job, no role, no position to talk from ... only podiums. (That's an observation, not a criticism.) Lots can happen in three years.

            Sen. Warren is out raising money for Progressive (and other) colleagues and she can go on her next book tour (A Fighting Chance is her ninth by my tally), introduce strongly populist legislation, bait bankers and hedge funds in hearings (although she needs to befriend at least one of them; cynics, wait for it!) and deliberately plump for The Rest of Us. If Mrs. Clinton does those things, the media on all sides will point out her flaws and her certain candidacy.

            (E. Warren does have gaps to fill. She needs to be on broader domestic policies than "just" economics, although that is a gateway to social issues and programs and she clearly is liberal and Progressive. She needs some foreign affairs creds. Law and economics are gateways there, too.)

            I think Elizabeth Warren is already in campaign mode. It's just that her campaign right now is for us. That's a heckuva gateway to running for President!

            2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

            by TRPChicago on Tue May 20, 2014 at 07:04:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No agenda, no platform, no vision, (5+ / 0-)
              Hillary Clinton has no job, no role, no position to talk from ...
              I mean you've got that right.  But the larger truth there is that while Warren is about US, Hillary is about HILLARY and nothing else.  She's protecting herself, playing it safe,  avoiding taking any stands on anything.... that's great for HILLARY.  What's that got to do with ME?  NOTHING.  

              I've never believed Warren would run but what Hillary is doing is stifling all debate and discussion of the future.  And Obama has never been terrific on that either choosing to be the hope and change guy without telling us what he's going to change and what we're hoping for.  

              The Republicans are loony and full of crazy ideas but we sure spend a lot of time talking about them because at least they have something to say.  

              What can you say about someone who has nothing to say?

              •  Since you keep repeating the same untruth. (12+ / 0-)

                I'll keep reposting the same rebuttal:

                She's been giving tons of public speeches on income inequality, voting rights, and women's rights.  God knows the pundits have whipped themselves into a frenzy each time, asking "What does this mean for a potential candidacy???"

                Just two examples easily found on video:
                Speech to New America Foundation on Economic Inequality (May 16, 2014)

                Roundtable at Women of the World Summit(April 2014)

                She also, you know, ran for president in 2008, and had a platform.

                She also was Secretary of State for the four years, and made her positions known on many things as well, though obviously speaking as a surrogate of the Obama administration.

                I'm mystified by any claim that she hasn't made her positions and agenda clear.  She hasn't stopped talking about issues for thirty years.

                She's been deferring any mention of a run and asking to keep the focus on the issues.  As, ahem, Elizabeth Warren has been as well.  Yet pitting the two women against each other is all the media (and a lot of commenters here) want to do.

                •  Too funny (5+ / 0-)

                  Before I clicked to read this diary, in the back of my mind I was thinking, I wonder how far up the thread there would be some Hillary bashing on a great diary about Senator Warren.  4th from the tip jar.
                  Thanks for your rebuttals, they are most helpful.

                •  So maybe you could tell me what her agenda is? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MPociask, CinderMcDonald

                  If she is genuinely concerned about inequality what is she going to do first raise income taxes on the rich, raise capital gains taxes, or raise the estate tax?  

                  If she is genuinely concerned about women let's see her plan to increase Social Security and Medicare benefits?  

                  I don't care about all the global posing.  I don't want to hear "It's morning in America",  I want to know where she stands on some specific issues including access to all the fine print so I can see how many benefit cuts the neo-liberals have stuck in there beneath all the flowery rhetoric.

                  I have never believed Warren is running but she's been able to state a clear position on Social Security benefits in one or two sentences.  So has Bernie Sanders for that matter.

                  If I ever get anything like that from Hillary, she'll have a chance to get my vote.  

                  •  Excellent questions. (7+ / 0-)

                    All of which are answered by both her current speeches and her 2008 platform.

                    If you do some research, you'll realize you're asking questions that have already been answered.

                    •  Thank you for reminding me about 2008 (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Dallasdoc, ChuckChuckerson

                      when I voted against her in the primary.  And that darn local news, if they weren't just covering the latest deployment of the Minnesota National Guard to Iraq only Saturday which brings to mind again why I voted against her in 2008 and regardless of what anyone in Washington tells me, the local news tells me we are still in Iraq unless of course Minnesota is not still in the United States.

                  •  Hillary on Social Security and Pension Reform (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    bahaba, BenFranklin99, CatKinNY

                    Thank you, Google:

                    "Social Security is one of the greatest inventions in American democracy, and I will do everything possible to protect & defend it, starting with getting back to fiscal responsibility, instead of borrowing from the Social Security trust fund. We need to provide some additional opportunities for people to invest, on top of their base guarantee of Social Security, more of a chance to build their nest egg. The risky scheme to privatize would cost between $1 and $2 trillion. That would undermine the promise of Social Security." - 2007

                    "When I'm president, privatization is off the table...cutting benefits isn't the answer and raising the retirement age isn't the answer." - 2007

                    "I have said consistently that my plan for Social Security is fiscal responsibility first, then to deal with any long-term challenges. We would have a bipartisan commission. All of these would be considered. I do not want to balance Social Security on the backs of our seniors & middle-class families. We have to move back toward a more fair and progressive tax system, and begin to move toward a balanced budget with a surplus." - 2007

                    "Hillary's American Retirement Accounts Plan. Hillary believes that we need to take head-on this national retirement savings crisis by giving all Americans an opportunity to save and build wealth for retirement that is as easy, secure and generous as is offered by good employer-sponsored 401(k)s. Her American Retirement Accounts Plan will give that chance to the tens of millions of Americans who are currently falling through the cracks while reducing wealth inequality, increasing national savings, and encouraging economic growth. Under the plan, working and middle class families who currently have the hardest time saving will get generous matching tax cuts as an incentive to save. And all middle class Americans will get to open new American Retirement Accounts that will be designed to provide no-hassle, portable savings throughout their careers. In essence, the plan will provide universal access to a generous 401(k) for all Americans." - Hillary Campaign, 2007

                    "Hillary Clinton announced a bold new American Retirement Accounts Plan with generous matching tax cuts. All middle-class Americans will get to open new American Retirement Accounts that will be designed to provide no-hassle, portable savings throughout their careers. This new proposal will provide a matching tax credit " dollar-for-dollar " of the first $1,000 of savings done by every married couple making up to $60,000. This matching tax credit will be available to all Americans in existing 401(k) type accounts as well as the new American Retirement Accounts. Senator Clinton will let all middle-class Americans open a new American Retirement Account. These accounts will allow individuals to contribute up to $5,000 per year on a tax-deferred basis. The first $1,000 contributed into the accounts would be eligible for the new 1-to-1 and 50% government matches. Individuals would have the choice to set up their account with any private provider that offered diversified investment options that included an age appropriate investment life-cycle fund. Hillary's plan will offer expanded tax credits to help small businesses offset start-up administrative costs of providing the direct deposit options to their employees. In addition to providing generous new incentives for working families to save, Hillary's American Retirement Accounts Plan will reduce disincentives to save that exist in our retirement system. Unfortunately, current policy actually penalizes lower-income families who want to save for retirement in 401(k)s and IRAs, by disqualifying them for means-tested benefit programs like food stamps, SSI, and Medicaid. If your household is participating in food stamp programs Senator Clinton's plan will finally ensure that you are not forced to choose between saving for retirement and receiving benefits." - Campaign, 2007

                    •  Those portable retirement accounts are (6+ / 0-)

                      the road to privatization.  I mean she tells you, you're getting your very own 401K.  What happened to private pensions when people got their very own 401K?  The neo-libs are a lot slicker than the Republicans who tell you straight out what they plan to do.  Let's see where she is NOW on CCPI and means testing Medicare and all the Simpson-Bowles, Mark Warner, Ed Rendell stuff.  

                      I notice you didn't bold the following:

                      "I have said consistently that my plan for Social Security is fiscal responsibility first, then to deal with any long-term challenges. We would have a bipartisan commission. All of these would be considered.

                      What do you think "fiscal responsibility first" is if not code for austerity cuts? We already know what comes out of the "bipartisan commission".

                      Neo-libs are better at talking out of both sides of their mouths then any people on earth and no one was better at that than Bill.  

                •  Lysis, HC has, indeed, spoken. (7+ / 0-)

                  She was First Lady. She was a Senator. She ran for President once. She was an excellent Secretary of State in challenging times. HC has been at this political and policy business for a long time. And ...

                  ... she has a past, for better and for worse, that informs her largely-media-created candidacy for 2016.

                  Warren is interesting because HC, standing alone, is taken-for-granted political news. "Pitted against," however, sells papers and TV ads ... and speculation is engaging. Otherwise, this is Dull Time.

                  This next Democratic nomination is a foregone conclusion right now, and it is Hillary's to lose. That - being the front-and-only runner - is not as enviable position for her as it might seem.

                  2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                  by TRPChicago on Tue May 20, 2014 at 07:44:37 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Great points! That's the art of campaigning. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Lysis, MPociask, BenFranklin99

                Pick your themes and issues and don't get dragged into pie fights on issues that would divide your supporters, undercut your strength, empower your opponents.

                The GOP is extremely good at this. It's only when some idiot Congressman gets off scripted talking points and huzzah! rousers and says something offensive that he or she gets into trouble.

                Rule #1. Say what voters want to hear. Rule #2. Don't say anything else. Rule #3. Stay as general and say as little as you can get away with.

                2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                by TRPChicago on Tue May 20, 2014 at 07:25:09 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Rule #5 You just elected Ronald Reagan! (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gmfp, friendjudy

                  Thank you Peggy Noonan, It is morning in America.  

                  Well, I have to admit politics is a lot more fun if you don't want to read the fine print.  

                  But hey, some of us have to do it or your Social Security benefits would be declining as we post.  

        •  This is bullshit. (4+ / 0-)

          I was a Republican -- a Lincoln Republican, yes -- until JFK.  I've not voted Republican since.

          People grow and change.  And there is no one in politics more qualified to be president than Hillary.

          This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

          by JJustin on Tue May 20, 2014 at 04:19:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Who wants a cat fight? (5+ / 0-)

        I want a Progressive, liberal Democrat who will favor Main Street over Wall Street to be President in 2017.  I hope it is a collegial primary - but I will not support any attempt at ordination.  As for our casting of the characters, clearly we differ in our assessments, and I will leave it at that.

      •  This is not about gender but results and Ability (4+ / 0-)

        What Elizabeth accomplished did not require that her husband be president. People don't have to push as hard when they are already at the top. Warren is a certified barrier breaker.

        By the way, I asked myself a long time ago; what did Hillary accomplish  as a Senator, as Sec. of State, as anything ? What barriers did she really break?

    •  WOW! MPociask ... Absolutely Brilliant (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MPociask, BenFranklin99

      The only thing wrong with this comment is that I wished I had said it.(Smile)

  •  Love me some Bernie... (5+ / 0-)

    no B.S. Not a smidge.

  •  We Need Two Like Warren Running for President (5+ / 0-)

    We need two people like Elizabeth Warren running for President. One running for President, the other for Vice President.

  •  I found (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zinman, BenFranklin99

    Colbert's interview of Warren a, how to say, a bit too much. He kept doing his bit until it became tiresome. Wouldn't let her finish a sentence. He seems to be doing this more and more with his guests. Tone it down a bit Stephen. There's some of us that would like to hear what your guests have to say...

    6% of scientists are republican. Scientists have no explanation why that number is so high.

    by fugwb on Tue May 20, 2014 at 08:05:34 AM PDT

  •  There's a scary reality out there... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    There is nothing I'd love more than for Warren to run and win next presidential election, but....

    I am a middle class senior who is in bad health and who scrimped, saved, went to college on my own dime, worked hard and retired early with the house paid for and plenty of money invested.

    Then real life came along with health issues for me and for family members. The money is still there but invested a bit riskier than I'd like at my age because a major down on Wall Street could go a long way toward taking my financial security away.

    I am quite sure if Warren ran and won, Wall Street would crash for a while. I don't know if I'd survive it financially.

    Here's the thing: I'm not the only middle class person out there who's retired and depends on investment income, coupled with pensions and social security, to keep all of our family financially secure in case of some major health problem. These things scare me.

    I think Wall Street would sail through a Clinton win because she's a bit too much on their side like Obama, and every other president we've had.

    What do you think?

    Am I worrying needlessly?

    I really do like Warren a lot.

    •  wall street might pout for a while (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmfp, RiveroftheWest

      but they will never crash; there is simply too much money to be made and their greed knows no limits..... just take all of the risk out of your investments before the election and and stay fluid until the temper tantrum is over.... i agree, warren is a breath of fresh air.... and that is troubling to those who inhabit the dark, smoke filled rooms.

    •  Forget the Republican propaganda (3+ / 0-)

      Market indices are based on earnings expectations six months out, and nothing else.  Business hire when they need more workers than they have, not when they are 'confident.'  Businesses invest in expansion when they can sell more than they can currently produce, not when they are 'confident.'    I am very pro-business, which is why I am a Democrat.  BUSINESS DOES BETTER WHEN THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN POWER!  And that's a fact.

      Warren/Grayson 2016! Yes We Can!

      by BenFranklin99 on Tue May 20, 2014 at 02:56:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Elizabeth Warren Throwing Down the Gauntlet (0+ / 0-)

    That's one thing I like about her so much.  Nobody in DC is going after Wall Street and their stranglehold on our democracy like she is.  Hillary and Bill will not do that.  They are in bed with Wall Street as much as the rest of the 1% are.  That has always been their modus operandi.  It is the modus operandi of the DLC entire.  

    The only thing Hillary and Bill are doing this time is trying to subvert the grassroots early.  They started about 5 years ago when Bill and Hillary started comping DailyKos and other bloggers to the Clinton Global Initiative and other pow-wows at the Clinton Foundation.  But Bill doesn't really get the Netroots the way Hillary does, so they didn't really start up in earnest until she left SoS.  

    What I find myself wondering now is, what have they promised Markos, brooklynbadboy, and some of the other bloggers on this site who are carrying the daily water for Hillary's campaign?  Is it simply that they're flattered to be taken seriously by "serious" people?  Or have they been promised campaign offices or possibly even Whitehouse Press Office gigs if Hillary wins?  All of those opportunities, should everything pan out the way the Clintons intend, pay very well and open a lot of career doors.

    It is how the Clintons work and have always worked, and it is one of the reasons they have been so successful as politicians.  They play on the baser side of human nature.  And it has very probably happened, given the about-face that Markos and his core bloggers have done on the DLC and the Clintons since the last two presidential elections.

    •  Again, not true. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bahaba, Dr Swig Mcjigger

      And not her platform in 2008 or her voting record before that.

      Do people not even look at these things?

    •  Wow what a passive aggressive way to call (6+ / 0-)

      the site owner and fellow posters shills and sell outs because they are supporting the front runner (as it stands now) democrat for president on a democratic site. If Warren changes her mind and decides to run that will bring much needed debate on the issues that will hopefully move it to the left.  I see no reason to equate a persons support for a potential democratic candidate with imagined perks or favors.

      •  Agree with everything but passive. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BenFranklin99, penelope pnortney

        datain accused Kos and other bloggers here of corruption. It's despicable.

        •  Go Ahead and Down-Mod (3+ / 0-)

          Hillary was the heir-apparent in 2007, too, but Markos at that point did not drink that Kool-Aid.  He, like many of us, still felt deep antipathy for the DLC.  He did not jump on the Hillary bandwagon like this, then.  Most of the core bloggers on the site did not either.  Markos's antipathy was the same earlier, too, when I spoke to him at The Tank for Convention Dissension at the RNC in New York.  

          So, what changed?

          I do know the Clintons were building relationships with DailyKos bloggers 6 years ago.  They were invited to roundtables with President Clinton.  One of them sent in a proposal to do paid blogging for one of the Initiatives at the Clinton Foundation.  Others were comped to attend the Clinton Global Initiative (which ordinarily costs ~$20K for a ticket).  Even with all that, though, for Bill, it was still mostly a tree to shake and hope money fell out of it, the way it had for Obama.  I had visibility into what was happening online at State, and Hillary was far ahead of Bill in her use of new media.  

          Hillary, of course, was stung by the Netroots in her defeat the way Bill never had been.  So she has taken it more seriously since then.  We also know, thanks to Snowden, that State, the NSA, and other agencies in the government actively engage in information warfare (to use an old term--paid shilling/trolling to use a more recent one) in online forums such as these to control the discourse toward outcomes favorable to them.  Here's a link to a story from last autumn that outs their manual.  Being briefed on such activities, and the role that social media has been playing in the Arab Spring and elsewhere, would underscore the importance of controlling the discourse in new media.

          So I put together the trajectory of what I know for a fact happened and was happening in Bill Clinton's projects (the Clinton Foundation, CGI, etc) and at State under Hillary, first-hand knowledge that this is how the Clintons do business, with contextual supporting material released through Snowden, and direct observation of a marked change in tone on this venue by key players, and it seems mighty curious.  

          No, there is no smoking gun.  At least, that I have.  But Hillary voted to invade Iraq.  She voted for the PATRIOT Act.  She voted for the bailouts.  She did everything to disqualify her from progressive support before, and that hasn't changed.  She did nothing of note while Sect. of State, apart from getting the "Foreign Policy" badge she lacked during her last run for President.  What has changed is how, all of a sudden, she is being protected and coronated on this site by people who previously for years wanted nothing to do with her.  

          To me, she is one of the 1%, as much as the Kochs.  That she calls herself a Democrat does not sway me one bit, because I seem to lack the tribal gene that drives so many others.  I care about actions and choices, and hers repel me.

          So, go ahead, group-thinkers, mod me down.  I'm used to it; I spend most of my time skewering wingnuts on Free Republic, Drudge, and Redstate because it's more fun and I've always thought that people here had everything covered.  But I see all this very strange behavior here now and am piping up (for what it's worth).

        •  Except (0+ / 0-)

          Except, the language being employed to discourage an Elizabeth Warren candidacy is highly reminiscent of language employed to discourage the candidacy of Obama back in 2006.  "S/He could do so much more good as a strong progressive voice in the Senate to work with President Hillary Clinton."  "She's got it locked up.  All the polls show her running away with the nomination!!!"  "[Warren|Obama] should wait until s/he's had more seasoning on Capitol Hill."  "Hillary's so much more experienced."  

          Any of this sound familiar?  It ought to.

          5 years ago the Clinton Foundation was developing stronger relationships with PR firms that were touting their digital prowess.  CF people in that cohort were mustering out to jobs in those firms.  

          There's also the odd about-face Markos and others on this site have done on Hillary.  Hillary herself has done nothing to undo what she has done, such as voting to invade Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, etc, that cost her support from the aforementioned before.  

          So, what changed?  Why is she getting support, based on the same record, now that she did not get before?  You can't attribute it to blanket support for a strong female figure, because Elizabeth Warren is a woman.  You can't attribute it to intelligence or grasp of the issues or ability to articulate clear positions based on her understanding of those issues, because Elizabeth Warren has those in spades.  And why is all of this support and patronizing denigration of possible challengers being couched in the same language as before?  

          I recall when Markos floated Brian Schweitzer as a great candidate for President, but that's fallen off the map, too.  If, as he claims, he doesn't support Warren because she has (according to him) said she is not running for the office, then why didn't he turn to Schweitzer?  Instead, it's Hillary, Hillary, Hillary.

          To me, it's suspect.  I have noticed the patterns in language and talking points employed here recently.  I'm sure others have, too.  I know personally what the Clintons have been doing within a reasonably recent time-frame, and have an excellent sense of how they do business.  Putting the two things together seems mysteriously coincidental.

          •  Wow a persecution complex also (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bahaba, penelope pnortney

            Look I for one have never HRed anyone and I will not start with you.  At this time it appears Hillary is running and is the front runner right now in polling.  Elizabeth Warren has stated several times she is not running.  Brian Schweitzer has zero national name recognition right now but who knows what will happen once an actual campaign is underway. I think Kos in particular is being pragmatic considering the political landscape right now.  You also cast aspersions at several other posters with nothing credible to back it up. Stop calling fellow posters "groupthinkers" and implying they are sellouts and shills because they support a particular candidate you do not support.

    •  isn't calling someone a shill without proof (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lysis, penelope pnortney

      valid cause for hide rating?

      I'm going to refrain because these are front pagers we're talking about (and I hardly think they need me defending them), but your post is pretty offensive.

      "Remember, for every liberal with a cause who makes you go, "Oh, just shoot me!", there's a conservative with a gun who will." -- Bill Maher

      by wide eyed lib on Tue May 20, 2014 at 09:37:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So proud of my Sen Warren, I love Bernie too!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vermont Girl, Silina

    You never have a hard time telling the good people from the assholes.

  •  Unintended Negative Consequence (0+ / 0-)

    Yes, the government using student loans for a cash cow sucks, REALLY sucks.  My son has a debt burden which this would ease, but this is not a me-me-me comment.  I'm concerned for the current and future students.

    What can be done to prevent the same thing which happened to the real estate market when US monetary policy gave away cheap loans from happening to tuition rates?  When the interest rates drop, the price of the underlying commodity skyrocket.  A $60,000 house at 14% interest suddenly became a $120,000 house at 7% interest, the major difference being the massive long term debt burden increase.

    What is going to inevitably happen if student loan rates are lowered is colleges and universities will rapidly hike tuition negating any benefits of the reduced loan rates.  I'm not a policy expert, but some type of firewall to limit tuition increases should be put in place to exclude the school from any eligibility for future government loans and at the same time, protect students currently enrolled from massive tuition hikes.

  •  If the bad guys hate her so much (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    you know she is the right choice!

    Warren/Sanders 2016!

    •  I love both Warren and Sanders (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bahaba, penelope pnortney

      but they are needed in the senate and can do more good there. Neither has much foreign policy experience, whereas, Hillary does. Now what we Democrats have to do is get off our posteriors and vote in the primary and general elections in 2014. We Dems have a penchant for sitting out mid term elections!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We cannot do that this timem around. Let's work to take back the house and hold tight to the senate.

      •  I don't really agree with that. (0+ / 0-)

        However a Biden/Warren ticket would be my choice. Biden has the foreign policy chops and with Warren to back him up on domestic the possibilities are endless. Eight years of Joe followed by eight years of Elizabeth would just about undo the last forty years of crap that Ronny Ray-Gun started!!! Kill the trans pacific trade deal and bring regulations to fracking along with the rest of Warren's initiatives.

  •  Elizabeth Warren (0+ / 0-)

    would make a great president for us commoners and riff-raff.

  •  ELIZABETH WARREN: Two thumbs up ^ ^ (0+ / 0-)

    ELIZABETH WARREN: Two thumbs up ^ ^

  •  She'd make a great Treasury Secertary (0+ / 0-)

    If they hate her so much, she is the logical choice to be in charge of 'em.

    Also, that will help her kill time 'til SCOTUS opens up...

    Just throwing that out there...

    Everything Right is Wrong Again - TMBG (lyrics)

    by GreenPA on Tue May 20, 2014 at 04:54:23 PM PDT

  •  "Wall Street" is actually small (0+ / 0-)

    I worked there for 20 years. If it sounds like big Wall Street is afraid of Elizabeth Warren, no one should take that that she can appeal to a majority of Americans in a Presidential Election. That includes and is especially for HER. She IS what we NEED. Sorry about Obama. But he did turn out to be "caver in chief"--and there seems no stopping it as trade agreements from west and east seem to be getting fast-tracked into taking what's left of America without giving anything to the people who came hear and built the place.

    "Education Is Not the Filling of a Pail, But the Lighting of a Fire" W.B. Yeats

    by RareBird0 on Tue May 20, 2014 at 07:12:54 PM PDT

  •  WARREN: I'm not running for President. (0+ / 0-)
    SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MA (4/22/2014): I'm not running for President.

    SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MA (4/25/2014): I'm not running for President.

    SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MA (4/21/2014): I'm not running for President.

    SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MA (4/20/2014): I'm not running for President.

    Of course not, she's running for VICE President.

    Sanders/Warren 2016!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site