Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Would vote for her in a heartbeat but I wonder if she feels like she will be torn apart by rightwing media digging through her past as the "pocohontas" comment alluded to.

If only she had joined Bernie as his running mate during the primary, things might be quite different today. Maybe next time.
The right going after her full bore is nothing new, but who knows what skeletons might be hiding.

That's the great thing about Trump; he's set the trend that skeletons don't matter. I think if Warren runs, she'll bag it easily.

The problem with the Democrat run last time was dismissing Trump's support and why it existed. Warren sounds like she could use that to her advantage next time around.

Personally I think she could be the best potus in a long, long time.

It seems that way, but that's only true for idiots that, as he said, would have voted for him if he blatantly murdered random strangers in the street. Under no circumstances would those people vote for Warren, even though they totally agree with her positions.

Normal, reasonable people, the kind that would vote for Warren, still consider many things as disquaifiers, including many things Trump has done in his first 100 days. We would have voted to impeach over the investigations of Trump and his campaign, and a vote of no confidence, halting any of his plans until the investigations are concluded, because he might be a foreign agent.

I think he won because the DNC chose a candidate that was 100% unacceptable to Republicans, or right learners, or centrists, or real progressives (and she personally blew it with pandering bullshit obfuscation like "I support $15 an hour,..................... but I don't support a $15 an hour minimum wage"), and totally screwed over and dismissed independents in the process, ensuring they wouldn't get the votes she needed.

I think that by standing with Hillary instead of with Bernie, she signaled that she's willing to play ball with the party establishment that Hillary was a product of. That is, a party that would prop up a candidate who would "say anything, and change nothing," and govern for corporations and the wealthy, etc.

The Democratic Party imploding in on itself over Bernie's popularity was a major factor in getting Trump elected. In a way, Trump could never have become president without Hillary....

I really like Warren, but I worry that the DNC would neuter everything they can from what she's stood for and spoken out about during her political career; I worry that they would make her words hollow.

Hmm. I really like her, but I'm a little bit concerned about her reaction to some of Maher's quips/questions:

A) The Pocahontas thing seemed to really throw her off. I don't think Maher said it with any malice; just to remind her that there are some unreachable people who will vote Republican no matter what.

B) Maher was asking a very legitimate question (multiple times) when he was trying to get her to explain what the DNC needs to do differently to get people that agree with Democrat / Progressive policies to follow through with actual votes. She had no real answers beyond politician-speak.

C) As a further example of that, she took it a bit personally when Maher noted that people like her but clearly didn't like Hillary. Well, she needs to come to terms with that. Hillary was the wrong choice for the DNC, and Warren was right there along with most of her party in attempting to prop up that mistake. Warren needs to acknowledge and accept that, or she will fail to learn an extremely important lesson from it. If she gets taken off the Clinton's Christmas card list, so be it.

I know that Maher didn't mean to offend her and that he was just alluding to Trump's comments, but I still found it kinda unsavoury.

It's a bit like calling a black politician "uncle tom". Sure, you might not mean anything by it (other than those other guys are awful and they'll call you names), but I'm not surprised she took offence at it.

It would be like calling a black politician "Uncle Tom" if the opposition had been doing it first.

Trump has been relentless with his little jabs if he smells blood in the water. "Little Marco", etc. Taking offence is precisely what Trump wants to see. Maher arguably gave her a chance to own it and show that it didn't bother her, but she didn't take it.

My take is that Warren was expecting softball. Maher got a bit impatient with her going full tilt with politician-speak and threw a changeup. By the end of the interview he seems to regret having prodded her a bit. But the thing is, that interview was softball compared to what she'd face if she runs in 2020. Then, interviewers won't throw changeups, it'll be chin-music fastballs instead.

The thing is it clearly DID bother her and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Rather than saying that was "was softball compared to what she'd face if she runs in 2020", we should expect a higher level of political discourse.

Trump can't be allowed to become the norm, and sinking to his level (even if only to mock him) just further entrenches that behaviour.

Otherwise, we really WILL end up with idiocracy.

Trump has sunk political discourse to new lows, I agree. But I think she'd suffer worse slings and arrows than "Pocahontas" no matter who her opponent is. That's the game and it always has been. She's got to "man up" and anticipate a certain amount of mud being slung her way. Hillary Clinton, for all her faults, would never be caught unaware by a provoking one-liner like that.

Or as another example, think about Bernie Sanders, in the Democratic primary. From his own party; not yet from archfiend Trump. Sanders' own party called him a kook, didn't take him seriously, and harped on the "socialist" charge that they presumed would be a rallying standard against him for Republicans, etc. But I don't remember him showing any discomfort with that or letting on that it was getting to him.


I really do like Warren, but it is of paramount importance for any Presidential candidate to develop a thick enough skin to weather the smear campaign that is guaranteed to be headed their way. And this small throwaway interview isn't a sign that she can't get there, but it is a sign that she's still got plenty of work to do if she has those aspirations. Based on that, at this point I'd feel better if Sanders was the heir apparent (although that seems very unlikely given the current heads-up-asses state of the DNC). But Warren definitely has plenty of time to get to where she needs to be.