RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Politi writes: "No doubt disappointing many progressive Democrats, Sen. Elizabeth Warren repeated several times on Sunday that she isn't running for president in 2020. But she did leave herself some wiggle room in the answer."

Senator Elizabeth Warren. (photo: AP)
Senator Elizabeth Warren. (photo: AP)

Elizabeth Warren Says She Isn't Running for President in 2020

By Daniel Politi, Slate

12 March 18


o doubt disappointing many progressive Democrats, Sen. Elizabeth Warren repeated several times on Sunday that she isn’t running for president in 2020. But she did leave herself some wiggle room in the answer. The senator from Massachusetts appeared in three Sunday talk shows—CNN’s State of the Union, Fox News Sunday, and NBC’s Meet the Press—and was asked about her future political plans.

“I am not running for president of the United States. I am running for the United States Senate. 2018. Massachusetts—woohoo,” the senator said on NBC. She repeated the same thing on CNN: “I am not running for president in 2020.” Throughout the interviews, Warren insisted Democrats can’t just be seen as a party that suddenly cares about politics every four years.

NBC’s Chuck Todd repeatedly pressed Warren about whether she would be serving her full six-year term if she wins in November and she constantly refused to do so, suggesting there could be something up her sleeve. “So no pledge, though, on the six years?” Todd asked for the last time. “I am not running for president,” Warren answered.

Todd also asked Warren about a call from a Massachusetts newspaper that she take a DNA test to prove her Native American heritage. “I know who I am and never used it for anything,” Warren said. “Never got any benefit from it anywhere.” The Berkshire Eagle called on Warren to take the test, noting that the issue had become an “Achilles’ heel” for the senator.

In the interviews on Sunday, Warren made clear her family history is more important to her than what a DNA test might say. “It’s a part of me, and nobody’s going to take that part of me away,” she said, without actually answering the question directly. “It’s about my family’s story. Because my family’s story is deeply a part of me and a part of my brothers,” Warren said after CNN’s Jim Acosta also asked Warren if she gets upset when President Trump calls her “Pocahontas.”. “It’s what we learned from our parents. It’s what we learned from our grandparents. It’s what we learned from our aunts and uncles.” your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+26 # bread and butter 2018-03-12 11:44
Sanders / Warren 2020!

HINT: SANDERS: Pick Warren as your running mate.
+2 # dbrize 2018-03-12 12:58
Quoting bread and butter:
Sanders / Warren 2020!

HINT: SANDERS: Pick Warren as your running mate.

Why not Gabbard? The real deal.

Warren is decent on banks though I doubt she would oppose the FED. She has actually defended it during the audit debate.

Elsewhere she has generally tap danced around the national security state, done her fealty to the Likudniks and I'm aware of no sign that she is ready to stand up to the MIC.
+2 # bread and butter 2018-03-13 09:32
Gabbard is pretty military herself. She's done some dancing too, when it's come to warmongering.

She's a bit all over the map on foreign policy. She opposed the TPP, but has no problem with our relationship with India, for example.

She only opposed the Iraq war, because "we weren't clear about our goals".


We gotta vote for SOMEBODY.
+3 # dbrize 2018-03-13 12:26
Agree there are no perfect politicians anywhere.

And she most surely should be vetted thoroughly on the Syrian/Israeli Mideast partnership and her support for a Hindu minority party in India.

While we await more disclosure, I'll take her word expressed position on wars of choice and regime change:

"We need to learn from Iraq and Libya – wars that were propagated as necessary to relieve human suffering, but actually increased human suffering many times over,”...

“I and thousands of my brothers- and sisters-in-arms went to war in Iraq based on false intelligence and lies from our leaders – our president, military, and political leaders. We should have been skeptical then, and we weren’t,”...

"There is a reason our Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war: we should be shown the evidence and given the opportunity to debate the strategy and sacrifice expected. No leader – of either party, pro or against military intervention – should let our President take us down the path to another regime change war without that debate,”...

Tulsi Gabbard
+2 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-03-12 13:19
I think that would be a winning ticket for sure and in spite of opposition by both republicans and democrats. I think the Deep State would put an end to a Sanders/Warren ticket with extreme prejudice. They would not allow it.
+4 # bread and butter 2018-03-13 09:26
Note to Sanders & Warren:

0 # jimallyn 2018-03-13 00:38
No. Absolutely not.
+2 # jimallyn 2018-03-13 00:46
Great, she's not running for president. Now, if only we could get her to start acting like a genuine progressive. You know, endorse progressives when they run for president, instead of endorsing their conservative opponent. Vote against spending 700 billion dollars a year on killing poor brown people in far away places. No, I suppose that's just too much to ask.
+2 # bread and butter 2018-03-13 09:24
Yeah. It is.
+3 # librarian1984 2018-03-13 09:24
Respectfully disagree with b&b on this one. Applaud the spirit but not the choice. Acknowledging someone else may emerge in the next two years, Sanders should go with Gabbard, Nina Turner, Barbara Lee or ??

Warren is in her 70s. Sanders should pick a younger running mate.

Secondly, Warren isn't a solid progressive and she's not a leader. She waited to endorse in the primaries, waited to support DAPL protestors etc. But she would be an AMAZING Treasury Secretary. There is no denying her devotion to helping regular people or her knowledge, and her deliberative nature is more suitable to that position imo.
-4 # Robbee 2018-03-13 11:01
Quoting jimallyn 2018-03-13 00:46:
Great, she's not running for president. Now, if only we could get her to start acting like a genuine progressive.

- not another true, oops, genuine, progressive? a pox on all self-indulgent progressives! they throw everybody else under the bus!

now, another voice -
It’s not easy to stand up to the big banks. They have power everywhere in Washington, and they are used to getting their way.

So I want to recommend five Democratic senators who have been fighting their hearts out for you (last) week: Sherrod Brown from Ohio, Tammy Baldwin from Wisconsin, Bob Casey from Pennsylvania, and Amy Klobuchar and our new Senator Tina Smith from Minnesota.

(They've been) trying to stop the Senate’s dangerous “Bank Lobbyist Act” to roll back Wall Street reform.

They remember the millions of people who lost their jobs, their homes, and their life savings due to Wall Street’s reckless greed – and they’ve fought back for working families all across the country.

It would have been easy for any of these five Senators to just go along with the big Wall Street banks. The Republicans (had) the votes to pass their bill.

All five of them have tough, expensive re-election campaigns this November in states that Donald Trump either won or almost won in 2016. Their campaigns are fueled by the people they fight for every day: working people across the country.

Thanks for being a part of this,

+1 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-03-12 13:01
I saw a headline about someone demanding a DNA test to see if Warren is really part Native American. Who could be asking this? Was it republicans trying to scare her out of running in 2020. Or was it right-wing Democrats?

I doubt if DNA could really tell such a thing. Maybe Warren knows what we all know -- the 2020 election will be the dirtiest in all human history. It will make 2016 look nice. Opposition research firms like Fusion GPS are probably already building files on potential candidates.

Trump seems to be running. He's got a lot of balls. The Russiagators will have saved their worst ammunition for 2020.

In the end, it does not matter who sleeps in the White House. The CIA and Deep State make all the decisions anyway. Presidents are just figure heads or puppets whose main job is to talk to the proles and keep them quiet and saluting the flag.
+1 # bread and butter 2018-03-13 09:35
No. DNA won't tell that. An entire Native America community was asked to take part in one of those tests, and GUESS WHAT?

NONE of them "were Native American"!

They ALL had "Middle-Eastern ancestry".

I'm partially Native American. This is a fact.

I also have a brother who was tested, and found out we "have relatives all over the Middle-East" (where NONE of our ancestors came from), but NO Native American lineage.

The DNA tests are meaningless.

Scientists have been saying that for the past several years, but that fact's not getting in the way of any of the TV commercials.
+1 # Benign Observer 2018-03-13 12:26
And supposedly there is fine print that gives the company rights to your DNA after you die.
+3 # bread and butter 2018-03-13 19:38
You just nailed why I will never submit mine.

We're living in 1984, and it's so invidious that people don't seem to even have a clue.

It's like 1984, if it were co-written by Marshall McLuhan.
0 # Benign Observer 2018-03-14 10:09
I would love to know my ancestry but there is NO WAY I would send anyone my dna.

I worry about 'kids today', who have little concept of privacy. I have a hard time seeing that having a happy ending. If WE were all transparent and the GOVERNMENT was totally transparent, maybe, but not this bs we have now.
-2 # Robbee 2018-03-13 19:18
Quoting bread and butter 2018-03-13 09:35:
No. DNA won't tell that. An entire Native America community was asked to take part in one of those tests, and GUESS WHAT?

NONE of them "were Native American"!

They ALL had "Middle-Eastern ancestry".

- is that a fact? comrade?

does anybody believe crap you peddle here?

you love putin, and, every once in awhile, you author a read doozy! - i call fake news! - from russia with love!

# bread and butter 2018-02-23 01:08
The function of a troll is to sew discord and spread lies.

Quoting BetaTheta 2018-03-10 10:22:
Whether or not GOP people knew it, the fact remains that Russian operatives were pulling a lot of strings to get Trump elected

Quoting bread and butter 2018-03-10 12:21:
What strings did they pull? Trolling isn't pulling strings. Tell me what I've been missing.

# Robbee 2018-02-23 16:34
Quoting bread and butter:
I agree. I saw the anti-Hillary trolls everywhere. Of course, they posed as PRO-Hillary trolls … because they were sick of the blue pantsuit, or because they were Russians and were afraid of her warmongering attitudes toward Syria, Iran and Russia itself.

remarkably, orwellian b&b spins putin’s promotion of dickhead for prez as - “anti-Hillary trolls everywhere … posed as PRO-Hillary trolls … because they were Russians and were afraid of her warmongering attitudes toward … Russia itself”

- news or nonsense? read b&b newsprint with rubber gloves!
0 # Benign Observer 2018-03-14 10:11
I think there's a village missing it's idiot.

Unless, egads, you're OUR village idiot.
+2 # librarian1984 2018-03-13 09:41
I think this is part of the reason neither party is calling for genuine election reform. Both agree they want all tools available to keep someone like Sanders out of power.

While I agree with your last statement I'd like to try one more experiment -- let's see if Sanders can accomplish something. If he becomes POTUS and succumbs to the ds I will give up the fight.

Five of the six states Sanders just visited are considered red. He has the right idea. This fight is about economics and class warfare, and it's in all 50 states.

I hope Warren's treatment by the Democrats will push her farther left. They are complaining about her calling out the seventeen who just voted to gut bank regulations.
0 # rxfxworld 2018-03-12 18:17
Any comment from Chief Little Hands is immediately irrelevant.
+6 # rxfxworld 2018-03-12 18:20
Tell the Berkshire eagle that Sen Warren will take a DNA test as soon as Trump reveals his tax returns for the past 10 years.
+4 # tedrey 2018-03-12 20:43
Here we go again. Warren would be wasted as Vice President. Senate Majority Leader would be more like it.
+1 # bread and butter 2018-03-13 09:37
What Senate is going to elect her as Majority Leader? You must be thinking of a parallel universe where Democrats are largely liberal on most matters.
-4 # janie1893 2018-03-13 00:43
Senator Warren--pick Senator Sanders as your running mate!!
+1 # bread and butter 2018-03-13 09:39
Ummm. She's not running for President. You read that, right?
+5 # PABLO DIABLO 2018-03-13 01:57
It's refreshing to hear an intelligent voice in the wilderness of the media.
+1 # Forbes 2018-03-13 08:36
I am a big fan of hers - would have voted for her if she were running for President or on ticket as VP. But we need her to stay in the Senate. I really do not want any Democrat in House or Senate to lose that seat to become President. Biden with a strong female who was a govenernor, or former member of comgress, or an ambassador like Col Ann Wright would be a winner.
+2 # librarian1984 2018-03-13 09:49
Obama said he wasn't going to run in 2008 either. It's meaningless. When she's IN a Senate race she can't afford to say she won't finish her term, and if past is prologue she'll wait too long to decide.

There are better places for Sen. Warren than VP.

This slight media buzz reflects a media obsession with the horse race. The 'news' is all about hype, clicks, races and pundits, with little regard for substance, policy or actual news.

One would have thought with 24 hours a day to fill, in-depth reporting might have been one way to go, but apparently not.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.