Elizabeth Warren

I'm a progressive democrat, and have the deepest admiration for E. Warren. What bothers me, is the growing antagonism that has been made to exist between Hillary supporters and Warren supporters. 1st) Warren respects and admires Hillary. 2nd) Hillary is, as yet, the favored candidate for our party. So, why the antagonism? Why are we hoping that Hillary "represents herself," as a progressive democrat? I smell the republicans here. A president has a vastly different burden than any other high government official. He/she, must lead the entire country. It follows, that relatively centrist candidates will have a built in advantage for gaining the White House. So, why the demand that Hillary give us "bold" views for her campaign. This issue will be resolved in each of our cases, when we answer the question, does Warren have equal chances of winning the Presidency, or better chances, or worse chances? This is a question that has not yet been presented to Elizabeth. What I want from a democratic president, is that he/she takes the "opportunity" given them by their elevated office, to gradually change, encourage, the public, in a more liberal direction. How can this be achieved? The president can do this, by instituting progressive programs that are beneficial to the general public. But, the obligation to vote for, whomever the dem. candidate becomes, is a life and death obligation. I have voted democratic since I was minimally able to see the striking differences between the two parties. I will not vote for republicans under any circumstances.
When I vote for a democrat, he/she may not be the strongest dem, but will bring in the entire dem party, along with him.

The only people that benefit from hostility between Hillary and Elizabeth, or Saunders, or whomever, are republicans. People often pretend that Nader's interference in the Gore campaign was not decisive in putting Bush in office. Nonsense. It was a factor, not the only factor, but a factor nevertheless. It helped Bush that Nader demanded a more progressive campaign from Gore. Gore also wanted a more progressive outlook to gradually become the norm in our country, but knew with certainty, that it couldn't be forced on a public, much more conservative than it would be, if we could achieve more dem victories in the country. Our country is much more conservative than it should be. But that isn't because a handful of dem politicians don't attempt more "progressive" campaigns when they aspire to office. It's because "we," have failed to do our part to fight. Demanding greatly more progressive "campaign" platforms, when those programs inevitably fail, because voters fear "radicals, is self-defeating and selfish." If you're a dem, not willing to put your support behind Hillary, if she's our nominee, you don't understand politics. I love Warren, but, and this is ultimately the most important matter, she wouldn't have the ghost of a chance against republican politicians that would destroy her with accusations of radicalism, and, you can be certain, that network media would help the republicans make that charge stick.