Elizabeth Warren Could Threaten Hillary from Left in 2016

[Dos Equis]

I hope Democrats aren't dumb to nominate this woman, but that is the same party that legitimized Al Shaprton, so anything can happen. 

Elizabeth Warren Could Threaten Hillary from Left in 2016


Sunday, 10 Nov 2013
By Greg Richter

It isn't Republicans such as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or Texas Sen. Ted Cruz that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should fear if she chooses to run for president in 2016, writes Noam Scheiber of The New Republic.

Instead, she should keep a wary eye on fellow Democrat Elizabeth Warren.

Warren, currently serving as U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, represents the more socialist wing of the party, which is growing in popularity among Democrats under 30, Scheiber writes, citing a recent Pew poll.

Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll

Clinton represents the "Democratic elites" associated with her husband's presidency, who moved left in support of the economic stimulus and larger unemployment benefits of President Barack Obama, though they still think the economy needs a "large, powerful, highly complex financial sector."

But socialists have held the upper hand recently, Scheiber says. He cites New York City Public Advocate and former Sandinista activist Bill de Blasio's capturing of the New York City mayor's race, Larry Summers' forced withdrawal from consideration as chairman of the Fed, and former Obama chief of staff and JP Morgan executive Bill Daley's dropping out of the Illinois governor's race over bad polls.

These are bad omens for Clinton, Scheiber argues.

He describes Clinton's likely Democratic challenger as someone from the socialist wing of the party who likely would be a woman, since Democrats would want to follow up the historic election of the nation's first black president with another historic first. She would also need to be able to raise vast sums of money.

"As it happens, there is precisely such a person," Scheiber says. "Her name is Elizabeth Warren."

But Warren also strikes fear into the hearts of her fellow Democrats, he says. Clinton is a team player, and is therefore predictable. For that matter, Cruz, on the Republican side is also predictable as he bucks his party's leadership. With Warren, they never know what they'll get.

She entered the Senate seeming to defer to party leaders, but at her very first hearing as a member of the Senate Banking Committee, she pounced on bank regulators, saying, “Tell me a little bit about the last few times you’ve taken the biggest financial institutions on Wall Street all the way to a trial."

"The question, though eminently reasonable, violated an unstated rule of committee protocol, in which members of Congress are allowed to rant and rave at length but generally abstain from humiliating appointees, especially from their own party," Scheiber writes.

Schieber notes that most presidential race watchers don't expect Warren to run, as it would most likely be a suicide mission. But her past has shown that, like Cruz, she cares less about her own political ambition than she does about her mission. In her case, she wants to advance her economic agenda for what she believes will ease the burden on the middle class.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/elizabeth-warren-hillary-2016-new/2013/11/10/id/535866#ixzz2kMwKPF5O

[chadstallion]

fine by me.

[JOHN MATRIX]

Maybe some billionaire repub can get her to run as a 3rd party spoiler for hillary

[240 is Back]

I do agree she could threaten Hilary in a big way.  (Although I think she would wait til 2020 if HIlary only running for 1 term).

HOWEVER - As an uberliberal, she could win nationally.  Why?  Well, we all know medium-flavor politicians don't win elections cause they don't energize their base.   By voting record, Obama was labeled most liberal senator in 2007, then won by a strong margin in 2008.  Mitt/mccain were RINOs and their base didn't bother.  The left-lib base, those who vote female gender no matter what, and anyone that hates the banks would love Warren.  That could be enough to win.

Repubs would have a better time against a soft spine moderate like Evan Buyh than someone who actually vows to shakes things up.

[Soul Crusher]

oh great - another delusional communist a-hole Marxist

[240 is Back]

oh great - another delusional communist a-hole Marxist

I expect we'll have 5-6 liberal marxists, to go with 3-4 batshit nutty tea partiers. 

See, they win elections.  moderates who promise more of the same, a little of this and that... they don't win elections, at least not lately. 

Bush was HIGHLY conservative s governor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_George_W._Bush

Clinton delivered a welfare state for Ark as gov:
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/22/us/clinton-record-in-leading-arkansas-successes-but-not-without-criticism.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

[Dos Equis]

Maybe some billionaire repub can get her to run as a 3rd party spoiler for hillary

Hillary would be a better candidate than this "Native American" woman. 

[RRKore]

I like her.  I've come away impressed almost every time I've heard her speak.  

If people were to get to know her as well as they know Hillary, I think she'd do better in the general election than Hillary would.

[Soul Crusher]

I like her.  I've come away impressed almost every time I've heard her speak.  

If people were to get to know her as well as they know Hillary, I think she'd do better in the general election than Hillary would.

She is another lying fraud and limousine liberal scam artists

[Dos Equis]

I like her.  I've come away impressed almost every time I've heard her speak.  

If people were to get to know her as well as they know Hillary, I think she'd do better in the general election than Hillary would.

Were you impressed with her claim to be Native American?  

[Dos Equis]

She is an economic and social liberal, which is not where the majority of the country is.  We have twice elected an unqualified economic and social liberal, with disastrous results.  I hope the voters are smart enough not to make that mistake again in 2016. 

Cannot imagine this "Native American" as commander in chief. 

Here is where she stands on some of the issues. 

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm

[RRKore]

She is an economic and social liberal, which is not where the majority of the country is.  We have twice elected an unqualified economic and social liberal, with disastrous results.  I hope the voters are smart enough not to make that mistake again in 2016. 

Cannot imagine this "Native American" as commander in chief. 

Here is where she stands on some of the issues. 

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm

In what way is Warren unqualified?  She's sure qualified when it comes to economic policy.  Which potential presidential candidate is more qualified than her when speaking about economic issues?

[Straw Man]

In what way is Warren unqualified?  She's sure qualified when it comes to economic policy.  Which potential presidential candidate is more qualified than her when speaking about economic issues?

these are the people who will tell you how qualified Ted Cruz is and Rand Paul

[Soul Crusher]

these are the people who will tell you how qualified Ted Cruz is and Rand Paul

You voted or Obama 2x over remember?  LMFAO!!!! about qualifications

[RRKore]

She is another lying fraud and limousine liberal scam artists

Limousine liberal?  Yeah, I can see how being one of them edumacated Harvard Law Professors specializing in bankruptcy law (hmm, relevant for these times, ya think?) might lead one to assume she's one of the dreaded "elite".  You might want to re-think that assumption, though.  Sounds more like a self-made woman who has not sold out:
Per Wikipedia:
Warren was born on June 22, 1949,[2] in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to working class parents Pauline (née Reed) and Donald Jones Herring.[3][4][5] She was their fourth child, with three older brothers.[6] When she was twelve, her father, a janitor, had a heart attack, which led to many medical bills, as well as a pay cut because he could not do his previous work. Eventually this led to the loss of their car from failure to make loan repayments. To help the family finances, her mother found work in the catalog-order department at Sears and Elizabeth began working as a waitress at her aunt's restaurant.[6][7]

She became a star member of the debate team at Northwest Classen High School and won the title of "Oklahoma's top high-school debater" while competing with debate teams from high schools throughout the state. She also won a debate scholarship to George Washington University at the age of 16. Initially aspiring to be a teacher, she left GWU after two years to marry her high-school boyfriend, Jim Warren.[6][8]

She moved to Houston with her husband, who was a NASA engineer. There she enrolled in the University of Houston and was graduated in 1970 with a degree in speech pathology and audiology.[9] For a year, she taught children with disabilities in a public school, based on an "emergency certificate," as she had not taken the education courses required for a regular teaching certificate.[10][11]

Warren and her husband moved to New Jersey for his work where, after becoming pregnant with their first child, she decided to become a stay-at-home mom .[12][13] After her daughter turned two, Warren enrolled at the Rutgers School of Law–Newark.[12] She worked as a summer associate at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. Shortly before her graduation in 1976, Warren became pregnant with her second child, and began to work as a lawyer from home, writing wills and doing real estate closings.[8][12]

Warren attended The George Washington University and the University of Houston. She received a Juris Doctor from Rutgers School of Law–Newark in 1976, and went on to teach law at several universities before joining Harvard in the early 1990s.

After having two children, Amelia and Alexander, she and Jim Warren divorced in 1978.[14] In 1980, Warren married Bruce Mann, a Harvard law professor, but retained the surname, Warren.[14]

[Dos Equis]

In what way is Warren unqualified?  She's sure qualified when it comes to economic policy.  Which potential presidential candidate is more qualified than her when speaking about economic issues?

1.  She's dishonest.  

2.  She has no military experience, and not even the experience governors have of running the national guard.  

3.  She has very little experience in the private sector.  Doesn't sound like she has ever started and managed a business with employees, or worked for any significant period of time for a company.  Has she ever managed a payroll in the private sector?  

4.  She will have served four years in the Senate if she is elected, with probably two years of that time spent running for office.  

5.  She is wrong on economic issues and an advocate of class warfare.  She believes in raising taxes on those who already pay the majority of the taxes in this country.  She supported TARP.  She supports socialized medicine.  She supports increased government regulation over the private sector.  

Geeze Louise.  This sounds like Obama in a skirt.  

I could go on, but she's not qualified to president IMO.  I would hate to see her on the ticket.  I want both parties to put up better candidates, so I have better options.  

[Soul Crusher]

LOL -  read up on her real estate dealings.   She is a fraud and liar

Limousine liberal?  Yeah, I can see how being one of them edumacated Harvard Law Professors specializing in bankruptcy law (hmm, relevant for these times, ya think?) might lead one to assume she's one of the dreaded "elite".  You might want to re-think that assumption, though.  Sounds more like a self-made woman who has not sold out:
Per Wikipedia:
Warren was born on June 22, 1949,[2] in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to working class parents Pauline (née Reed) and Donald Jones Herring.[3][4][5] She was their fourth child, with three older brothers.[6] When she was twelve, her father, a janitor, had a heart attack, which led to many medical bills, as well as a pay cut because he could not do his previous work. Eventually this led to the loss of their car from failure to make loan repayments. To help the family finances, her mother found work in the catalog-order department at Sears and Elizabeth began working as a waitress at her aunt's restaurant.[6][7]

She became a star member of the debate team at Northwest Classen High School and won the title of "Oklahoma's top high-school debater" while competing with debate teams from high schools throughout the state. She also won a debate scholarship to George Washington University at the age of 16. Initially aspiring to be a teacher, she left GWU after two years to marry her high-school boyfriend, Jim Warren.[6][8]

She moved to Houston with her husband, who was a NASA engineer. There she enrolled in the University of Houston and was graduated in 1970 with a degree in speech pathology and audiology.[9] For a year, she taught children with disabilities in a public school, based on an "emergency certificate," as she had not taken the education courses required for a regular teaching certificate.[10][11]

Warren and her husband moved to New Jersey for his work where, after becoming pregnant with their first child, she decided to become a stay-at-home mom .[12][13] After her daughter turned two, Warren enrolled at the Rutgers School of Law–Newark.[12] She worked as a summer associate at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. Shortly before her graduation in 1976, Warren became pregnant with her second child, and began to work as a lawyer from home, writing wills and doing real estate closings.[8][12]

Warren attended The George Washington University and the University of Houston. She received a Juris Doctor from Rutgers School of Law–Newark in 1976, and went on to teach law at several universities before joining Harvard in the early 1990s.

After having two children, Amelia and Alexander, she and Jim Warren divorced in 1978.[14] In 1980, Warren married Bruce Mann, a Harvard law professor, but retained the surname, Warren.[14]

[Straw Man]

You voted or Obama 2x over remember?  LMFAO!!!! about qualifications

yep, and if you think he wasn't qualified the first time then you must also believe that being POTUS for 4 years does not count as "qualification" either

[Soul Crusher]

yep, and if you think he wasn't qualified the first time then you must also believe that being POTUS for 4 years does not count as "qualification" either

He is not qualified now or ever.  The stupid fuck cant even deliver a functional website after blowing 500 million dollars.

[RRKore]

Were you impressed with her claim to be Native American?  

I was impressed....by how how a weak-ass effort like this is the best the right has to discredit Warren.  They NEED some sort of evidence that she lies because when she speaks, she seems sincere like very few other politicians do.  She's possesses wonk-level knowledge about economic issues, so she seems to be just what the doctor ordered for the challenges of our times.  If I was competing with her, I'd feel threatened, too.

She's also gifted when it comes to explaining her positions.  Better than Hillary.  She's also seems much more even-keeled than Hillary.  (Which ain't hard - Hillary, like Kyle's mom from Southpark, is known to be a bitch.) (Not that being a bitch is all bad -- Like Tina Fey said, "Bitches get things done.")

Re: The American Indian thing, there doesn't seem to be much to it.  From what I've read, she and her 3 older brothers were brought up thinking they had some American Indian heritage.  So, she publically claimed that heritage.  Many years later it was found that there was no evidence or proof that she had any American Indian blood, so she and her siblings don't claim it anymore.  

Per the Boston Globe and the Washington post: Colleagues and supervisors, including Charles Fried a Harvard Law professor involved in Warren's hiring, say she received no preferential treatment as a result of her claimed ancestry.

If all this is true, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me.  And why couldn't it be true?   I'm in my 40's and self-identify as 1/2 Portuguese and 1/2 "just plain white" but I found out last year that the "just plain white" half actually includes a little bit (1/16?) of Mexican heritage.  

[RRKore]

1.  She's dishonest.  

2.  She has no military experience, and not even the experience governors have of running the national guard.  

3.  She has very little experience in the private sector.  Doesn't sound like she has ever started and managed a business with employees, or worked for any significant period of time for a company.  Has she ever managed a payroll in the private sector?  

4.  She will have served four years in the Senate if she is elected, with probably two years of that time spent running for office.  

5.  She is wrong on economic issues and an advocate of class warfare.  She believes in raising taxes on those who already pay the majority of the taxes in this country.  She supported TARP.  She supports socialized medicine.  She supports increased government regulation over the private sector.  

Geeze Louise.  This sounds like Obama in a skirt.  

I could go on, but she's not qualified to president IMO.  I would hate to see her on the ticket.  I want both parties to put up better candidates, so I have better options.  

Yeah, I have no doubt that the right is trying to paint her as "Obama in a skirt".  I think you'll find, though, that there are big differences between the relationship Obama has with big business and the one Warren has.  

As to your list of 5 "disqualifications":
1. She's dishonest.
Yeah, good luck selling that one.  (Ask yourself, how honest will she seemed compared to any of her political opponents?)

2. She has no military experience, and not even the experience governors have of running the national guard.
Who thinks military experience is very important these days?  Has this EVER been considered a necessary qualification?  (Even the right won't bring this up, is my guess.)

3. She has very little experience in the private sector.  Doesn't sound like she has ever started and managed a business with employees, or worked for any significant period of time for a company.  Has she ever managed a payroll in the private sector?
She does have a little bit of experience in the private sector but this is a silly objection in her case, I think.  She's a Harvard law professor specializing in bankruptcy law.  I'm guessing that she knows plenty about the challenges businesses face.

4. She will have served four years in the Senate if she is elected, with probably two years of that time spent running for office.  
How is that bad?  'Fess up:  If she'd been in the Senate for 20 years, that would have made this list, too, right?  Sounds to me like she's well-acquainted with the BS it takes to get elected to congress these days but hasn't been doing it so long that she has a bunch of people she's beholden to.  Sounds like an ideal person to lead the charge for election reform.

5.  She is wrong on economic issues and an advocate of class warfare.  She believes in raising taxes on those who already pay the majority of the taxes in this country.  She supported TARP.  She supports socialized medicine.  She supports increased government regulation over the private sector.  
This doesn't make much sense, since you must know that she'd be running as a Democrat, right?  What you've listed would only be problems if she was running on the right.  

[Dos Equis]

Yeah, I have no doubt that the right is trying to paint her as "Obama in a skirt".  I think you'll find, though, that there are big differences between the relationship Obama has with big business and the one Warren has.  

As to your list of 5 "disqualifications":
1. She's dishonest.
Yeah, good luck selling that one.  (Ask yourself, how honest will she seemed compared to any of her political opponents?)

2. She has no military experience, and not even the experience governors have of running the national guard.
Who thinks military experience is very important these days?  Has this EVER been considered a necessary qualification?  (Even the right won't bring this up, is my guess.)

3. She has very little experience in the private sector.  Doesn't sound like she has ever started and managed a business with employees, or worked for any significant period of time for a company.  Has she ever managed a payroll in the private sector?
She does have a little bit of experience in the private sector but this is a silly objection in her case, I think.  She's a Harvard law professor specializing in bankruptcy law.  I'm guessing that she knows plenty about the challenges businesses face.

4. She will have served four years in the Senate if she is elected, with probably two years of that time spent running for office.  
How is that bad?  'Fess up:  If she'd been in the Senate for 20 years, that would have made this list, too, right?  Sounds to me like she's well-acquainted with the BS it takes to get elected to congress these days but hasn't been doing it so long that she has a bunch of people she's beholden to.  Sounds like an ideal person to lead the charge for election reform.

5.  She is wrong on economic issues and an advocate of class warfare.  She believes in raising taxes on those who already pay the majority of the taxes in this country.  She supported TARP.  She supports socialized medicine.  She supports increased government regulation over the private sector.  
This doesn't make much sense, since you must know that she'd be running as a Democrat, right?  What you've listed would only be problems if she was running on the right.  

1. Yeah, good luck selling that one.  (Ask yourself, how honest will she seemed compared to any of her political opponents?)

I don't need to sell it to anyone.  Just giving my opinion.  And I don't really care if she is less dishonest than the next dishonest politician.  She either has integrity or she doesn't. 


2.  Who thinks military experience is very important these days?  Has this EVER been considered a necessary qualification?  (Even the right won't bring this up, is my guess.)

I do.  I didn't say, and don't think, it's a "necessary qualification."  It's an ideal qualification.  The fact she doesn't have it, particularly when her other professional experience is so thin, makes it more important.  I don't want someone like her being charge of the military.  She has no clue. 

3. She does have a little bit of experience in the private sector but this is a silly objection in her case, I think.  She's a Harvard law professor specializing in bankruptcy law.  I'm guessing that she knows plenty about the challenges businesses face.

There is a huge difference between the classroom and real world.  She knows very little about how to run a successful business.  You may not like Romney, but that is someone who knows how to run a business.  That's the kind of person you want making economic decisions that affect the entire country.  You want someone who has been there, done that, successfully, not some academic who never had to hire or fire anyone, balance a budget, etc.  (And surprise surprise, she opposes a balanced budget amendment.) 

4. How is that bad?  'Fess up:  If she'd been in the Senate for 20 years, that would have made this list, too, right?  Sounds to me like she's well-acquainted with the BS it takes to get elected to congress these days but hasn't been doing it so long that she has a bunch of people she's beholden to.  Sounds like an ideal person to lead the charge for election reform.

I don't think it's always a bad thing to not have government experience, but if the woman has Obama-like experience in the private sector, Obama-like experience with the military and being a chief executive, maybe she could compensate somewhat for that lack of experience by working at the highest levels of government? 

5. This doesn't make much sense, since you must know that she'd be running as a Democrat, right?  What you've listed would only be problems if she was running on the right.  

Makes sense to me.  You asked what made her unqualified, not what makes her more or less palatable to Democrats or Republicans.  Yes she will appeal to liberals who believe in class warfare, bigger government, increased government spending, etc., etc., but as the current condition of our country shows, those policies are a failure.  She's the kind of person who will turn Obama's $17 trillion debt into $24 trillion. 

And I didn't even mention social issues (because those don't drive my vote), but she's out-of-step with the majority of the country those issues too. 

[Straw Man]

1.  She's dishonest.  - Rand Pauls going to have trouble then given his serial plagiarism

2.  She has no military experience, and not even the experience governors have of running the national guard.  - Are Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie veterans

3.  She has very little experience in the private sector.  Doesn't sound like she has ever started and managed a business with employees, or worked for any significant period of time for a company.  Has she ever managed a payroll in the private sector?  - why does anyone bring this up when very few POTUS have this.  Reagan didn't have it, neither did Clinton.  On the other hand George Bush had it and the global economy was crashing at the end of his term.  News Flash - the government is not the private sector and governing is not an experience you get in the private sector

4.  She will have served four years in the Senate if she is elected, with probably two years of that time spent running for office - you mean just like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul

5.  She is wrong on economic issues and an advocate of class warfare.  She believes in raising taxes on those who already pay the majority of the taxes in this country.  She supported TARP.  She supports socialized medicine.  She supports increased government regulation over the private sector.  - you have no problem with class warfare as long as it's the upper economic class waging it on the lower classes

Geeze Louise.  This sounds like Obama in a skirt.  

I could go on, but she's not qualified to president IMO.  I would hate to see her on the ticket.  I want both parties to put up better candidates, so I have better options.  

Most of your reasons why she is not qualified apply to you favorite Repubs

Get ready for Chris Christie as your candidate

[RRKore]

And I didn't even mention social issues (because those don't drive my vote), but she's out-of-step with the majority of the country those issues too. 

Ok, good of you to point out that your list of qualifications was a personal one.  That makes sense, then.

If you care about being accurate, though, I'd be careful about making unsupported statements about how the "majority of the country" feels about anything.  I say this mostly because "Out of step" is how I'd describe your feelings about corporal punishment.  

Anyway, it's 2013 and judging from recent years' election results, I think how the majority feels about social and economic issues would seem to be different than how you're characterizing it.  

[Dos Equis]

Ok, good of you to point out that your list of qualifications was a personal one.  That makes sense, then.

If you care about being accurate, though, I'd be careful about making unsupported statements about how the "majority of the country" feels about anything.  I say this mostly because "Out of step" is how I'd describe your feelings about corporal punishment.  

Anyway, it's 2013 and judging from recent years' election results, I think how the majority feels about social and economic issues would seem to be different than how you're characterizing it.  

I'm pretty careful, but it's my opinion.  My opinion is based on interacting with people all over the country, looking at laws that get passed (or don't get passed), opinion polls, etc.  For example, the majority of the country does not believe in unrestricted abortion on demand until birth, which is what Obama believes and what I think Warren probably believes.  I could show you poll numbers that support this, point to the numerous state laws around the country placing restrictions on late term abortions, etc., but you get the picture.   

Regarding child discipline, I've been around enough parents for a long to time to have a pretty informed opinion.  What I said is accurate: depends on the sample.  If you ask parents "in the hood" about discipline you'll probably get a much different answer than if you were asking parents whose kids attend a $40k a year high school.