Move On wants to draft Liz Warren for 2016

Surely, someone could criticize Senator Warren without having to appear so flagrantly devious, deceptive, dishonest, and dumb.

One wonders why such daffy devices are deemed desirable. They only accrue to Warren's benefit and some hapless stooge's self-indictment.

 

in other words you have no idea of anything Hillary could list as an accomplishment either in foriegn policy or in domestic legislation, like I said though don't feel bad . No one seems to be able to - even Hillary herself

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/u...s-complicates-clintons-diplomatic-legacy.html

It was a simple question to someone accustomed to much tougher ones: What was her proudest achievement as secretary of state? But for a moment, Hillary Rodham Clinton, appearing recently before a friendly audience at a women’s forum in Manhattan, seemed flustered.

Mrs. Clinton played an energetic role in virtually every foreign policy issue of President Obama’s first term, advocating generally hawkish views internally while using her celebrity to try to restore America’s global standing after the hit it took during the George W. Bush administration.

But her halting answer suggests a problem that Mrs. Clinton could confront as she recounts her record in Mr. Obama’s cabinet before a possible run for president in 2016: Much of what she labored over so conscientiously is either unfinished business or has gone awry in his second term.

From Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and the grinding civil war in Syria to the latest impasse in the Middle East peace process, the turbulent world has frustrated Mr. Obama, and is now defying Mrs. Clinton’s attempts to articulate a tangible diplomatic legacy.

 

In truth, I was waiting for the poster to parrot the ubiquitous right wing Native American reference to Warren because that is the ONLY thing they ever come up with as ammunition against her.

 

Prominent among the comical aspects of their fixation regarding Warren's family heritage is that 1) they place unquestioning faith in, of all things, governmental bureaucracy to maintain scrupulous, flawless, and all-inclusive records (that little Liz, as a child, should have demanded be produced by her mother and grandmother before she believed them) and then 2) the same wacko birds, without a shred of evidence to support it, accuse Reagan's Solicitor General of lying when he noted that any suggestion that she had "attained her position and maintains her reputation on anything other than her evident merit is complete nonsense."

Nonsense that fits an agenda is far more apt to be swallowed and repeatedly upchucked in a bulimic torrent, of course.

Stand clear!


.

 

I have been surprised the last couple of mornings to find no new "Hillary" articles over at Politico by her head cheerleader Maggie Haberman. Seems like for weeks when I would jump over to Politico in the morning I would be greeted by a picture of a 40ish Hillary with a headline like Hillary Brushed Her Teeth This Morning !!!, Today what do I find at the top of the page - http://www.politico.com/story/2014/...-cromnibus-2016-elections-113561.html?hp=c1_3 Last few days Politico has went all out for Warren it seems

This is going to be fun to watch boys and girls, I don't care who you are

 

been doing a little digging on our Cherokee princess here and finding out some very interesting facts

Elizabeth Warren became a hero of the left for her unrelenting pursuit of accountability and transparency with big banks and Wall Street firms that took billions of dollars in federal bailout money in 2008.

But when it comes to how her own bailout watchdog committee spent more than $10 million in taxpayer money, Warren has been a lot less forthcoming.

Warren, who is seeking the Democratic Senate nomination in Massachusetts to take on Republican Scott Brown, has yet to break down exactly how her congressional panel spent the money on travel expenses, meals and consultants, and the panel never revealed how much Warren was paid while she served as chairman.

The Congressional Oversight Panel, which existed for more than two years, has not yet disclosed any other staff salaries either — even though the five-member panel was created and run by Congress, where nearly every staffer salary and office expense, from plane tickets to bottled water, is publicly available.

In fact, Warren opposed GOP efforts to draft a budget for the bipartisan oversight panel, despite telling The Associated Press in 2008 that she wouldn’t buy a winter coat without a spending plan.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64099.html#ixzz3LyTwaRy7

 

I find it fascinating how quickly right wingers line up behind party affiliations and start blasting anyone and anything that comes from the other side. It is a knee jerk reaction much like teenage rebellion fantasies. The first tactic is to ignore the message and begin the process of making the debate as meaningless and empty as possible. The photograph of Warren and our first black POTUS dressed up in costumes is quite revealing. There is nothing sacred anymore as long as it pertains to protecting or securing the goals of tribalism. Forget the fact that Warren is promoting an agenda that every single American should be supporting, the break up of the big banks that own America. Forget the fact that this is what we were all told started the Tea Party on their tantrum crusade. Forget all that, this is about Warren the fake Cherokee apparently. And what it is about the right wing that cannot fathom the various movements on the left and will never, ever give any of them legitimacy? We have all the right wing factions on TV and in the news constantly regardless of how idiotic they are or how inarticulate and stupid their voices seem. There is no far left in the MSM at all. Warren is hardly far left, she is merely promoting an agenda that ran our nation for the better part of 50 years. Congratulations you right wingers, you have all matriculated from the right wing media school of cognitive dissonance.

 

Irony post of the month. Congratulations!

I hope the Democrats run Fauxca every bit as much as the Democrats hope the GOP runs Jeb.

 

Any viable Republican candidate would be far better for our economy, national defense, and America in general than any democrat! Liberal/Progressive thinking is usually bad for America. The thought of voting for a dim for president makes me nauseated!

 

apparently fake political positions mean more to you than real world actions, that is sad. Personally I believe in the old adage fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me. The womne has shown hewrself to be a cheat and a liar and not a very good one at that.

 

Really? She is part Cherokee and cleared it up rather easily. But do continue your insistence on the Fox News narrative. It is amusing to us.

 

The Democratic Party will nominate Hillary Clinton.

Hardcore Repubs are clearly frustrated that their copious efforts to contrive scandals to discredit her have all sputtered and fizzled, but pretending anyone else has much of a chance at securing the nomination and directing their slime-flinging tantrums at her, is just an irrelevant and desperate denial of the virtually inevitable.

Slither out of that sewer, clean up your tawdry act, and look for a clean and sober GOP candidate to support.

Bellywhinging is no way to go through an elective process - and bear in mind that the success of your radio entertainers is predicated upon how wee wee'd up they can keep you, not on coming out ahead at the polls.

 

Ah, yes, I also remember that madcap foolery well. Romney Landslide: Here Are the Biggest Names Predicting It & How It Will Happen!

Let us eschew all those brand, spanking new adages, by all means!

[video=youtube;eKgPY1adc0A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A[/video]​

 

when and where did she clear it up Natty? link it or admit it is a lie

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...0b7f568-08a5-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html

Warren has claimed Cherokee and Delaware Indian heritage, but the only proof so far seems to be stories she says she heard from family members as a child. Cherokee groups have demanded documentation of the candidate’s Native American ancestry, but she hasn’t delivered.

The New England Historic Genealogical Society found a family newsletter that alluded to a marriage-license application supposedly listing Warren’s great-great-great grandmother as part Cherokee.

The Boston Globe misreported this information, saying that the genealogical society had found the marriage license itself and debunked the notion that Warren lied about her lineage. The paper later acknowledged its mistake in a correction notice.

The author of the family newsletter said she didn’t have documentation of the marriage-license application and she doesn’t know who sent her the reference.

(Indian Country Today Media Network has posted the family newsletter on its Web site).

The New England genealogical society clarified in a statement that it has found no proof of Warren’s self-proclaimed Native American lineage. The group also told The Globe that the candidate’s family is not listed in an early-20th century census of major tribes, known as the Dawes Rolls.

An article in Atlantic magazine pointed out that Warren “would not be eligible to become a member of any of the three federally recognized Cherokee tribes based on the evidence so far surfaced by independent genealogists about her ancestry.” That’s because her Cherokee ancestors, if she has any, would either be too distant or they never documented their ties in ways that meet the tribes’ requirements.

I am not a wall of text style poster but more proof of her lies can be found here

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/0...tive-american-issue-has-not-been-put-to-rest/

now this might not make a darn to the gruberites of Massachusetts but it sure as heck will ring the bells of most Americans

 

I'm not sure whether you want me to accuse Senator Warren of lying when she said her mother and grandmother had spoken of their native American heritage, or if it is they who should be accused of lying, and that young Elizabeth should have demanded they produce bureaucratic documentation.

I have no way of refuting either. I was not there.

In any event, the family tradition, whether you cling to State records as the ultimate arbiter in such matters, had no consequences that can be identified - although some may lie in that regard to further an ideological agenda.

In any event, the cogent point is that Elizabeth Warren will not be the Democratic presidential nominee for '16, so redirecting the slime machine at her because it was so ineffective against Clinton is senseless.

 

newsflash natty, Clinton's popularity is diminishing also and 71% want the next president to take a different approach than Obama. All the GOP candidate has to do is tie Clinton to Obama. Not hard considering she was his Secretary of State. Dems love her but the Democratic party is bleeding supporters now

see question 16 - http://newscms.nbcnews.com/sites/newscms/files/141617_december_nbc-wsj_poll.pdf

 

Stuff it in the benghazi folder buddy. I can't keep track of all the outrages from the right. It's like dealing with a Tourettes sufferer with you people. I have some advice for you. Take it easy, slow down, be thankful, have hope, think good things, look for our better angels and if that doesn't calm you down, try some cannibis.

 

wow looks like I hit a nerve, still in the anger phase of the midterm grieving process ? I really really hope Warren decides to run and gets the nomination, she is the leftist equivalent of the GOP nominating Cruz

 

All Repubs need to do to defeat the Democratic presidential nominee in '16 is find one Repub that Americans would prefer to have as their President - no different than in 2008 or 2012.

So far, it's looking like they may need to hire Hans Blix, David Kay, and Charles Duelfer to aid in the search.

 

They don't particularly like her because she isn't liberal enough. This is good news.

 

thanks for proving my point linking that page a look at the polls over time shows how her support is draining and the campaign has not even started. Seems like Hillary tends to fizzle under pressure and now she has Barracks luggage to carry too. Not to mention the progressives hate her as can be seen by the title of this thread.

Oh and a correction all the GOP has to do is get thier people out to vote like they did in the midterms. Seems Dems have lost the youth vote completely now and most of their other supporters can't seem to find their way off the couch

 

Your wishful thinking is harmless. Nevertheless, Repubs still need to actually find a candidate that the American people prefer.

A particularly unrealistic aspect of your wishful thinking is that the record-low turnout of only 36.4% that clearly favoured the hardcore will be repeated in a presidential year, rather than be overwhelmed and subsumed by mainstream voters, normally around 60% participation. That is why both parties will settle on relatively centrist candidates and not pander to the extremes.

Now, your becoming giddily delusional, reminiscent of those GOP fantasists who were hysterical about that imminent "Romney Landslide!" last time.

The GOP will have to shift eventually to attract the majority of pro-choice, pro-immigration-reform, pro-same-sex-marriage, etc. youth, of course, but you now have that increasingly diverse, better-educated demographic being wooed by an aging, 90% White man's party. The nominee of the GOP will be an older White guy whose base is far more likely to make him Jefferson Davis's successor than Barack Obama's.

If Clinton is nominated, she will easily get the Democratic vote - the woman's vote, the Black vote, the Hispanic vote, and the youth vote. She will not get the good ol' boys' vote, but she won't need it.


Republican Lindsey Graham clearly gets it, but who will listen to him?

 

I'm not sure, is the support of MoveON supposed to be a GOOD thing?

 

the record low turnout seemed to have affected the Democrats a whole lot more than it did the GOP when the ballot counting started, but then I guess you already knew that.

Not sure how they do math at your place but according top teh chart since 2012 BOTH parties dropped 1% in the 18 - 29 year olds and if you go back to 2008 the Dems have lost 5% while the GOP gained
2. Don't know if you have seen this but

http://www.gallup.com/poll/168125/young-americans-affinity-democratic-party-grown.aspxl

maybe you should read just more than the headline of a article,,try some simple math and deductive reasoning

Democratic party allegiance has dropped dramatically in the last few weeks. Now it looks like they ran to the Independents but you have to figure they did not leave the Democratic party because they were pleased with it's candidates and the results of it's policies.

http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1165a3PostelectionPolitics.pdf

man you sure stereotype people don't you LOL, youth vote is not going to be 2008 numbers ever again, or least no time soon. Hillary has already shown once she is no Barack Obama that can stand there and scream HOPS AND CHANGE and get people screaming her name.

the pro choice women's issue is way overblown - 2014 Colorado, Texas, N Carolina, Kentucky ring a bell. That fine though, maybe Hillary can use the slogan "I have a vagina, vote for it "

Blacks are one done deal for the Dems at least for the ones that can be motivated to go to the polls but GOP is gaining ground and Blacks are a small % of the voters as are Hispanics. Dems are bleeding larger numbers of whites than they are picking up with minorities when the ballots are cast