WHAT'S ALL THE HUBBUB ABOUT ELIZABETH WARREN?
July 9, 2014
Yes, it's true. I once believed that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick would have been the next President of the United States.
However, the far-left Democrat/Progressive, close friend and confidant of President Barack Obama and (I need to add this) an African-American who can fire up the base with the continuous use of the race card, has said he is not interested in a run for the Democratic nomination in 2016.
That leaves yet another far-left Democrat/Progressive, close friend and confidant of Obama and (I need to add this tidbit too) a woman and 1/64th Cherokee. Her name is Elizabeth Warren.
Never heard of her? Neither had 90 percent of the US on the day Barack Obama declared he was running for President back in early, 2007. But that is not a requirement for the office and certainly not for the Democratic nomination.
Barring a societal change on the scale of a 60 megaton warhead being dropped on Washington, today's Democratic Party will never again nominate a white male to the top of its Presidential ticket. The party is beholden to all minorities and white males need not apply.
Since his appearance and speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2012, and especially since the Boston Marathon bombing in April, 2013, I have been watching Gov. Patrick like a hawk. So has former Obama campaign team members Jim Messina and Stephanie Cutter as well as his campaign strategist-in-chief David Axelrod. Axelrod has been to Massachusetts to wine and dine the Governor more than a half dozen times since January, 2013.
In fact, many on the far-left were enamored by a Patrick run and a few even thought that he, along with Wisconsin's lesbian Senator Tammy Baldwin would make a dream-team ticket. Wow! Triple-minority clout to throw at those racists, homophobic, sexist Republicans! The campaign war their base could carry out is unimaginable! And winnable too for this "all-show, no content" society we live in today.
Well, Gov. Patrick has said (only once mind you) that he is not interested, prompting the uber-left to look to his very close friend and fellow Massachusettan Elizabeth Warren. The strange thing about Warren is, the left is not taking "no" for an answer. She has stated on at least a dozen occasions that she isn't running, isn't interested and half of those times has mentioned that she would like to see Hillary head the top of the ticket.
With Patrick out, Warren is now viewed as the best Progressive in the bunch to continue the Obama legacy. After all, she has backed everything Barack Obama has pushed since he was first elected. She would never go against one thing Obama proposes even if he were to call for the extermination of all white people. Remember, Warren has nothing to fear with this proposal since she claims to be 'RED.' You see, she can trace her native American lineage back through a great-great-great great grandmother's second cousin.
Yes, Elizabeth Warren would make a better guardian of the Obama legacy than Hillary Clinton. So runs the argument.
Author Ed Klein claims that Obama is worried that Mrs. Clinton, if she becomes president, would “undo and undermine” many of his (Obama’s) policies. Also, there’s no love lost between Obama and Bill Clinton, according to Mr. Klein.
Obama is keeping mum on this decision for now but will reveal it in the fullness of time, when it can do the most good, which will be sometime after the midterm elections. His endorsement would be big. But most likely he will quietly back her only if she agrees to run and then by urging his backers to quietly endorse her. He also has to have a meeting with his string-puller, George Soros and "feel his pulse."
Back to Ed Klein, I don't think it is wise to get into a discussion about the accuracy of his larger body of work. He’s got a book out at the moment called “Blood Feud," which takes as its thesis that the Clinton and Obama families hate each other. Some reviewers have noted that it is thinly sourced and contains wooden dialogue. The mainstream media have been reluctant to take it at face value.
Moving along, we’ll start with the obvious substantive question: If Obama dislikes Clinton so much, why did he make her secretary of State? That makes it look like he, you know, trusted her judgment or something. Or maybe it was really about needing a scapegoat down the road. Well, the latter surely seems to be the case.
And would Senator Warren really defend Obama’s legacy, more so than Clinton? That’s no given.
At this juncture. all indications are that Elizabeth Warren would be a weaker general election candidate than Clinton. Keeping the White House in the hands of the same party for a third term will be a difficult task. You’d think Obama would back the person who makes that more likely.
Deval Patrick aside, the three Progressive Democrats to the far-left with Obama's ideology are Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley and New York Mayor Bill De Blasio. O'Malley wants the job, I think Rahm Emanuel does too. De Blasio may wait until 2020 if the GOP take the White House in '16.
But let’s assume for the sake of argument that Obama does want Warren, not Clinton, or anyone else, to succeed him. Given that the president’s approval ratings are now underwater, it would make more sense for him to endorse the person he wants to lose, right? That’s what a clever and ruthless politician might do.
Hillary for President???
We believe that the Constitution of the United States speaks for itself. There is no need to rewrite, change or reinterpret it to suit the fancies of special interest groups or protected classes.