Sunday, July 6, 2014

Is President Obama Preparing To Back Warren For 2016 Democratic Nomination For Prez?...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


The New York Post is reporting that President Obama is quietly trying to convince Massachusetts extreme progressive Senator Elizabeth Warren to make a run for presidency in 2016. He has reportedly expressed privately concerns that his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would if nominated and ultimately elected undo some of his policies.

While Obama has publicly been non committal this report should surprise few given the aggressive campaign Hillary waged against Obama for the democratic party nomination in 2008. Clinton, while certainly a liberal is more centrist than her ex boss.

Should Warren choose to toss her hat in the ring for 2016 with the President's blessings it will certainly energize the right and moderates who are given pause by her leftist views.

It has been said by many talking heads and bloggers on the far right that Obama was the far left's socialist candidate (some even said he is a communist) that was elected to set the stage for a socialist government in the USA. One can only guess what the right is going to chime in with after the New York Post article.

President Obama has quietly promised Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren complete support if she runs for president — a stinging rebuke to his nemesis Hillary Clinton, sources tell me.

Publicly, Obama has remained noncommittal on the 2016 race, but privately he worries that Clinton would undo and undermine many of his policies. There’s also a personal animosity, especially with Bill Clinton, that dates from their tough race six years ago.

A former Harvard law professor and administration aide, Warren would energize the left wing of the Democrat Party just as Obama did against Clinton in 2008.

Thanks to her outspoken stand against big banks and the top 1 percent, Warren is the darling of progressives. She won her Senate seat thanks to millions of dollars in donations from outside Massachusetts, including from rich environmentalists and Hollywood celebrities.

Obama has authorized his chief political adviser, Valerie Jarrett, to conduct a full-court press to convince Warren to throw her hat into the ring.

In the past several weeks, Jarrett has held a series of secret meetings with Warren. During these meetings, Jarrett has explained to Warren that Obama is worried that if Hillary succeeds him in the White House, she will undo many of his policies.

He believes that the populist Warren is the best person to convince the party faithful that Hillary is out of touch with poor Americans and the middle class. Warren, in his view, would carry on the Obama legacy after he leaves the White House.

So far, Warren has been reluctant to make a commitment. During several recent interviews, she has said that she has no present plans to run for president.

However, she always phrases her stance on the issue in the present tense and has refused to issue a Shermanesque statement that she will not run for the White House under any circumstances.

“Barack, Michelle, and Valerie have been talking about Elizabeth Warren for quite some time,” says an Obama administration source. “Valerie has told Warren that Obama is prepared to throw a great deal of money and organizational support behind her.

The drama of politics, as well as the BS. Read much more BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum

61 comments:

  1. That would be interesting. Doubt Warren will run..too progressive for current electorate, minimal experience. Given the job H. Clinton did for Obama (and the fact that he picked her), I would be very surprised would he not support her if she runs. Who knows, hopefully not Biden vs Huckabee!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Never mind her politics. What about qualifications? She's on the level with Obama-in-2008 and Palin (before she ran away from her office). A real paper-thin resume. She should at least get an entire US Senate term under her belt.

    "Who knows, hopefully not Biden vs Huckabee!! - BB.

    HUCKABIDEN 2016 !!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Obama and Warren do have similar backgrounds and experience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm wondering why so many conservatives think Dr. Ben Carson should be president. What about his qualifications and experience? As far as I can determine, he's been a doctor all his life and has zero experience in politics. However, that seems not to bother the conservativse who think he'd make a peachy president, even though those same people complained about Mr. Obama having very little experience.

      Delete
    2. Shaw, this post is about the possibility of a very progressive Massachusetts Senator being urged by the President to run in 2016. Something that may or may not happen.

      Dr. Ben Carson is not the subject matter of this post and therefore his qualifications, or lack thereof are quite irrelevant to this particular post.

      Rest assuured when and IF the possibility of the Fine Doctor running for president becomes a serious this site will have something to say.

      I can assure you if Warren runs I'll do my part to help assure her defeat.

      Delete
    3. RN: It's your blog.... but. We've all seen various flights of fancy and off-topic tangents... and many times you have allowed such, and have even caused them in comments in your posts

      In my view, I think Shaw's mention of Dr. Carson as a possible candidate in 2016, and his (lack of) experience is quite in topic with mentioning Warren and her (lack of) experience in 2016.

      Delete
    4. Fair enough dmarks.

      I have no real problem with "flights of fancy". Again, my point is Dr. carson was not the issue no is it likely he will become one in the 2016 race. As such time as he becomes a likely candidate this site will have more to say on him.

      Comment away on Dr. Carson if ya'all like.

      Delete
    5. That's kind of funny, on a number of levels. Sadly funny

      Delete
  4. If Warren runs, not only will I support Hillary (for the nomination), I will actively campaign for the woman. I mean, just the thought of that borderline socialist moron anywhere remotely near the oval office makes me want to vomit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will: Hillary is scandal-ridden and emotionally unstable, and left her Secretary-of-State position in disgrace. There's more than 2 years of scandal and ridiculous statements (a multi-millionaire personally profiting from her government connections claiming to be "dead broke"???) left before Nov 2016. Damaged goods.

      Warren's views are extreme, as in driving off moderates (as well as conservatives of course). She will capture the hearts of the "99% Movement" (which really represents only 20% or so of Americans, and as you can see, is rather self deluded).

      It would take a pretty bad Republican candidate to lose to either of these. However, I have no doubt that the Republicans will rise to the task and provide such a candidate.

      Delete
    2. dmarks, your statements are largely opinion and conjecture with respect to H.Clinton. She is not to my liking either, however, if the republicans run another bozo in 2016 I sure as hell hope Clinton, rather than Warren is the democratic nominee. Although Biden just might be preferable to either Warren or Clinton.

      Delete
    3. The statements about her baggage are what has happened in the past, not conjecture. But yes, the damage this baggage will do to her chances is indeed conjecture.

      Delete
    4. Just for clarification, I would support Hillary for the nomination. In the general I still firmly plan to vote for Gary.

      Delete
  5. Will: She is pretty bad....I remember listening to a speech she did loaded with language to pit American vs American, appealing to base jealousy and greed. And don't forget her fraudulent claims of being a Native American.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Warren is an extremely biased progressive. I do not believe however she is pitting Americans against Americans in the broad sense. She is however pitting the "99%" against the "1%" IMO.

    Further to this dmarks it has been my experience with those I've worked with as well as those who have worked for me that people are not so much jealous or greedy with respect to the rich as much as they want an opportunity to have a equitable shot at achieving their goals and dreams. Most people simply don't believe 80 billion dollars is necessary to lead a happy and productive life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RN: I don't think that transferring the wealth from the person with 80 billion to the government will have any effect at all at others wanting "an opportunity to have a equitable shot at achieving their goals and dreams". It's this sort of scapegoating that I object to. And it is little different from conservative idiots who make speeches blaming immigrants for their audience's problems.

      In fact, sometimes this sort of practice can have a negative effect. I am remembering the blue collar workers laid off due to lower yacht sales under the Clinton era- luxury tax. The rich didn't suffer under feel-good pointless tax hikes, but Joe Sixpack did.

      Delete
    2. What you fail to understand dmarks is we have a choice of the aristocracy of the rich and powerful or a strong vibrant and growing middle class, something we once had and no longer do.

      Scapegoating? To this I say BU*LSH*T.

      Delete
  7. I don't support any aristocracy, and respectfully disagree on the scapegoating.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So, it is safe to say then you do support a revival of policies that contribute to a growing middle class?

    On the alleged scapegoating, we shall simply have to agree to disagree :-)

    Side note, if there is any scapegoating it certainly would apply to both sides IMO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RN,
      It is unimportant whether one person accumulates $100 Billion (Bill Gates at the height of Microsoft's value) whether he does so by unconstitutional or illegal means such as bribery of theft is the issue. If the sycophants, to his wealth and power, that are in government or the media choose to bend the rules to aid the wealthy in abuse of the middle class, the problem is not being wealthy, the problem is abusing the position to which you have elevated yourself.
      Most of the top ten percent of wealth rests with an ever changing group.

      Delete
  9. This ARTICLE is one you might find interesting given the post subject and the ongoing debates between conservatives and progressives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RN,
      Interesting article, by a progressive for progressives. The idea that there should be a "limit" on how much wealth one can accumulate is ridiculous at best. Dionne's reference to FDR's quote about the dangers of just that seem odd considering that he contributed to the OTHER side contributing great wealth. Although most businesses are small businesses, the large employers are typically coupled with people of great wealth.
      The most obvious points though in the consideration of a "cap" on wealth are 1) who decides?
      2) when this cap is placed, what happens to those whose wealth exceeds the cap 3) when the (inevitable) taxes on the excess don't derive the desired income for the deciders of the cap level, do they increase the tax or lower the level of the cap?
      The corollary based on the law of unintended consequences, "What about the jobs not created or lost because no one can shoot for the moon any more, only the roof?

      Delete
    2. Adding fuel to the raging fires of partisan political discourse insures a continuing raging blaze that politicians, bloggers (particularly those of the extreme like LR), and party leaders are fine with.

      Far to many are willfully blind to what is going on and many more are unwilling to make reasonable compromises. We are our own worst enemy and like lemmings marching to the sea this nation will drown itself in its own irrationality.

      Delete
  10. .

    New York Post? Really? Seriously? New York Post?

    Must be a slooooooooow news day.

    New York Post, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ....

    What next? Asking Rove or DeSouza for recommendations on President Obama should have for breakfast???

    Ema Nymton
    ~@:o?
    .

    ReplyDelete
  11. Did you read the article?

    So, what is your position on MS. Progressive Senator Elizabeth Warren? Do you think she is going to listen to her mentor? If so would you vote for her. Do you believe she is the face of the new democratic party? Something, anything beside your wonderful attempt at biting humor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question, RN. Ema commented like she was on laughing gas, and offered nothing of substance. And changed the subject to DeSouza and breakfast food.

      Delete
    2. If it doesn't come from the New York Times, the Huffington Post, the Daily Kos, MSNBC, or Salon, it isn't really "news" in Ema's little world.

      Delete
    3. Ema, like so many hyper partisans on both political extremes stick with the agenda and the script. But whenever she visits I just can't help but smile.

      Delete
  12. .

    "Did you read the article?"

    You want to speculate, speculate. Running down a rabbit hole of Republican'T Party fantasy "wishful thinking" is a total waste of time. _Unnamed_Obama_administration_source_, (Republican'T Party operative working for Murdoch Media/Fox Networks) is being paid to make this sh!t up, and Rational Nation USA wants to extrapolate this into a 'grudge match' between Democratic Party players?

    Good luck with that ...

    Ema Nymtyon
    ~@:o?
    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...urdoch Media/Fox Networks..."

      Always the paranoid ravings of those who believe all media should be left-wing, and get really bent out of shape when just one outlet isn't. Those like Ema believe that freedom of the press/speech applies to only the speech she happens to agree with.

      And the only "can't" here is that Ema can't spell Republican correctly.

      Delete
    2. I thought I asked reasonable questions of Ema. Questions a serious person cold consider and offer reasonable responses to. But I guess Ema isn't seriou as she chose to sidestep them. Not unexpected.

      Delete
    3. RN: I can't recall the last time Ema deviated from a sort of Think Progress (tm) gear shop bumper sticker slogan mentality. I remember it happening, but it was a while ago.

      Delete
  13. Dear, dear Ema, you answered my questions beautifully. We all now know you quite obviously did not read the article nor take note of my comment copied below.

    It has been said by many talking heads and bloggers on the far right that Obama was the far left's socialist candidate (some even said he is a communist) that was elected to set the stage for a socialist government in the USA. One can only guess what the right is going to chime in with after the New York Post article.

    And this.

    The drama of politics, as well as the BS. Read much more BELOW THE FOLD.

    However Ema my dear, we here at RN USA appreciate youe strictly partisan perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Left wasn't "energized" by the socialist/communist Obama, as Obama wasn't (and isn't) anywhere near being a "socialist". He may have been perceived at the time as being farther Left than Hillary, but he sure as hell has not lived up to any expectations of that nature. Also, Mr. Obama has described himself as fiscally conservative, saying "I'm a Blue Dog Democrat".

    And, even though I think Warren (if she stayed true to what she has done so far) would be EXACTLY what this country needs... that would only be *if* she had a Congress that would work with her, which I see as unlikely. if elected Warren would likely be viewed as a "failure" by some. These would be the same idiots who blame our current president for what the obstructing Congressional Republicans have done, which would be obstructing Obama even when he took ideas THEY ORIGINATED and suggested incorporating them into legislation he proposed.

    BTW, the thought of Warren, an extremely intelligent TRUE Progressive, possibly getting elected to the oval office makes me smile and believe there might just be some hope for this country. Not for long, however, as I do not believe she will be running. I'd be a hell of a lot more surprised than if Hillary runs. And, although the Republican candidate will definitely try to slime her with the fake Benghazi scandal and shameless lies about her being "emotionally unstable" (shades of Rush-like misogyny here) or "leaving her Secretary-of-State position in disgrace", I think she has a decent shot at the presidency (unlike Warren who would, unfortunately, be a long shot).

    As for Ben Carson, his winning the nomination is very unlikely (I would say the chance is around zero). Why? I'll give you a hint... it has something to do with Obama losing the White vote by 20 points to Mittens in 2008, which was "the widest losing margin for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1984".

    ReplyDelete
  15. WD,
    You are 100% correct. I have to laugh at the "fear" that Warren generates from conservatives. It shows her viability as a candidate.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Fear"... not likely. Viable, perhaps.

    Reality is she probably won't run, a good thing for the democratic party in general and most certainly for the nation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RN,
      If the reports are true that Barry, the little Hussein, and his minder, Valerie, convince Warren to run, she will. As an Ivory Tower doppelganger of the Left (far left) (farther left) she can't deal with us little people that make up America. The problem for those that might convince her to run is that she will make NO connection with anyone middle class or below and above that she will be seen for the buffoon that she is. If she has any sense, after a horrific loss in Iowa, she will drop out.

      Delete
    2. That was so full of buzzwords and Limbaugh-esque third-grade playground insults that I couldn't quite figure it out.

      Can't even count the characters. Are "Barry" and "Little Hussein" the same person?

      This style of language might work in the Limbaugh Letter or a Molly Ivins column, but it is hardly mature enough for the big leagues.

      Delete
    3. You may be happy to hear that Molly Ivins passed away in 2007. Although, if she were alive, I really can't see her referring to President Obama as a "little Hussein". In any case, you're mistaking a (former) humorist (someone we laugh with) to someone we laugh at (Limbaugh).

      Delete
    4. dmarks,
      I should have known by the name that you would understand or recognize standard English, grammar and composition. Notwithstanding, I was attempting to both avoid questions and make commentary. In your regard, the words and usage were evidently a few grade levels too high. In the future, before posting, I will use an English to Idiot translator.

      Delete
    5. Dervish,
      Though our viewpoints are diametrically opposed, your comment was excellent.

      Delete
    6. Keith said: "I should have known by the name that you would understand or recognize standard English, grammar and composition".

      I do indeed understand or recognize standard English/etc as you just said. Reading what you (Keith) said, this is actually true. Guessing at what you meant, it is hilarious when someone goes all "grammar nazi" and in the process of doing so, makes a blunder to the point where his sentence says exactly the opposite of what he intended to type.

      "In the future, before posting, I will use an English to Idiot translator."

      More like "idiot to English". No amount of reading comprehension can discern who you meant when you mentioned "Little Hussein". Pres. Obama is a tall man, after all.

      As for Ivins, she was no more or and no less funny than Limbaugh. Which is why I mention them in the same breath. Though, of course, there are those with have blind partisanship instead of rational though who favor one over the other.

      Delete
    7. Keith implied that the truth was self evident in his clumsy diatribe against Pres. Obama. When in doubt, go to Google. I did specifically look up the phrase "Little Hussein", and the first thing that came up was a link to this video with a racist depiction of Pres. Obama as a monkey nicknamed "Little Hussein". Mystery solved.

      Now I wonder if Keith sewed this effigy himself?

      Delete
    8. I do favor one over the other (Ivans V Limbaugh). But my point (which you missed) was that only one is/was an INTENTIONAL humorist.

      Delete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I expect Warren to run after either the Hillary presidency or the Hillary defeat, 2024 or 2020. I don't think she will challenge Clinton in 2016. She will do better to have the Clintons on her side.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I am not a fan of either so I won'r be disappointed if it doesn't happen for either. Having said this your reasoning is sound and frankly for 2016 I don't see a republican with any promise with the possible exception of Rand Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Why mention Randal Paul? Is it because of the discussion on another blog? In any case Kentucky does not allow a candidate to appear on two separate ballots in the same election. What I've heard is that Randal "quietly asked the state’s legislature to revise the law in order to allow him to run for President and Senate at the same time [but] the House, which is held by Democrats, decided not to play along. Now, they haven’t voted against it, per se. Instead, they just let the time run out in this legislative session". Ha ha ha. I think he should resign his Senate seat so he can run for prez.

    Anyway, I'm pretty sure I read on this blog a few posts that were critical of Randal. I did not think RN was a fan of his either.

    As for a comment of mine containing an assertion that is "clearly racist", I expected this response from the individual in question. "Racist"? Yes, but it's the racism of the White Republicans who wouldn't vote for him for this reason alone, not mine.

    ReplyDelete
  21. It must be a light news week when rumor commands more attention than real news. My guess: Real news lacks the manufactured sensationalism of rumor.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Come to think of it Sunday 7/6/14 was a light news day as well the start of a new week. Light is good occasionally, unless it is light beer, light chocolate, or light coffee.

    As to rumor, well, we won't know whether it is or isn' t untill it either does or doesn't happen. I prefer conjecture to rumor, it has a nicer ring to it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Conjecture" is nice, but I don't think Bruce Willis will name a daughter that.

      Delete
    2. I removed my comment on Dr. Carson being branded a failure out of the gate due to his skin color, because it was too off topic. Unrelated to issues involving Warren. My comment also contained a grammatical error, which made it canard-bait.

      I never remove my comments due to extreme/etc views, since I dont make such comments to begin with.

      Delete
  23. I am a bipartisan critic, carrying no water for anyone. In addition I point out WD even the best have their wrinkles.

    Unfortunately bipartisanship hasn't sold for some time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As you should be, RN. Otherwise it is hero worship...which is the last thing we need in regards to those in power.

      Delete
    2. What about those who have power due to their great wealth? Hero worship in regards to these people is the "last thing" we need IMHO... yet it appears to me that this kind of hero worship is one some gleefully partake in.

      Delete
    3. I would agree that hero worship in regards to "those people" is not healthy. However, none of it has been practiced by any blogger commenter "in this general area". While some gleefully partake in it, there is no evidence of that in these and "nearby" blogs.

      Delete
    4. I must actually amend my above comment, concerning hero worship of the wealthy. There IS an example of this in the "Area Blogs". One person actually has a self-described "shrine" to wealthy multi-millionnaire corporate Democrat Keith Olbermann.

      Yes, a shrine, of all things.

      A shrine is described as "a place regarded as holy because of its associations with a divinity or a sacred person or relic". Well, there is one example of hero worship of the wealthy. You won't find this from others. Certainly not from Les at "RN", who finds wisdom in the writings of Ayn Rand but has always explicitly distanced himself from worship, adoration, or discipleship. And nothing like this from anyone else toward anyone else.

      Olbermann, of course, made most of his millions as a shill for GE, a huge defense contractor which controlled NBC and MSNBC for most of the time Olbermann was with it

      And based on the last recorded count of his riches, he not just a member of the 1%, he is a member of the one tenth of one percent.

      I would expect that this "Hero Worship" in the form of a shrine to a wealthy corporate shill will be removed forthwith. Anything else would be hypocrisy.

      Delete
    5. The page you refer to does not fit your description and won't be removed. The word "shrine", as well as all the other over-the-top language is a joke. I would add "and you know it", but with you one never knows. I admire Mr. Olbermann and that is all. My admiration has to do with his truth telling (while he had a forum to do so) and not with how much he is worth. It has nothing to do with that at all. Although it is possible you're talking about some other Keith Olbermann... one that is a Corporate Democrat and a "wealthy corporate shill". My "shrine" is to a man that (while he was a pundit) opposed Corporate Democrats and absolutely was not their shill. This other Keith Olbermann you speak of... I think you imagined him. Anyway, real or imagined, I have no shrine to the man you describe.

      I surely do not agree with you about Ayn Rand either. The hero of her novel "Atlas Shrugged" was a rich man who "went on strike" to teach all the poor leaches a lesson. As I recall, RN has said he read it. There is no wisdom within the writings of the late Rand, IMO. Unless you think worshipping wealth is wise. Also, I stand by what I said in the comment you responded to (including what is said on the page I linked to).

      Delete
  24. "Unfortunately bipartisanship hasn't sold for some time."

    But sensationalized hype and drama does, and I refuse to be held in thrall by it any longer. I blame mainstream media in part, but also blame ourselves for allowing us to fall sucker to pre-packaged opinion over independent thinking, for listening to spin over fact, for choosing superstition over empiricism, and for pushing tribalism over consensus-based democracy.

    Hillary, pillory, Post, and a pox on Fox. Hard news shouldn't have to be a hard sell.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.