May 6, 2015

"Warren met privately with 'Draft Warren' supporters."

"The Massachusetts senator recently huddled with progressives affiliated with the campaign urging her to run for president. Her office insists she was unaware of any connection."

43 comments:

robother said...

The first hurdle in demonstrating one's Presidential timbre: the ability to bald faced lie. (Ann's bet is looking better, but the odds of her getting odds will be worse.)

Anonymous said...

Oh great. Another liar. And another old white person.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

It's not easy, being the prettiest girl at the dance.

mccullough said...

Dukakis '88

rhhardin said...

Indian giver.

cubanbob said...

I think Warren running would be awesome. The Democratic Party debates would breakdown to the following:

1-Clinton: fascist.
2-Warren: socialist.
3-Sanders: communist.

Great entertainment for political masochists.

JRoberts said...

"I think Warren running would be awesome. The Democratic Party debates would breakdown to the following:

1-Clinton: fascist.
2-Warren: socialist.
3-Sanders: communist.

Great entertainment for political masochists."

With these three as candidates, one of the debate questions could be: "Which brand of adult diaper do you prefer?"

I'll say it again, "Party of Youth" my aunt Fanny.

Brando said...

Not a fan of her politics, but man would this be good to see a real race on the Democratic side.

cubanbob said...

@JRoberts, touche! Three fresh faced geriatrics on the podium. It's time to party like 1968! The Democrats should hold their 2016 convention in Chicago for remembrance of good times past.

I might be wrong but as far as I can tell there isn't anyone on the Republican bench running who is as old as the youngest of this Democratic dynamic trio.

lgv said...

If Webb runs, then what will she do? HRC can run to the right of Warren, Sanders and O'Malley without ever coming close to the middle. I don't see running against uber liberals and socialists is a problem. What I see as the problem is any challenger making her answer questions.

John Burger said...

What does it say about a politician who privately meets ('huddles') with progressives affiliated with the campaign urging her to run for president yet who insists she (Warren) was unaware of any connection. I love the doublespeak. Yes, I do.

jvb

Brando said...

What would Warren gain by NOT running? It's not as though she needs to curry favor with the Clintons, and she has a base of support among the Democratic left that doesn't trust Hillary anyway. Waiting four or eight years to run for the presidency can make her moment fade (she's not young now) and some other Democrat may emerge as the flavor of the year by then.

The only thing I can think of that might keep Warren out of the race is if she just doesn't want to be president. Which I can also understand--it's much easier to be a preachy idealist as a senator than as president.

retired said...

Why is Stupidity the main defense of any Democrat politician?
As Bill Clinton said last week:
"I didn't do anything knowingly inappropriate."
HRC won't approach an open microphone, sending her daughter out to defend her after her stupidity excuse failed to quell Servergate.
OTOH Chris Christie, other failings not withstanding, gave a 2 hour press conference to address the "bridgegate" accusations.

I can't wait for the Dem debates. Will be Dumb and Dumber 3.

mikee said...

I, for one, await the revival of the Ralph Nader, (or is it Pat Paulson, I get them mixed up) campaign for the Democrat Party nomination.

harrogate said...

"What would Warren gain by NOT running?"

Maybe she doesn't want to be President.

She's getting her message out there as a Senator and arguably can be more effective there, than even as President.

That said, hell, who knows, maybe she will run.

TosaGuy said...

"1-Clinton: fascist.
2-Warren: socialist.
3-Sanders: communist.
Great entertainment for political masochists."

There is a sizable wing of Dems who want to roll of those "qualities" into one candidate!

retired said...

Warren knows she would be crushed in the general by someone like Walker or Rubio.
If she lied about her Indian heritage, nay, built a career around it, and lied about this "Draft Warren" group, I am sure there is Clintonian raft of yet to be unearthed whoppers waiting for a good oppo group.

damikesc said...

What does it say about a politician who privately meets ('huddles') with progressives affiliated with the campaign urging her to run for president yet who insists she (Warren) was unaware of any connection. I love the doublespeak. Yes, I do.


It says that if she were Republican, it'd be a nefarious meeting.

garage mahal said...

Where does Warren stand on Jade Helm 15? That's all I need to know from her.

damikesc said...

Warren knows she would be crushed in the general by someone like Walker or Rubio.
If she lied about her Indian heritage, nay, built a career around it, and lied about this "Draft Warren" group, I am sure there is Clintonian raft of yet to be unearthed whoppers waiting for a good oppo group.


And conservatives would be wise to keep harping on it should she win.

The press will say "It's old news", but how many people know and she has never been able to make a defense outside of "STOP ATTACKING MY MOMMY!"

It looks sleazy as all Hell, but that's what Progressive policies lead to.

Maybe she doesn't want to be President.

A woman who will invent a non-existent Native American heritage to advance her career doesn't want a better job?

Sure.

retired said...

She IS Ralph Nader! LOL

MadisonMan said...

She has to run this time around. She'll be too old for the 2020 election.

When did the Democratic Party become Old People Central?

Eustace Chilke said...

The Dems have announced scheduled primary debates. They need someone for Hillary! to play off of. They also need the palladian of the left-left wing to endorse Hillary! after being fairly vanquished. All big party politics is theater but some is more theater than others.

SteveR said...

Michelle Bernard is all over it

SteveR said...

Michelle Bernard is all over it

SteveR said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JRoberts said...

"When did the Democratic Party become Old People Central?"

I would say it was when they drove away the last of their "blue dogs"

Look at the Dem leadership in DC. There isn't a single one that would look out of place at a Vietnam war protest. These aging boomers are still living in the 1960's.

I'll say it again, "Party of Youth" my aunt Fanny.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

JRoberts said...

1-Clinton: fascist.
2-Warren: socialist.
3-Sanders: communist.


A fascist, a socialist, and a communist walk into a bar and the bartender says; "OMFG! It's the 2016 Democratic Presidential Slate!"

/rimshot

madAsHell said...

Another academic twit with an empty CV.
How did the last one work out??

damikesc said...

I'll say it again, "Party of Youth" my aunt Fanny.

No joke.

But they only have to appeal to brain dead college kids who think it's counter-culture to agree with their professors, parents, HS teachers, musicians, actors...

traditionalguy said...

Indian style war sneaks up on quiet moccasins and shoots arrows from behind the trees and rocks.

War Chief Warren is putting on the finak war paint.

Hillary Armstrong Custer is arrogantly marching into a political ambush.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brando said...

If a Democrat had to win the next presidential election, I would prefer Liz Warren to win instead of Hillary, even though Warren as a populist leftist is likely farther from my own politics than Hillary (who has no convictions whatsoever). I don't think Warren is a paragon of ethics (cough, fake Cherokee, cough) but at least I know where she stands and the country balances against extremes so she'd be unlikely to accomplish any of her agenda.

But the Clintons are such outright corruption that it's not hard for me to imagine them committing treason or abusing the power of the state wherever it would suit them, and while Warren might start some stupid wars I have no doubt that Hillary absolutely would.

MadisonMan said...

(who has no convictions whatsoever)

Excellent word choice!

Yet. One might add :)

Bay Area Guy said...

Run, Liz, Run!

She's got a warped outlook on life, perhaps she's a bit too cloistered and comfortable there at the Harvard Faculty lounge.

But........

She is principled. She honestly believes that the free market system, in practice, is a rigged game. She wants to tax the "rich," and redistribute gov't $ to the poor.

I say -- let her run against Hillary!

campy said...

"She has to run this time around. She'll be too old for the 2020 election."

2024. The democrat who wins in 2016 will be re-elected in 2020.

sunsong said...

I would love for Warren to run!

Michael K said...

""What would Warren gain by NOT running?"

Maybe she doesn't want to be President."

I assume she thinks she would lose and lose her sinecure at Harvard Law plus her lucrative contracts with evil capitalists.

Anonymous said...

sunsong wrote:

"I would love for Warren to run!"

So would I but Harding passed away quite some time ago.

Chris N said...

The whole commune's abuzz!

Achilles said...

Hillary will be out of the race before the Dem debates. She is irreparably damaged. If they succeed in swamping the election with illegal voters I don't think things will hold together long enough for her to be sworn in. Only a Jeb Bush primary nomination could save her.

Brando said...

"Hillary will be out of the race before the Dem debates. She is irreparably damaged. If they succeed in swamping the election with illegal voters I don't think things will hold together long enough for her to be sworn in. Only a Jeb Bush primary nomination could save her."

I wish I could believe that.

Brando said...

Hillary's strategy is simple--for the primary, "freeze out" alternate candidates by making clear to donors, endorsers and advisers that any help given to any other candidate (even if they later switch to Hillary) will mean never having access to anything in a Hillary-loyal White House and Democratic party. Career and business suicide for rent seekers, pols and campaign pros.

Then, with the coronation (I refuse to consider it a nomination contest any more than Kim Jong Un getting "elected") under wraps, she moves to the center-left, and waits--allowing the GOP to do what they do best--force their nominee to alienate enough middle-road voters that they simply cannot win. The Dems hold an electoral vote advantage, and Hillary only needs to add a few states to the ones that are in the bag.

None of this requires her to be a good campaigner, and her voters will stick with her grudgingly. The GOP will assume (as they did in 2012) that all they need to do is "not be" the "tainted" Democrat, and that will be enough to win. They will learn that that's not enough.

I would like to see this not happen, as it is going to lead to bad policy and Hillaryesque incompetence, and her strategy should not be rewarded. But what indication is there that some talented Democrat will be bold enough to challenger her as Obama did in 2008, or that the GOP will actually pick someone who could win a clear majority?