OT, but does anybody has an opinion on Warren running.

[Mass]

Last year, I was very excited at the idea she could run, but I have been bothered by the fact the decision seems to have largely be pushed by out of state democrats and that nobody really seems to have asked themselves if she is a good campaigner. Coakley was an excellent attorney general. She beat Brown in the debates. She still was a lousy campaigner. While I do not expect Warren to be as bad, I still have no idea how she is in campaign mode and even less of what her opinion on issues is. (cant say I was impressed that the first thing her website asked me was money either. Sure, money will help in this race, but I am not sending money yet. I will wait to know more about her).

I also think that some people are very unrealistic about the fact that people know her in MA. My personal experience in Western Mass is that most people ask: who is she? Of course, the primary is so far away that she will have the time to make herself known and hopefully her message will carry in the Western part of the state where elections are often won or lost. But given the natural that Brown is, it will be a much more difficult fight than some in the netroots think (assuming she wins the primary).

So, I am in waiting mode. There are several candidates I like and could support, hopefully her included, as I'd like to support a woman, but I need more meat.

ON EDIT: of course, bmg's current post describes her as a pure dove (without anything substantial to support it) to bash Kerry on the theme : he is not Kennedy. I am so tired about this. I'd like to hear some concrete things before starting to fawn.

[Inuca]

1. I like the idea, but

I obviously have even less information that you have. I just wanted to say that nobody, including herself, knows how good or bad a campaigner she is since AFAIK she never ran for office. From what I saw of her on TV she projects authenticity and of course intelligence, both are big pluses. More than that... we shall see. Goes without saying that I would LOOOOVE to see her take Scotty's place.

[karynnj]

2. I think your concerns are well thought out and very real

While it goes without saying that she is a woman of real substance, she has never ran for election. In addition, the only "face" any of us have seen is her doing an excellent job advocating for the consumer bureau, setting it up, and other highly technical jobs relating to Finance and economics. I saw some of the BMG threads yesterday - and Petr, who seems very thoughtful in all his posts -seemed to be saying some of the same things.

I agree with your Coakley analogy, but the one thing that might make a difference is that (I think unlike Coakley), she has an energized left wing base behind her. If Coakley would have had that energy and money behind her, I wonder if her campaign would have faltered. But, though he had run for Governor 5 times, Howard Dean shows you can't depend on just the left support -no matter how strong it is.

In the Dean case, the left latched onto a moderate governor of Vt, saw him as what they wanted to see, and while they created huge excitement on the left - his support, even with more money and more mainstream endorsements, hit a ceiling that prevented him from even coming close to winning the nomination. Mythology ignored, the reality is that in Iowa's retail politics, he got only 18%, while Kerry got 38%. This, especially as they spent a fantastic amount, - not the scream - ended Dean's real chances.

I think the primary will be interesting and -again, wish it were mush earlier. One fear would be that at least one of her opponents will push the obvious issue - that she is the choice of powers on high or push the idiotic issue that she is not from Massachusetts. Brown would then have the advantage of seeming to just be repeating something others said.

I wonder though if Brown really is as much the "natural" as is assumed. He has some flaws that could be seen over a longer time. I can't imagine how he could continue to not answer basic questions - ever. Not to voters and not even to sympathetic reporters. I would say that I don't know how the press could cover his less than admirable bad temper, but that would be ignoring that they covered for Bush for years.

I think the best hope is that when the Democrats have a nominee, he or she is seen as a credible, competent representative of MA. Then the general election could be turned into a referendum of whether they want Mitch McConnell controlling the Senate -not whothey think it would be more fun to have a beer with.

[MBS]

3. I have exactly the same concerns.

Definitely not ready to fawn.She's smart, and seems like a nice person, and I also think that it was a travesty that she was not appointed head of the new consumer bureau. But, to state the obvious, this does not make her necessarily a good candidate for senator.
Among other issues, for all her accomplishments so far, she has , to my knowledge , NO previous experience in up-close-and-personal campaigning and in electoral politics in general.
I worry about a replay of the Coakley disaster (though I have to say that the Dems can't possibly be complacent this time; everyone seems now to understand that campaigning is a necessity, and that this will be a difficult campaign that requires hard work, real outreach to voters, and political savvy, and a Coakley approach would simply not be tolerated this time around); and I worry about her appeal beyond the liberal bubbles of Cambridge and the Berkshires.

So, wait and see is also my motto.
And, yes, I also am completely tired of the s__ on Kerry from the left.

[karynnj]

5. I second you and Mass on the Kerry stuff

Someone on BMG wrote of attending one of the Warren events. The description was interesting and informative, but it ends with the Kennedy seat nonsense and suggests that Warren might become the lion. Now, at this point, she has not even declared for the Senate -so already comparing her with one of the top legislators of all time is beyond silly. To add insult to injury, they say "Our current senior Senator has neither the hunger for the right nor the rhetorical and personal power of Kennedy."

So, Kerry, who stunned the Senate at 27 with his rhetorical abilities and his eloquence, does not have the "rhetorical power" and someone he has likely never heard give a rhetorical speech does??? It makes me think of the 2 Faneuil Hall speeches I was lucky enough to see - with their many standing ovations. What makes me think that the majority of BMG people have never viewed them?

As to "hunger for the right", I am not sure of the meaning, but assuming that the poster means speaking for what is right, Kerry is easily among the best in the Senate.

As to personal power, Kerry is easily one of the 10 most powerful Senators. It is possible that given his Senate roles and his relationship with Obama, Kerry might have as much power now as Kennedy did. At any rate, it is FAR more than a freshman Senator will have.

[Blaukraut]

4. If she can get her 'Blue Collar Chops' so to speak

She could win. The trick here is to appeal to, for instance, Southies without seeming forced or fake. From what I understand, her upbringing was in a working class family, so the experience and empathy can be there.

On edit: The blue collar Democrats in MA seem to have a rather myopic view on electing women. It's an embarrassing fact that Oh SO Liberal Massachusetts has a sexist streak.

[Mass]

6. I read comments in the bmg's thread, and it seems to me that there are many people

with the same questions.

Certainly, she is an intriguing possibility, but what are her positions on issues?

[Mass]

7. Has anybody read " the two salary trap?"

For some reason, this book left me a very uncomfortable taste, not because the problem she was describing was not real, but because I don't remember whether she proposed solutions or not. I know the solutions were not obvious when I heard her interview on TV at the time, and unfortunately, the book was used by all sorts of media people to say women should not work (while I am perfectly clear she was not proposing this).

I am trying to warm up to her, but this first encounter with her is for some reason difficult to overcome, so, if somebody remember what solution she proposed, this would be very helpful.

[mloutre]

8. If she really thinks that JK is ineffective after all his years in the Senate...

...where it takes many years of seniority to get to the point where one can accomplish meaningful things -- and this despite the fact that JK already had accomplished meaningful things right out of the gate anyway, see Iran/Contra and BCCI, ahem -- then she appears to be as clueless about the way the Senate works as she is undeserving of our support in Massadamchusetts.

(Just one otter's $.02, of course. YMMV.)

[Mass]

9. Not her, the person who was posting on BMG, massmarrier,I think.

[Inuca]

10. Heard yesterday on the radio

that Boston's mayor wrote an op-ed (I think... maybe he just said it? don't remember exactly...) saying lots of nice things about Scotty boy (being a "natural" that knows how to relate to "real people" and all that nonsense) and also being very wary about Warren's appeal. It was quite infuriating actually, not so much what he said about Warren (though I like her a lot) but what he said about the minor one. All I know about him is that he is a D and has been mayor forever, nothing else.

[Mass]

11. Menino is an idiot of equal opportunity. He said the same thing about the other candidates running

for the nomination at an earlier date. And he was honest, who knows how she will perform. The fact that some activists are smitten does not mean she will be a good candidate, and her positions on most issues are simply unknown (she is pro-gay marriage and prochoice. In MA? that is bold!she is also anti-casino, but I do not know her rational) But no, he did not write an oped. He said something on TV or radio, I forgot.

At this point, I am less concerned by what he said than by the fact most people seem to ignore there is a real primary with a lot of valuable candidates. It is true nobody knows her appeal to real people (her listening tour has been talking in a few house parties by invitation only. A first test will be her speech at the AFL-CIO on Monday. We'll see if she can talk to people in a way that is appealing and not condescending).

[karynnj]

12. All I know about him beyond what you wrote is that he is really hard to understand when he speaks

because he mumbles. He should have mumbled that less coherently. He sounds like he might be trying to get on Brown's good side (who knows when he could use that) or he really is buying the "regular guy" nonsense.

I know it is unfair to take any one thing someone does, but I would have hoped that the mayor does not think that it is "natural" or "nice" for a grown man - an elected official at that - to go into a school room and repeat the f word a few times while angrily reading inappropriate things the kids posted.

Just as with Bush's ignored bad behavior, the media has given Brown a pass for his entire past, while questioning Kerry, who has been a responsible, at times heroic person for about 45 years. If the former is "real", I think we want better than "real" - even if it is not what the common man or woman would do. (With the little I know of Warren, I see that she has stood up to big interests and has made a difference - something Brown rarely does.)

If she is the candidate, I hope the focus is on what they did on the Dodd/Frank bill. She was responsible for the part that protects consumers - real people. Because he was "the 60th vote", Brown is actually UNIQUELY responsible for the the fact that about $20 Billion that would have come from a tax on the financial institutions to set up a fund that could bail a failing institution out was replaced with the money coming from the "people's money" (ie the US treasury)in the form of paid back TARP money. In essence, Scott Brown alone created a situation where the people are already on the hock if a financial House that is too big to fail does. (I conject he also made it more likely - because with the tax, they would have a vested interest in taking on less risk.)

[Mass]

13. Unfortunately, Menino is right. Brown is still popular.

He is less popular than he was a few months ago, but he is still very popular, in particular with independents. In this sense, he is no more wrong than he was a few months ago when he said the same thing. (never thought I would defend Menino, everything happens). Anyway, this does not seem to bother her, so why should it bother us, except for the reality show culture the media have created about what should be very serious issues.

As for Warren, before she is the nominee, she will have to fight a primary (or at least I hope she will). But, whoever is the nominee, what you say remains and is a good line of attack.

But it would be nice that she enters the race or get out, so that the focus stops to be on whether she would be candidate and starts being on what candidates are proposing (her website is still void of any position or proposals).

[TayTay]

14. Hi all!

Have not been away on purpose, btw. I had a number of things come up that limited my time on the computer at home. (Temp jobs suck actually. Temp jobs without access to sites like DU suck too. So does eye strain.) Anyway, I hope no one minds a return post about Ms. Warren and her near certain run for the Senate.

Scott Brown is held as a sort of sacred icon by the Republicans in MA. He is their one guy in the US Congress. MA has not had another Repub in the Congress since the middle '90's. The Repubs I know and am related to, sigh, consider it a personal offense to criticize Scotty. He is all they have in MA. It is very difficult to engage in any public discussion over Scotty with an audience that includes Repubs because their proprietary interest in him is so irrationally strong.

Scotty can be had and the Repubs know it. They know that voting was down in 2010 for that special election. From the http://gazettenet.com/2011/08/25/obama039s-predicament-and-ours?SESSfb3017638c956871695da942d4bad207=gnews">Hampshire Gazette:

The off-year elections of 2010 actually began in January, with the contest between Scott Brown and Martha Coakley for the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. In 2008 in Massachusetts, Obama had gotten 1,904,097 votes; McCain, 1,108,854. But in January 2010, Brown got 1,168,178; Coakley 1,060,861. Most of those who voted for McCain in 2008 came back. Many of Obama's voters, not attuned to off-year voting and not excited about Coakley, stayed home.

If Dems can mobilize their vote, they can win. Scott Brown is fairly popular in MA with Independents, but not hugely so. He can be had. We have to give these independents and the Dems a reason to come out and vote.

If Elizabeth Warren mobilizes out-of-state fund raising the way she wants, then I do think she can win the nomination. If she is serious about winning then her first ads are biographies that emphasize her up-from-nothing background. The fact that she is a Harvard prof is not fatal. There are many people in MA who have jobs related to education. They don't automatically demonize Harvard profs. However, they would tune out Harvard profs who talk AT them, not TO them.

I have seen Elizabeth Warren do the Daily Show and other media. This reveals a wonderful asset she has that addresses a peculiarity of the MA electorate: she is funny. She is "thinks on her feet, witty without being cruel, funny." This is no small thing in a state that tortures pols every March by making them do stand-up comedy routines to honor St. Patrick's Day. The MA electorate will respond to a woman with a warm personality who deflects criticism smartly and with wit. Funny lines are remembered and repeated and become "stories," something the MA electorate loves. I hope to Gawd she gets a staff that understands that and understands that this is a wonderful, wonderful asset, not something to be hidden behind a wall of statistics.

MA will vote for a woman who tells them a story they can feel in their hearts and understand intellectually. I am not committed in this race yet, but I do see Ms. Warren as being capable of doing this. She has a natural gift for communication, self-deprecation and good humor. IF she can manifest that on the campaign trail, it will be a wonderful asset for her. She can get elected, but first she has to run the gauntlet, as every Senate candidate does in every state, and make the electorate like her. That is key. It is also not a done deal. Much of the Bay State's campaign apparatus on the Democratic side is too intellectual at the expense of being warm and personable. (This is what killed Martha, a very capable and talented woman, btw.)

BMG itself may become a weapon against Ms. Warren. It is probably useless to say this as it never gets heard but liberals can best help Ms. Warren by letting her be herself, not turning her into walking statistics paper. Let her talk to people, tell her story of being an abused spouse, single-parent and fighting woman who beat the odds to get on the, dun-dun-dun, Harvard faculty. (This Harvard stuff works both ways. Warren broke the glass and class ceiling at Harvard. She was an poor Ok-ie who now teaches at Harvard. Handled right this makes her a "Southie girl makes good" story. That plays well here.)

We will know within two weeks how she is going to play this. Lets see how her bio introduction goes and we can tell a lot more about what will happen from that. Dougie Rubin is on Warren's staff. Dougie handled Deval Patrick in 2005 & 6 and did a great job introducing Deval to MA. He knows how to play a bio, but it remains to be seen if he will go that way for Ms Warren. I hope he does.

[karynnj]

15. Tay, great to hear from you

As always your comments are insightful. Your Republican relatives protectiveness of Brown helps me understand some of the reactions in comments in various places - from the sincere sounding unsubstantiated praise - that he is a power in the Senate, that he has already accomplished much, that he has "served" his country more than the other Senators by his one week citizen/Senator/soldier boondoggle etc to their plaintive excuses to any of his "lesser" moments, where they respond by reciting a canonical list of Democratic transgressions - in comparison to the pure Scott Brown. (I actually wish the Democrats - anywhere - had a similar protection Democrats who have been proven over decades to be on their side.)

It will be interesting to see what her opening ads are - and, if they are similar to what you recommend, how not usually political independents respond to her. As to showing her humor, it does seem that she has a great sense of humor and I would suspect that she will greatly exceed expectations on this - partly because many will not expect her to be funny. Brown may actually be the opposite - in that expectations will be higher and he seems VERY thin skinned.

The Democratic primary could be really interesting - and many of those running seem to be very capable, interesting people, who have not really ever had the spotlight. One of them will get that spotlight when they win the nomination.

[Mass]

16. Well, she is running.

Now, let's see if she can talk about something else than the middle class. This is such a vague term, and there are so many people who are below this (whether they think they are for it or not) and need a lot more than consumer protection (as important as this is). So, now is the time for her to state her to state her positions. Most people define this between poverty level and $150,000 or more. We have to understand that the issues are not the same in these two cases. I know Ms Warren understands this, but if she could stop talking the correct language and have a little bit of honesty and straight talking, it would be nice (her and Dems in general).

I know I rain on the parade, but, as much as I was excited by Deval Patrick very early on, I cannot get excited here. Of course, if she wins this primary, she will be a million times better than the Lesser Senator, but at this point, I need to hear more (and have to say the accolades are tiring me).