Official Elizabeth Warren Thread


Support BGOL
Senator Elizabeth Warren Speaks on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) - Feb 26 2015



Superstar *****
BGOL Investor

The Wall Street, oligarch & corporate controlled, Democratic party elected officials are at the urging of Billary, brainstorming to find ways to debilitate and neutralize Senator Elizabeth Warren. The neo-liberals DINO'S (Democrats In Name Only) want her to shut-up and stop talking about "The Game Is Rigged". They want her to shut-up about the revolving door of individuals shuffling between high level positions at the - U.S. Treasury, the S.E.C., the F.D.I.C., the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)- and top Wall street firms; an incestuous relationship. They want her to shut up about the fact that Wall street pays its executives who are leaving for a high level job at the agencies listed above, who are supposed to regulate :( Wall street, millions-of-dollars in <s>"thank-you"</s> bribes immediately prior to that executive going through the revolving door and joining the Government. So far despite a recent 'private' meeting with Billary, they have been unable to con, seduce, bribe, cajole or intimidate Warren to "fall-in-line", shut her mouth and work for the coronation of Billary. Stay tuned.

Originally posted July-23-2014
Elizabeth Warren's chance of becoming POTUS is slim to none, and slim is locked nude in a temperature controlled, 40 degrees Fahrenheit, padded cell at Git-mo being force feed daily by the U.S. military.

She is NOT a neo-liberal corporate Democratic party member INSIDER - like Billary Clinton

In 2012 Scott Brown received more Wall Street financial industry money in his failed U.S. Senate bid against Elizabeth Warren than than anyone running for Congress that year. ALL OF the corporate Democratic party money, from Wall Street and others that went to Obama in 2008 went to Warren's RepubliKlan opponent Scott Brown in 2012

In a chapter from her latest book she recounts how neo-liberal consummate Democratic party Wall Street insider, former Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers told her before her US Senate run how rigged the "system" would be against anyone not on the inside like herself. He was recruiting her to become another - useless-to-the average-citizen-interested-in-a-participatory-democracy - corporate Democrat. He did then and certainly does now, view her as one-of-those - "fucking retarded liberal Democrats" - that former white house chief of staff Rham Emanuel lamented about in 2009. The chapter from the book “A Fighting Chance” is below.

<img src="" width="175">

25% of American adults have not read a single book in the past year; they haven't cracked a paperback, fired up a Kindle, or even hit play on an audiobook while in the car. The number of non-book-readers has nearly tripled since 1978! READ- HERE

Insiders Don’t Criticize Insiders

By the time our February report came out, America had a new president. This might have been a moment for a new direction in economic policy and a chance to rethink the bailout strategy. But the crisis was still accelerating, and the economy remained on the edge of collapse.

After his election, President-elect Barack Obama had quickly signaled that the new administration would continue Paulson’s strategy, especially with his choice for a new Treasury secretary: Tim Geithner. As head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Geithner had worked as a regulator of the Wall Street banks for years, and in 2007 he had been approached about becoming CEO of Citibank. He was experienced with bailouts, too: in the spring of 2008, he had managed the rescue of Bear Stearns, and as the markets collapsed in the fall of 2008, he had worked alongside Secretary Paulson to engineer the bailout for insurance giant AIG.

The COP panelists met with the new secretary a few times during his early months on the job. In mid-March, the story broke that AIG had paid $168 million in bonuses—bonuses that would go to employees in the very same division that had brought the company to its knees. People were furious; one Republican senator called for the AIG executives to either “resign or go commit suicide.” COP was expanding its investigations, and we were starting to make a stir about what we saw as the shortcomings of Treasury’s approach on the bailout.

I started hearing that many Washington insiders were surprised (and some were aggravated) that we were going just as hard on the Democratic administration as we had on the Republicans, but I wasn’t going to stop and worry about that.

In early April, I got a call from the office of Larry Summers. I didn’t know Larry well, but I’d met him a few times while he was president of Harvard in the early 2000s. According to reports, Larry had been Tim Geithner’s mentor when they were both in the Treasury Department in the 1990s. Now Larry was the director of the National Economic Council, which meant that, along with Secretary Geithner, he advised President Obama on economic issues.

Would I be interested in meeting him for dinner? Sure, I replied. Larry’s office suggested the Bombay Club, an Indian restaurant near the White House. Quiet and softly lit, it served Washington’s power elite. When Larry arrived for our dinner, he ordered a Diet Coke as soon as he sat down. He glanced at the menu, ordered quickly, and soon the food started coming. It was a long dinner, with plenty of intense back-and-forth about everything from the bailout, to deregulation, to the foreclosure crisis. I also talked to Larry about an idea I’d been working on for a new consumer financial agency, and he seemed interested. We didn’t agree on everything, but I give Larry full credit: I’ll take honest conversation and debate any day of the week over the duck-and-cover stuff I so often saw in Washington that spring.

Late in the evening, Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice. By now, I’d lost count of Larry’s Diet Cokes, and our table was strewn with bits of food and spilled sauces.
<span style="background-color: #FFFF00"><b>
Larry’s tone was in the friendly-advice category. He teed it up this way: I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People—powerful people—listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don’t criticize other insiders. I had been warned.</b></span>

READ the entire book, epub & mobi




Support BGOL
source: TPM

Fox Business Host: Wall Street Thinks Elizabeth Warren Is 'The Devil'

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) got the #Outnumbered treatment.

Fox Business News host Melissa Francis, appearing on Tuesday's edition of Outnumbered, said that donors on Wall Street are likely to flock to Hillary Clinton over Warren if the two Democrats decided to run for president because they thinks Warren "is the devil."

"And I can tell you from talking to people in the financial industry, in banking, on Wall Street, they think she is actually the devil," Francis said. "I mean, without question, Elizabeth Warren is the devil. So they're going to put any money they have behind Hillary Clinton, which should be a help."

Francis has a history of criticizing Democrats. In fact, she once said she was silenced on CNBC for her commentary on Obamacare.

Those comments came after a fortnight in which Warren dominated headlines for railing against a provision in a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill that rolled back aspects of Dodd-Frank. She also bashed CitiGroup in a speech on Friday.

Warren urged other lawmakers to oppose the spending bill until the provision was removed but in the end the provision remained in teh bill that passed Congress.
Warren has made purging the federal government of dangerous Wall Street ties her signature issue. She's also been leading the charge against the Obama administration's nominee for under secretary of the Treasury, despite the nominee, Antonio Weiss's, background in Democratic circles. Warren argues that his banking resume and involvement in a corporate tax merger weighs him down from meeting the minimum requirements to get the job.

Watch the clip, via Raw Story below:

<iframe src="" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>


Superstar *****
BGOL Investor

The video above contains a extremely RARE occurrence in the U.S. Senate chambers.
A U.S. Senator actually rigorously questions a CEO Wall St. Bankster about fraud— financial malfeasance — and doesn't suck his dick.
She in-plain-language illuminates the scam that he had his top executives perpetuate that put $200,000,000 in his pocket and millions more in his top executives pockets.

Think about this!
All of the myriad of Financial Wall.St. Bankster firms that have contributed in aggregate millions $$$$$$$$ of dollars to Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign and her affiliated Super-PACs;
EVERY ONE of these firms opposed Sen. Warren's election bid when she ran and won her Massachusetts US Senate seat. They all contributed $$$$$ to her RepubliKlan opponent Scott Brown who was their lackey and slave-bitch.

Warren decided early on in her career as an elected official that she would NOT become a member of the bought and paid for slave-bitch elected officials that dominate Washington D.C.
Politicians that participate in the pay-to-play system.
Politicians who accept campaign contributions Bribes for their votes.
  • Like
Reactions: MCP


Super Moderator
Fox News hosts just lost it on national TV in their desperation to call out Elizabeth Warren

Fox News LOSES IT over Elizabeth Warren drinking beer

BREAKING: Fox News hosts just lost it on national TV in their desperation to call out Elizabeth Warren for drinking beer. This is as sad as it gets…


Support BGOL
source: Time

Elizabeth Warren's New $7 Billion Plan Aims to Support Entrepreneurs of Color

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), speaks during a New Hampshire organizing event for her 2020 presidential exploratory committee on Jan. 12, 2019 in Manchester, New Hampshire

People of color only own 18% of businesses with paid employees, despite making up about 40% of the U.S. population, according to the Census Bureau.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, to nobody’s surprise, has a plan to fix that.

If elected President, the Massachusetts Democrat says she would invest $7 billion in funding to provide grants for non-wealthy entrepreneurs, according to her Medium post published Friday morning.

Grants would be limited to entrepreneurs with less than $100,000 in household wealth, Warren writes, citing that the figure is roughly five times the median worth of black and Latino families, and more than 10 times the median net worth of Native American families.

People of color only own 18% of businesses with paid employees, despite making up about 40% of the U.S. population, according to the Census Bureau.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, to nobody’s surprise, has a plan to fix that.

If elected President, the Massachusetts Democrat says she would invest $7 billion in funding to provide grants for non-wealthy entrepreneurs, according to her Medium post published Friday morning.

Grants would be limited to entrepreneurs with less than $100,000 in household wealth, Warren writes, citing that the figure is roughly five times the median worth of black and Latino families, and more than 10 times the median net worth of Native American families.

“The small business gap is another example of how the racial wealth gap in America holds back our economy and hurts Black, Latinx, Native American, and other minority families and communities,” she wrote. “Because the government helped create that wealth gap with decades of sanctioned discrimination, the government has an obligation to address it head on.”

Warren estimates the program could translate into as many as 100,000 new minority-owned businesses, and therefore create over a million new jobs.

But that’s not all the progressive 2020 candidate will do, she writes.

“We need to do more. We have to recognize that even if we fully close the gap in startup capital, deep systemic issues will continue to tilt the playing field against entrepreneurs of color,” Warren says.

She also says she will direct federal retirement and pension plans to recruit more diverse investment planners, and triple the budget of the Minority Business Development Agency — an existing agency that promotes the growth of minority-owned businesses.

In the past few months, Warren has released other proposals that would grant extremely low-income families free childcare, erase student loan debt for millions of Americans, and address the opioid crisis. In April, she also announced a plan to base bonuses for hospitals on their maternal health outcomes, which are disproportionately poor among women of color.

While many of those plans would help some marginalized voters, this one could have a larger effect across the board. That might be smart politics for Warren, who has surged in some recent national polls overall, though is currently facing tougher odds among voters of color.

A new UC Berkeley-Los Angeles Times poll found Warren in second place with 18% of likely Democratic primary voters — nearing former Vice President Biden’s 22%, and just ahead of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 17%.

Meanwhile, a recent poll conducted for the Black Economic Alliance showed 76% of African American Democrats who responded were “enthusiastic” or “comfortable” with Biden, versus only 42% who said they felt that way about Warren. Sens. Sanders, Kamala Harris and Cory Booker ranked in between the two.

According to Warren’s Medium post, the Small Business Equity Fund would be paid for by her ultra-millionaire tax: a 0.2% wealth tax levied on Americans with assets over $50 million.


Support BGOL
source: Mother Jones

The 2020 Race Could Revive a Bitter Feud Between Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren

If he enters the race, the former vice president could find himself defending his middle-class credentials over an old bankruptcy reform effort.

Joe Biden was outraged. In February 2005, after eight years of starts and stops, the Senate was finally moving forward on a landmark overhaul of the nation’s bankruptcy laws—a bipartisan behemoth piece of legislation, backed by big banks and credit card companies, that the Delaware senator had taken a lead role in shepherding. But at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s public hearing on the bill, one of the witnesses had said something about his home state that Biden couldn’t let stand.

The witness’ specific concern was Delaware’s unique status as the venue of choice for large corporations filing for bankruptcy. Companies understood that the courts there (where many of the companies were nominally incorporated) were more likely to take their side against creditors, such as employee pension plans. And the venue-shopping opened up a broader issue of access; massive companies such as Enron could choose a forum thousands of miles away from where their employees lived, effectively shutting the workers out of the process. The Delaware option allowed companies to “escape the obligation to make the process open,” the witness said, while the millions of individuals filing for personal bankruptcy every year had no such luxury.

“I find the language that is used kind of fascinating—‘escape from the obligation to be open,’” Biden said in response. Was this witness suggesting “that the Delaware chancery court is not open, is somehow an unfair court? I find it outrageous, such a statement.”

“Maybe you can tell me,” he asked. “Is it not a competent court? Is it not an open court?”

Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard Law School bankruptcy professor who had been testifying vigorously against the bill for more than an hour, replied, “Are you asking me, senator?”

“Well, yes,” Biden said. “You are the one that said ‘escape the obligation of making the process open.’”

“Actually, senator, bankruptcy cases are not heard in Delaware chancery court.”

Biden quickly corrected himself—bankruptcy cases are heard in bankruptcy court—but the exchange was emblematic of things to come. For the next 14 minutes, running well over Biden’s allotted time for questioning, he and Warren debated the role of government in a way that felt personal.

It was not the first time the pair had clashed, and it wouldn’t be the last. Long before their Capitol Hill clash, Warren called out Biden by name in op-eds and in her first book, accusing him of carrying water for the big corporations that called his state home and kept his campaign coffers full.

The bankruptcy fight was a pivotal moment for both Warren and Biden, who have each built a political brand based on a defense of the American middle class. Biden is fond of saying that he talks about working families so often his colleagues called him “Middle-Class Joe.” (Exactly who has ever called him that is a mystery.) Warren’s 2017 book was subtitled “The Battle to Save America’s Middle Class.” But there’s a key difference. In Warren’s telling, politicians like Joe Biden are exactly who the middle class needs protection from. And as the 2020 Democratic presidential campaign slowly heats up, the two may be on a collision course once more.

The primary point of conflict between Warren and Biden has been bankruptcy reform, which was accomplished with Biden’s 2005 bill. Though the law was enormously complex, its most important consequence was simple—the legislation made it harder for millions of Americans who had fallen into debt and who sought relief through bankruptcy to break free from their obligations. At the same time, the bill entitled creditors, such as car companies or mortgage lenders, to an even greater share of their assets.

Warren, whose research at Harvard focused on the causes of individual bankruptcy, had allies in her fight against Biden’s bill. Women’s groups, including the National Organization for Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund, opposed the measure because of the disparate impact it would have on women, who made up a rapidly increasing percentage of all personal bankruptcy filings. The legislation also made it harder for single mothers to collect child support from bankrupt exes, by strengthening protections for other creditors.

Some of the same women’s groups that were fighting the bill had previously elevated the Delaware senator to exalted status because of his work passing the Violence Against Women Act. And that’s what made Biden’s support for the measure so grating to Warren.

Warren first began publicly taking on Biden in 2002, when she wrote a paper for the Harvard Women’s Law Journal suggesting that his position on bankruptcy had been effectively bought.

“His energetic work on behalf of the credit card companies has earned him the affection of the banking industry and protected him from any well-funded challengers for his Senate seat,” she wrote. With a touch of snark, she added, “This important part of Senator Biden’s legislative work also appears to be missing from his Web site and publicity releases.”

And in a New York Times op-ed that year she called the bankruptcy bill “unconscionable,” singling out Biden for his work on it. “Apparently many politicians believe they can remove the last safety net for families facing financial disaster (many of which are led by women) so long as they can find another highly visible issue that lets them proclaim their support for women,” she wrote.

She took on Biden again in The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers & Fathers Are Going Broke, the best-selling 2003 book she co-authored with her daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi. “Women’s issues are not just about childbearing or domestic violence,” they wrote. “More women with children will search for a bankruptcy lawyer than will seek subsidized day care. And in a statistic with special significance for Senator Biden, more women will be victimized by predatory lenders than will seek protection from an abusive husband or boyfriend.”

Warren and Tyagi continued, “The point is not to discredit other worthy causes or to pit one disadvantaged group against another. Nor would we suggest that battered women deserve less help or that subsidized day care is unimportant. The point is simply that family economics should not be left to giant corporations and paid lobbyists, and senators like Joe Biden should not be allowed to sell out women in the morning and be heralded as their friend in the evening.”

So by the time they faced off at the Hart Senate Office Building in February 2005, Warren had been attacking Biden for years. After the initial affaired’honneur over Delaware’s court system, Biden laid out his philosophical objection to Warren’s central criticism. If Americans really were drowning in debt for excusable and troubling reasons—the fraying of the social safety net, a broken health care system, predatory lending—as Warren believed, then perhaps what she should really be advocating was for the government to foot the bill—and not leave the creditors hanging.

“We are going to ask the gas company, the drugstore, the automobile dealer to pay for the broken system instead of having the nerve to come and say it is a moral obligation of a nation to pay for that broken system,” he said.

Warren—citing the example of a woman who had borrowed $2,200 from a lender and paid back $2,100 but, because of high interest rates, still owed $2,600 at the time of her bankruptcy—responded that some companies had made more than their share. And this exchange followed.

BIDEN: Maybe we should talk about usury rates, then. Maybe that is what we should be talking about, not bankruptcy.

WARREN: Senator, I will be the first. Invite me.

BIDEN: I know you will, but let’s call a spade a spade. Your problem with credit card companies is usury rates from your position. It is not about the bankruptcy bill.

WARREN: But, senator, if you are not going to fix that problem, you can’t take away the last shred of protection from these families.

BIDEN: I got it, okay. You are very good, professor.

And scene.

A few months later, Biden responded to the criticism of Warren and others—although he did not mention her by name—in a Senate speech. The bill, he argued, actually strengthened protections for recipients of child support. Child support and alimony payments would move up in the pecking order relative to some other claims, such as administrative fees.

“I wish that those who are fabricating wild claims about [the bill] would stop,” he said. “If they have their way, the women and children in this country who depend on alimony and child support will be robbed of real protections. That would be a crime.”

But Charles Tabb, a professor of bankruptcy law at the University of Illinois, says Warren’s criticisms were “absolutely on point.” Biden and his allies made a series of small, mostly cosmetic changes to the law that allowed them to boast that the law they passed made the payment and collection of child support and alimony easier. The law ensured that such payments would take priority over administrative costs associated with the bankruptcy. But by increasing the amount of money that auto loan companies, or major appliance retailers like Sears, could skim off the top in the form of liens against people in bankruptcy, the bill effectively shrank the pot of money from which debtors could pay off everyone else.

“It’s a zero-sum game,” Tabb says. “If a debtor wanted to keep the fridge and pay child support, they [now] have to pay more to keep the fridge. There are a number of provisions like that, where various secured creditors get more. That has to come off the back of somebody, and it’s got to be somebody that doesn’t have a lien. And child support payments don’t have a lien. You’ve got to pay all the liens first.”

The National Women’s Law Center, in a letter to senators at the time, calledthe changes championed by Biden “virtually meaningless.”

For Warren, her first foray into the political arena proved to be a formative one. “The bankruptcy wars changed me forever,” she wrote in her 2014 memoir, A Fighting Chance—a book that once more dragged Biden for his role in the legislation. “Even before this grinding battle, I had begun to understand the terrible squeeze on the middle class. But it was this fight that showed me how badly the playing field was tilted and taught me that the squeeze wasn’t accidental.”

The bankruptcy fight also cemented Warren’s status as a public intellectual in progressive politics. Just a few years later, she was back in Washington as director of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (the Wall Street bailout), and not long after that she was helping turn her proposal for a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau into law.

By then, Biden’s own political leanings had shifted. As vice president, he helped push through the 2009 Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, which implemented new regulations on the financial-services industry, and he backed Warren’s CFPB as it got off the ground.

“I think Biden in 2005 was pretty different in this space than he was in 2009—he’s really different,” says Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities who served as the vice president’s chief economist during the financial crisis. “In 2005, he’s a senator from Delaware, where so many companies are incorporated, [and] the extent to which financial services were screwing around with consumers wasn’t nearly as clear then as it was a few years later. I think his views on this pretty clearly evolved when he became vice president after the housing bubble exploded, at which point he became a strong advocate of consumer protections and regulating financial services.”

But the essential conflict between Biden and Warren lingered. In a 2015 interview with Yahoo News, Biden characterized now-Sen. Warren’s overall policy preference as “punishing the rich,” while he sought to hammer out compromises with credit card companies. He boasted of the administration’s 2009 passage of the CARD Act, a credit card holders’ bill of rights. “If you look at Elizabeth Warren’s argument on this: ‘You should have just shut the suckers down,’” he said. (Warren actually supported the CARD Act, and the Warren quote Biden was referring to—“We permit credit products to pass every day in commerce in America that if they were toasters, we would shut those folks down”—was Warren’s main argument for the CFPB, which Biden backed.)

Biden wasn’t the only leading Democrat whom Warren took to task in her books. In A Fighting Chance, she described meeting with then-first lady Hillary Clinton in 1998 to make the case against an earlier iteration of a bankruptcy bill. Clinton, in Warren’s telling, left the meeting determined to help defeat it. But when Clinton joined the Senate, she eventually voted for bankruptcy reform. “The bill was essentially the same, but Hillary Rodham Clinton was not,” Warren wrote. “Big banks were now part of Senator Clinton’s constituency. She wanted their support, and they wanted hers.”

Warren lost what she called the “bankruptcy wars.” But now, she is banking on that message she pushed unsuccessfully in the 2000s resonating with Democratic voters. When she kicked off her campaign for president in Iowa in January, she voiced a critique of money in politics that had its roots in her earlier crusade. But on that first campaign swing, the subject of bankruptcy came up only once, when a voter in Des Moines thanked her for a bill she introduced last year that aimed to roll back portions of the Biden-era law. “It’s a nerd thing,” Warren said to some laughs. “But it really matters to families in trouble and to small businesses in trouble.”

Biden is not yet in the 2020 race. But if he leaps into the ever-growing fray, these two self-proclaimed champions of the middle class could find themselves competing for the same set of voters. It’s possible this old feud over a piece of economic policy that few voters ever paid close attention to could be revived. And if it does come up, there’s little doubt about which candidate sees their role in the fight as an asset. Warren devotes ample space in her books to her unsuccessful fight against Biden and his bill. But in his two books, Biden never mentions the years he devoted to winning this fight—and beating Warren.


Super Moderator
Here's how Warren responds to a question about her age

“I’d also be the youngest woman ever inaugurated.” - Sen. Elizabeth Warren responds to a moderator pointing out that she would be the oldest president ever inaugurated.


Rising Star
BGOL Investor
I think she is setting up a public option which is my preference rather than being forced to pay for health insurance. Many of these doctors refuse to provide medical care to me and other people for some reason. In many countries, people are assassinated in hospitals that are enemies of the state. Many people fly to other countries to get medical care. I have to resolve my issues on my own and my medical records were used against me when I did visit the doctor.

This is another scam that the medical community uses to block their accountability for their 'mistakes' or refusal to provide treatment. I noticed that doctors that refused to provide treatment would mention HIPAA out of the blue to shield themselves before giving their diagnosis. When you are dying, privacy is your least concern.

The opiate crisis was caused by the medical community. Until this changes, Medicare for all means nothing to me.
Last edited:


Rising Star
BGOL Investor
You go to visit a doctor and you complain about chest pains and being unable to breathe. The doctor claims your condition is caused by your feet and gives you a false diagnosis. He talks about HIPAA and the importance of keeping your medical information private even though you are suffering a emergency situation.

In your medical records, he notes that you complained about foot pain and does not describe any statements made about chest pains. You'll eventually die from a heart attack because for whatever reason the doctor refuses medical treatment.

Should you be required to pay thousands of dollars in health insurance costs through your employer or the exchange then be treated like garbage when you critically need medical care because you are an enemy of the state.


Rising Star
Super Moderator
2020 elections

Women of color bolt Warren’s Nevada campaign in frustration
“Complaints, comments, advice, and grievances were met with an
earnest shake of the head and progressive buzzwords, but not much else."

Elizabeth Warren

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images


A half-dozen women of color have departed Elizabeth Warren’s Nevada campaign in the run-up to the state’s caucuses with complaints of a toxic work environment in which minorities felt tokenized and senior leadership was at loggerheads.

The six staffers have left the roughly 70-person Nevada team since November, during a critical stretch of the race. Three of them said they felt marginalized by the campaign, a situation they said didn’t change or worsened after they took their concerns to their superiors or to human resources staff.

“During the time I was employed with Nevada for Warren, there was definitely something wrong with the culture,” said Megan Lewis, a field organizer who joined the campaign in May and departed in December. “I filed a complaint with HR, but the follow-up I received left me feeling as though I needed to make myself smaller or change who I was to fit into the office culture.”​

Another recently departed staffer, also a field organizer, granted anonymity because she feared reprisal, echoed that sentiment. “I felt like a problem — like I was there to literally bring color into the space but not the knowledge and voice that comes with it,” she said in an interview.​
She added: “We all were routinely silenced and not given a meaningful chance on the campaign. Complaints, comments, advice, and grievances were met with an earnest shake of the head and progressive buzzwords but not much else.” A third former field organizer who was also granted anonymity said those descriptions matched her own experience.​

The other three women who recently left the campaign did not respond to requests for comment. One of the departed staffers declined to be interviewed because she feared professional consequences in an arena where it's already difficult for women of color to advance, according to another ex-Warren employee who spoke with her about the situation.​

The turmoil in Warren’s Nevada operation comes ahead of the state’s Feb. 22 caucuses. Nevada is important not only because of its early spot on the nominating calendar but because it is the first chance for candidates to prove that their appeal extends beyond white voters who dominate the Democratic electorates in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The problems in Warren’s Nevada campaign heighten the importance of a rebound in New Hampshire after a third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses. Of the first four voting states, Nevada is the one Warren has visited the least: She has spent just 12 days there, another factor that dispirited the state’s staff. This week, her campaign also scaled back its television ads in the state by about $140,000.

Warren’s campaign did not dispute the women’s accounts but suggested they do not reflect a broader problem within her large, 31-state organization.

“We strive for an inclusive environment and work hard to learn and improve,” Warren campaign spokesperson Kristen Orthman said in a statement. “We have an organization of more than a thousand people, and whenever we hear concerns, we take them seriously. It’s important that everyone who is part of our team has a voice and can be heard. That’s why we are proud that we have a unionized staff and clear processes for issues to be addressed.”​

The women said the issues within the campaign hurt the larger effort to marshal votes, particularly in the state's large Latino communities. Spanish-language literature didn’t arrive until late in the fall despite repeated requests from many staffers. There were too few Spanish-speaking organizers, the former staffers said, despite asking the campaign to hire more. They felt it was a constant battle to set up events in Spanish.​

The problems were exacerbated by conflicting leadership at the top. Warren campaign headquarters in Boston quietly dispatched Democratic operative Kevin Brown to Nevada in November. One of the former female staffers, as well as a separate former Warren official in the state who was not authorized to speak on the matter, said it was unclear who was in charge, Brown or state director Suzy Smith.

The tumult in Warren’s Nevada operation comes during a larger transition in Democratic campaigns, as a new generation of women and people of color fill the ranks of organizers and campaign managers. For generations, campaigns have been dominated by white men, especially at the top. But this year’s Democratic field has seen record diversity among campaign managers, including Warren’s Roger Lau who is the first Asian-American campaign manager for a major presidential candidate.

Some campaigns have struggled with these changes, including Pete Buttigieg’s, which has had some staffers of color depart and faced internal complaints from minority staffers.

All three departed Warren staffers said they did not want to hurt the Massachusetts senator's candidacy but decided to talk to a reporter because they believe their issues are not uncommon on campaigns and that will only change if the issues are aired. Two of them said they are unsure whether they will still support Warren after their experience, but Lewis said she will be caucusing for her.

She said she felt compelled to speak out because she believed the campaign’s internal systems failed and needed to be fixed. Too often, Lewis said, such problems are ignored or swept under the rug because people fear damaging the larger cause.

“Every election will always be the most important election of our lifetimes,” Lewis said. “Organizing culture needs to change because the fact is our well-being is more important than any election. I hope this starts a conversation that helps facilitate personal reflection about ways we can change campaign culture.”



Super Moderator
Elizabeth Warren humiliates Susan Collins on national TV



Rising Star
Super Moderator
Elizabeth Warren ends her presidential campaign
By MJ Lee, Gregory Krieg and Daniella Diaz, CNN

Updated 11:23 AM ET, Thu March 5, 2020

(CNN)Elizabeth Warren is dropping out of the presidential race, a source familiar with her plans tells CNN, following another round of disappointing finishes in primary contests across the country on Super Tuesday.

The Massachusetts senator, who centered her bid on a promise to wipe out corruption in Washington, announced her decision on a staff call Thursday morning.

"I wanted you all to hear it first, and I wanted you to hear it straight from me: Today, I'm suspending our campaign for president," Warren said, according to a person on the call.

She continued, "I know that when we set out, this was not the call you ever wanted to hear. It is not the call I ever wanted to make. But I refuse to let disappointment blind me -- or you -- to what we've accomplished. We didn't reach our goal, but what we have done together -- what you have done -- has made a lasting difference. It's not the scale of the difference we wanted to make, but it matters -- and the changes will have ripples for years to come."

Warren's path to the nomination has been narrowing since the first round of voting in Iowa, where she placed third. In subsequent contests in New Hampshire and Nevada, she dropped down to fourth. In South Carolina, she came in a distant fifth.
The New York Times first reported that Warren is exiting the race.

Despite the mounting setbacks, Warren's campaign was as recently as Sunday touting a plan to amass delegates through the late spring and make a play for the nomination, as a unity candidate, during the Democratic National Convention this summer. But those hopes were effectively dashed on Super Tuesday, when she failed to win her home state of Massachusetts, finishing third behind former vice president Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders, and mostly underperformed in a series of key states.

Her exit officially leaves Biden and Sanders as the final top contenders for the Democratic nomination.

Her departure follows those of Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, the latter of whom finished ahead of Warren in each of the four early state contests. Their rush to Biden, and the moderate consolidation that followed, combined with Sanders' lock on progressive voters left Warren in a political no-man's land. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg exited the race on Wednesday.

Visit CNN's Election Center for full coverage of the 2020 race

Both Klobuchar and Buttigieg endorsed Biden on Monday. Warren, a respected progressive leader who has been fiercely critical of the former vice president and, at least until the current campaign heated up, a friend and ally of Sanders, has not yet indicated who she will support moving forward. Sanders said he spoke to Warren on Wednesday, but did not share any details from their conversation.

Once considered a leading contender for the nomination, Warren's plummet began months before the first ballots were cast in what was a crowded primary field that saw multiple candidates shoot up in the polls before being batted down by their rivals. Of those who dropped out of the race before her, she was endorsed only by former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro. He threw his support to Warren in early January, about a month before Iowa, but despite his passionate advocacy, failed to arrest her slide.

Warren was, at first, tripped up by the controversy surrounding her decision to publicize a DNA test meant to prove her Native American ancestry. She apologized to Native American leaders for both the DNA test and her controversial past claims.

She swore off big donors and began a trail tradition that became one her trademarks: a "selfie" line that followed her events and allowed voters to share a brief but intimate moment with the candidate.

Warren touted her grassroots fundraising efforts by posting clips online of her calls to small dollar contributors and began doing a "pinkie promise" with some of her youngest female supporters, "so that they'll remember that running for president is what girls do."

Her campaign really took off in the spring and summer 2019 as she rolled out a comprehensive suite of what would eventually add up to more than 70 policy plans, addressing everything from anti-corruption legislation to the Green New Deal.

By the fall, she was leading in a number of early state polls and appeared to have gained a foothold with liberal voters around the country. They embraced her as the candidate with "a plan for that" -- an identity the campaign embraced and ran with -- and, in some progressive circles, was viewed as the more electable option over fellow favorite Sanders.

But her standing began to slip in the fall, when her support for "Medicare for All," the universal, government-run medical insurance program, came under stricter scrutiny from moderate rivals like Biden, Klobuchar and Buttigieg. In response, she released a pair of proposals: one to finance Medicare for All without raising any taxes on middle class voters and another that would have effectively broken up the bill into two pieces.

Warren's attempts to quiet the critics backfired. Opponents of Medicare for All, boosted by an industry spending campaign designed to drive down its popularity, continued their attacks. Progressives, too, became dissatisfied, voicing concerns over the senator's commitment to passing the legislation.

By the Iowa caucuses, Warren had fallen behind Sanders and had begun to see a sizable number of her more moderate supporters flock to Buttigieg, who, despite their political differences, also appealed to more affluent, white college-educated voters.

But the crushing blow likely came later, in South Carolina, where she finished a distant fifth.

Throughout the campaign, Warren kept up a concerted effort to directly address the African-American community. Her targeted plans-within-plans sought to combat economic and social inequality with proposals that acknowledged and offered policy solutions that she argued would begin to undo generations of systemic discrimination in everything from housing to health and business. But when the contest arrived in down South, her attempts to make inroads into the community fell flat.

Despite those setbacks, the campaign continued to argue that Warren was the only candidate who could bridge the Democratic Party's divisions -- a progressive with the credentials and charisma to win over voters across the ideological spectrum.

By February, though, the campaign -- which had spent its dollars in anticipation of a long nomination fight -- was in a cash crunch. She got a fundraising boost after a lauded debate performance in Las Vegas, where she targeted Bloomberg over the billionaire's past treatment of women at his company and his support for "stop and frisk" during his time as mayor of New York City.

But because of high early voting in Nevada, which happened before the debate, the bump that followed didn't translate into a surge of support in the state's caucuses days later.

In the final weeks of her campaign, Warren also relented on her long-standing refusal to accept the support of a super PAC, which ended up spending heavily -- in excess of $13 million during its brief run -- across the Super Tuesday map, arguing that she would not unilaterally disarm in an increasing expensive campaign.

As her prospects dwindled, Warren increasingly turned her fire on Sanders, arguing that, for all their policy agreements, he was -- unlike her -- an ineffectual legislator with a short resume of accomplishments during three decades in Congress. The turn began to upset some progressives who worried that her criticism would damage the Vermont senator at a time when moderates were coalescing around Biden.

But there is no clear sign that Warren's departure, without a vocal endorsement and energetic campaigning on his behalf, will benefit Sanders. Her coalition of support was ultimately too thin to vault her into the upper tier of the primary, but its ideological diversity likely means that it will splinter among the remaining candidates.

This story has been updated with additional reporting from Warren's staff call.



Super Moderator
Her own state didn’t support her. That says something about Elizabeth Warren