Elizabeth Warren - A One-Woman Ass-Kickin' Machine!


nytimes.com/2012/11/11/us/po … anted=2&hp




Clinton’s not running in 2016.


I’ll believe it when I see it, but in the meantime … 8DD 8DD 8DD




Warren is increasingly being positioned to take on Hillary in the primaries. And after the experience of being hit from the ‘left’ by Obama last time out all the Clinton forces are being marshaled to charaterize her as ‘far-left’. So much so that the Times led with a headline associating her with the far left in it’s print edition the other day. On the web they’ve changed the headline to ‘populist left’ at this point. It will get interesting, and would be very pleasing to see her bury the Clintons once and for all. Hard to say whether Warren could make the cut but you have to think that whoever wins the democratic primary will be the next president.

nytimes.com/2013/09/30/us/po … .html?_r=0


The Elizabeth Warren Wing of the Democratic Party



Far left is exactly what’s needed at this point.

One of these lines is wages as a share of GDP and the other is Corporate Profits as a share of GDP . . . . . see if you can figure out which is which . . . . :unamused:


Someone’s acting … leadership-y.





For someone who has said she is not running for President, she’s certainly attracting a lot of populist attention.

Might pop €200 on her to win with Paddy Power, if they refund should she choose not to run (this time).



Even the food journalists are beginning to take note: Mark Bittman (NYT) Is It Bad Enough Yet?


I wonder does the wage figure include all costs associated with a job?


At 16-1 that’s a good bet. In Presidential elections the demographics favor Democrats, who have won the “popular vote” in five of the last six elections. Unless Reps can get their act together on immigration, they’ll have a hard time winning Hispanics who are by far the fastest growing segment of the population.

At this point, I think Warren would have a harder time winning the primary than the general. If she did win the primary, I think she’d pick up extra momentum as the potential first woman President, in a way that Hillary would not. She has fewer negatives, and less baggage than Hillary, and at least part of the country thinks it’s time for a woman. There was even speculation on Bloomberg today that if the Warren boomlet continues apace, Hillary might even decide not to run, for fear of repeating 2008. People are commenting on Warren’s clear stands on specific issues, and contrasting them with Hillary’s opaqueness.

Warren’s Achilles Heel is foreign policy, but they said the same and more about Obama.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un … ote_margin


NPR interview with Warren on Monday morning.

npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics … rm=nprnews

WARREN PLAYS INSIDE/OUTSIDE GAME - WP’s Zachary A. Goldfarb: “*f the past few weeks are any indication [Elizabeth Warren] can operate as an insider without giving her up outsider credentials. She’s remained outspoken, but has become even more influential. She hasn’t stopped throwing bombs at the rich and powerful … but she’s won a spot in Senate leadership, changed the shape of congressional debates over financial regulation and continued to draw widespread attention as a potential presidential candidate. It all helps to explain why - for the 300 former Obama campaign officials who last week urged her to run in 2016 - she is the one they’ve been waiting for.” wapo.st/1Axs6Tz

By Justin Sink
The White House says President Obama has a good relationship with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who is battling Obama on a host of high-profile issues.
thehill.com/homenews/administrat … ith-warren

By Peter Schroeder
She has a spot in Democratic leadership, a swelling alliance of liberals in Congress and a rabid following in the Democratic Party. The question is: What does Elizabeth Warren want to do with all that power?
thehill.com/homenews/senate/2270 … arren-want

newrepublic.com/article/1205 … eased-week

A group of more than 300 former campaign staff members for President Obama will release an open letter on Friday morning calling for Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts to seek the Democratic Party’s nomination for president.

The signers each worked on Mr. Obama’s successful White House campaigns or at his political organization, now called Organizing for Action, mostly in midlevel jobs as field organizers or as part of the campaigns’ groundbreaking data and technology efforts. They include Rajeev Chopra, who served as chief information officer for both of Mr. Obama’s presidential bids; Catherine Bracy, who directed the 2012 campaign’s tech field office in San Francisco; and Judith Freeman, who served as new media field manager on the 2008 campaign.

Their open support for Ms. Warren is a stark departure from the path taken by most senior Obama veterans, many of whom have attached themselves to “super PACs” and nonprofit groups helping to pave the way for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s likely presidential bid.

“These former Obama staffers are joining the growing momentum behind Elizabeth Warren because we believe in Warren’s vision for our country, and we’d love to see her run in 2016,” said Erica Sagrans, an Obama alum who now the campaign manager for Ready for Warren, a pro-Warren super PAC.

While the letter does not mention Mrs. Clinton, its language suggests that her nascent campaign – already pre-emptively embraced by many in the Democratic establishment – deserves a challenge from Ms. Warren.

“We believed in an unlikely candidate who no one thought had a chance,” the letter states. “Rising income inequality is the challenge of our times, and we want someone who will stand up for working families and take on the Wall Street banks and special interests that took down our economy.”

The letter is the latest in a series of overlapping efforts by liberal organizations, donors and others to pull Ms. Warren into the race.*


Taking a look at polls 2 years before the 08 election it seems Clinton is in a far stronger position this time out. In Dec 06 she had 39% followed by Barack Obama 17%, John Edwards 12%, Al Gore 10%, John Kerry 7%, Joe Biden 2%, and Bill Richardson 2%. Obama had started very strongly when he announced a month earlier but Clinton had managed to claw him back from 22% by December. In hindsight it looks like a fairly strong field too, at least in comparison to today.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide … candidates

Currently she is running at 62% with Warren on 11%, Biden 10% and Sanders on 3%. Webb and O Malley remain in the margin of error wilderness.
realclearpolitics.com/epolls … -3824.html

Obviously anything can change in the meantime but she has loads of money and more importantly the likelihood of an optimism bump for Warren seems more remote than it might have done after 8 years of Bush. Obamas betrayals and failures are more likely to produce apathy than energy.


Warren Scores One On Obama Nominee withdraws name.

bloomberg.com/politics/artic … s-leftwing

ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0057a052 … z3OjUBHd9C



Trickle-UP economics FTW!


If I was Hillary, I’d cut a deal now that if Warren chooses not to run, she’s get the VP position.
If I was Warren, I’d run.