Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Hillary kisses Elizabeth Warren’s ring

Hillary kisses Elizabeth Warren’s ring

Is Warren now the Democratic Queen maker?

I’ve said it before, and I stand by it: Elizabeth Warren would crush Hillary, and they both know it.

If you doubted that Hillary knew it, read this NY Times account of their recent meeting, Hillary Clinton, Privately, Seeks the Favor of Elizabeth Warren:

Hillary Rodham Clinton held a private, one-on-one meeting with Senator Elizabeth Warren in December at Mrs. Clinton’s Washington home, a move by the Democrats’ leading contender in 2016 to cultivate the increasingly influential senator and leader of the party’s economic populist movement.

The two met at Whitehaven, the Clintons’ Northwest Washington home, without aides and at Mrs. Clinton’s invitation.

Mrs. Clinton solicited policy ideas and suggestions from Ms. Warren, according to a Democrat briefed on the meeting, who called it “cordial and productive.” Mrs. Clinton, who has been seeking advice from a range of scholars, advocates and officials, did not ask Ms. Warren to consider endorsing her likely presidential candidacy. Aides to Mrs. Clinton did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and aides to Ms. Warren could not be reached.

The conversation occurred at a moment when Ms. Warren’s clout has become increasingly evident.

It’s not quite Bill Maher territory, but Hillary at some point may need to get down on one knee and propose a high level cabinet post in order to keep Liz out of the race, or if she stays out, to get Warren to bless the Hillary campaign.

Warren backers see this as an unequal relationship, as in Hillary is barely worthy of being in the presence of Liz, via Bloomberg:

Some might have interpreted the report as a sign that Clinton was taking Warren under her wing. But for Warren’s most vocal supporters, the self-appointed army raging for economic populism, the tête-à-tête meant just about the opposite. Ilya Sheyman, the executive director of Political Action, which with Democracy for America launched the project Run Warren Run, sounded emboldened. “It’s more evidence that Sen. Warren and progressives are driving the conversation within the Democratic Party,” he said, through a spokesman. “That’s why we’re eager for Elizabeth Warren to run for President, and any candidate would do well to speak to the issues she’s led on — like tackling income inequality, student debt, and taking on the big banks.”

Will Liz run? I don’t know, but Hillary is keeping her potential enemies close. That may be the best sign of all for those who, like me, say: Run, Liz, Run!


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I’m getting a sneaky feeling Professor Jacobson is sitting on something about the Lizard. I hope I’m right, but do not want confirmation. Heh.

Elizabeth Warren running for President would go a long way to washing the taste from my mouth the memory of watching an orgasmic Western European college audience viewing his first inauguration on television.

Barack’s time was past before his first election, but 30 points close air support and a badly wounded prior administration dragged him over the finish line. The second term was stolen only by massive voter fraud and IRS suppression of the opposition.

Neither will come much into play for any Obama successor, as Obama could give a crap about a successor–Obama lives only for Obama.

Hilary and Warren are, if anything, more behind the times than even Obama was when first elected, and instead of the coat tails of a despised Republican they have the explicitly failed “coat tails” of eight years of a failed Progressive agenda–which even Democrats, so eviscerated in Congress, are turning against–and a whole generation of Americans who know–despite what MSNBC and Jon Stewart has been telling them–that they’ve been living through a genuine American depression.

Warren, should she run for President, is this generation’s Mondale.

Particularly if Walker is the Republican candidate.

(All bets off if Jeb emerges as the candidate, in which case anyway I’ll be making a legal identity change.)

–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Oh, they were only exchanging recipe books – Warren’s “Pow Wow Chow” for Hillary’s “What Difference Does It Make Dinners”.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to jennifer a johnson. | February 18, 2015 at 3:31 pm

    Good one Jennifer!!!

    Maybe they’re gonna combine their cooking the books and come out with something like

    “What Diffference Does a Chow in the Bowl Make?” Or subtitle “How Land Crab Saved My Professional(?) Career!”

    I’d have clicked thumbs up ten times if it were Legal. Good post.

I think Elizabeth Warren is a borderline idiot, but I’ve been informed by her supporters that I do not have the credentials to criticize her for the things she says.

    Now, now… Elizabeth Warren is very intelligent. However she has a bias which blinds her to seeing the damage that her policies would inflict on the American economy.

    Warren, like many Neo-Liberals / Progressives, only sees the immediate result of any direct action (transfer of wealth, forgiveness of debt, reduction of fees, etc…). She sees that “well, the ‘rich’ are not using that money -right now- and thus that money could be more effectively (‘better’) used by transferring it to an individual to reduce their “debt load.””

    And there IS a certain logic to it. It IS economically efficient AS A WHOLE to reduce the interest paid by ONE individual by taking money from ANOTHER individual who is being paid LESS than the amount of interest being charged to the ‘debtor’ individual. As a COLLECTIVE it makes sense from the standpoint of ‘greatest good.’

    However, that logic ENDS with the transfer of wealth. It ASSUMES that the individual receiving the bailout either HAS sufficient income to maintain lifestyle OR will not further enter into debt (aka ‘live beyond their means’).

    This assumption is a poor one, as individuals who are in debt are usually (not always) there due to living beyond their means or by making choices which were overly risky or poor return on investment.

    The problem arises where the individual who is having the money taken FROM them now no longer has that capital available to use for other enterprises. They have become beholden to ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL’S choices, by an external 3rd party (the Government). This is the failure of Neo-Liberalism / Progressivism / Statism. It discounts personal choice and individual return which may NOT be “measurable” in nature in exchange for a mechanical equation of greatest “measurable” good to ANY one individual, regardless of the relationship or lack thereof between the two parties.

The GOP should rent billboards on Indian land asking her what tribe she’s from. Around the Puget Sound, we have plenty of places where main highways abut Indian country. I would love to drive by a huge sign asking that question.

Do not underestimate either of these women. Do not overestimate the ability of the American (and 14million Mexican) voters.

Clitler or Fauxcahontas. If those are the best the Dems can do just about any conservative should be able to walk into the WH in 2017.

Elizabeth Warren is committed to her nutty ideological beliefs and doesn’t stray from them to appease anyone. Hillary is committed only to winning and will tell anyone anything she thinks they might want to hear. She makes a mess of everything she touches and will stay true to form in 2016. Warren’s strategy could possible win her the Dem nomination, but not the presidency. It would sure be fun to see her destroy Hillary and the Dems. But I think the Dems are too politically savvy to let it all happen. They just won’t want to see us conservatives having so much fun. I’m not sure Warren would even carry Massachusetts in the general election.

    Oh wait. If Jeb is the R’s nominee, we conservative won’t be having much fun. He doesn’t think he needs any conservative votes, and would prefer that we just stay home I guess. Many conservatives would probably assent to that. He’s perhaps not quite as nuts as Warren though. It’s a close call.

The Clinton’s live in a named Mansion?

Like Montecello? Those two have wreaked destruction upon the US since the day they graduated Yale and here they are living in luxury in a mansion like duke and duchess.

And I blame the liberal media.

    Hal Jordan in reply to jakee308. | February 18, 2015 at 12:37 pm says that the 3-story mansion is located at 3067 Whitehaven St NW, Washington, DC 20008. It has 4 bedrooms, 7 bathrooms, and covers 5152 square feet on a 0.34 acre lot. It was last remodeled in 2005, and what I found most interesting is that it last sold in January, 2000 for $1.00.

    There’s a long article about the mansion here:

      Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Hal Jordan. | February 18, 2015 at 3:34 pm

      Oh My!

      Po’ Dead Broke Hillary!!!!!!!!

      If it was a very closely protected transaction with no mortgage, that’s not particularly abnormal. The only documentation of it might be the actual recorded deed transfer, which might read “for $1 and other valuable consideration.”

      Sometimes weird things like that happen when transactions take place in ways that “public record” sites for information don’t expect (like all-cash transactions on properties that don’t have mortgages). As an example, my home on Zillow shows as having a $50K swing in value in a 12 month period, because the system doesn’t deal well with the fact that I bought my house at a HUGE discount because I paid cash, purchased a house which the Sellers were VERY motivated to sell due to their age, health and the fact that it had been sitting empty for 9 months.

My guess is that the meeting was all about Hilary promising Liz, that Liz will be the VP candidate, if Hilary gets the Democrat nomination.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to DIANE TX. | February 18, 2015 at 11:21 am

    Warren wouldn’t take the VP slot, at least not with the idea she’s next after Hillary’s one or two terms. Too old. I think Warren wants either the presidency in 2016 or head of Treasury. Not VP, though.

      I can see Warren taking the position of Sec. Tres. in a Clinton Presidency. It would be the ultimate thumb in the eye to the Conservatives who blocked her from becoming the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

I’m glad that Sec. Clinton and Sen. Warren sat down to smoke the peace pipe. Could be Clinton offered Warren the same deal President Obama offered Clinton: don’t oppose me, and I’ll give you any cabinet position you want. My advise to Warren is to agree to support Hillary and not take any job offers. When you deal with the Clintons, keep your back to the wall at all times. It’s not that they’re royalty. If they see your back, they’ll put a knife in it.

Hillary kisses Elizabeth Warren’s ring

I think you spelled Ass wrong…..

riverlife_callie | February 18, 2015 at 9:53 am

What’s with all the down-twinkles. Do we have a Lizzie Warren troll?

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to riverlife_callie. | February 18, 2015 at 3:36 pm

    Maybe Lizzie herself. Lord knows she’s not working!

    Henry Hawkins in reply to riverlife_callie. | February 18, 2015 at 5:57 pm

    No, it’s a frequent occurrence that somebody will down thumb every comment for whatever reason. Theirs is not a brave intellect and they typically do not comment or engage anyone. It might be somebody’s cat on the keyboard when they go pee or something. I dunno. But it really, really bothers me, keeps me awake at nights, to know that some anonymous nobody out there doesn’t approve of something I posted. Nawww, no it doesn’t.

Neither of them is genuinely electable. It will take all the billions of dollars Hillary has raised, extorted, blackmailed, stolen to force her upon the American electorate. She and MSNBC will have to mount a campaign worthy of Leni Reifenstahl to elect her and they probably have the money to do it. Liz Warren is just another rich socialist with a soapbox and a megaphone exhorting the Occupy Trust Funders to tweet all their friends to do something about something hashtag hashtag.