Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Elizabeth Warren Tag

Posted by William A. Jacobson on May 13, 2015 19 Comments
Elizabeth Warren had a reputation in academia as a climber with sharp elbows, said New York Magazine in 2011 ("A Saint with Sharp Elbows), and The Boston Globe in 2012:
Behind the scenes, some of her peers bristled at her ascent, viewing her as smart and capable but also as a climber with sharp elbows.
Warren brought those sharp elbows to her 2012 Senate campaign against Scott Brown, and when Brown elbowed back he was accused of sexism. Brent Budowsky at The Hill accused Brown of "sexist slime" for raising the obvious question as to whether Warren's false claim to be Native American in a law directory used for hiring might have juiced her career. Budowsky wrote:
First Brown implied that Warren was a Harvard elitist. Presumably Brown would attack John F. Kennedy for the same reason. Now Brown suggests that Elizabeth Warren is not really qualified to teach at Harvard. Huh? Brown's using the old Karl Rove-style "dog whistle" attack, suggesting Warren just maybe got the Harvard job because of affirmative action. What sexist garbage it is that Scott Brown is trying to sell? Elizabeth Warren got the Harvard job because she was supremely qualified, as are most women who are attacked in this way.
The Warren campaign made the same sexism charge:

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on April 25, 2015 27 Comments
David Frum's naive delight in what he seems certain is Elizabeth Warren's completely pure and altruistic populism leads him to insist that she'll run for president, despite her repeated statements that she will not.  He writes,
By now Warren knows (assuming she didn’t know before she arrived there) that the only thing the Senate can offer somebody like her is the velvety asphyxiation of every idealistic hope. If what you like best is the sound of your own voice and the deference of those around you, then a senatorship is a wonderful job. If you’re in politics to accomplish things, the institution must be almost unbearable. Can Warren bear it? The endless talk, talk, talk? The scoldings from White House aides whenever she says or does something they deem unhelpful? The merciless editing of her speech at the next Democratic National Convention —and the surgical exclusion from the innermost council of the party leadership? That’s the “unique role in the national conversation” in which a Hillary Clinton led Democratic party will cast Elizabeth Warren. Warren's got nothing to gain from staying put in the Senate except drudgery, ineffectuality, and humiliation.
She's simply too good for the Senate, and her beautiful soul can only be quashed and trampled in the Senate quagmire.  The only way to save herself--and America!--is to run against and beat Hillary for the Democrat nomination, and if she is as sincere as Frum believes her to be, she has no other choice but to run.  Frum explains:
If a politician expresses ideas that are shared by literally tens of millions of people—and that are being expressed by no other first-tier political figure—she owes it to her supporters to take their cause to the open hearing and fair trial of the nation. It would be negligent and irresponsible not to do so. Elizabeth Warren belongs to that unusual group who stick by their principles even when it might cost them something, including an election. But if you’re willing to lose for your principles, surely you should be willing to try to win for them?
However, what if Warren is not sincere but is, instead, inauthentic?

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 16, 2015 38 Comments
Andrew Kaczynski at Buzzfeed reports that Hillary's often-told story about all her grandparents being immigrants is 3/4 false. Only one was.
Speaking in Iowa Wednesday, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that all her grandparents had immigrated to the United States, a story that conflicts with public census and other records related to her maternal and paternal grandparents. The story of her grandmother specifically immigrating is one Clinton has told before. Clinton’s sole foreign-born grandparent, Hugh Rodham Sr., immigrated as a child."
Extensive public records support Kaczynski's findings. Here's a Buzzfeed video file of Hillary recently telling the story. [video width="600" height="338" mp4="https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/HillaryinIowacomments-624x350.mp4"][/video] There's also a Youtube video linked by Buzzfeed.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 06, 2015 25 Comments
During the 2012 Massachusetts Senate race, liberals dismissed as irrelevant Elizabeth Warren's false claim that she was Native American, because they liked her progressive politics. Most people don't understand, however, what Warren did. Warren didn't just once check a box on a meaningless form from which she stood no gain. As detailed at ElizabethWarrenWiki.org, for years Warren listed herself as Native American on questionnaires for a law professor directory used for hiring during the mid-to-late 1980s and early 1990s, as she was climbing the law school ladder from U. Texas to U. Penn. to Harvard Law School. Warren then stopped that ethnic claim when she received a tenured position at Harvard in 1995. While Warren claims that the law schools were not aware of her claim and it had no impact on her hiring, Warren has never authorized or directed Harvard to release its entire hiring file. Somehow, this supposed secret that never was disclosed to Harvard prior to hiring was known to the Harvard Women's Law Journal when Warren was a visiting professor in 1993, which listed Warren as a Woman of Color in Legal Academia. And after hiring, Harvard promptly promoted Warren as a Native American hire.  When the Boston Herald broke the story, Warren initially claimed not to know why Harvard touted her that way. Warren excused this conduct by claiming that she either was Native American or at least thought so because of family lore.

Posted by Mike LaChance on April 05, 2015 15 Comments
You may have noticed that almost every time Elizabeth Warren is interviewed, she is asked if she plans to run for president in 2016. FOX News media analyst Howard Kurtz thinks it's because the press is longing for a competitive race on the Democratic side in 2016 and perhaps because journalists feel an "affinity" for Warren. Watch this segment from FOX News on Saturday: I think there's a much simpler explanation for the media's obsession with Warren; they love her. The media is overwhelmingly liberal and many journalists view Warren as the next Obama. They'll settle for Hillary and even pull the lever for her in 2016 if they have no choice, but they'd rather get behind a candidate like Warren who has become the left's standard bearer on issues like income inequality.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 22, 2015 29 Comments
With Hillary's email and fundraising scandals destined to be a permanent fixture in the 2016 campaign if she runs, and with Clinton fatigue already setting in, the voices calling on Elizabeth Warren to mount a challenge are growing stronger. What started with committed progressives at places like MoveOn.org and Daily Kos, now is going mainstream liberal. The Boston Globe Editorial Board is calling on Warren to challenge Hillary:
DEMOCRATS WOULD be making a big mistake if they let Hillary Clinton coast to the presidential nomination without real opposition, and, as a national leader, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren can make sure that doesn’t happen. While Warren has repeatedly vowed that she won’t run for president herself, she ought to reconsider.... The clock is ticking: Presidential candidates need to hire staff, raise money, and build a campaign operation. Although Clinton hasn’t officially declared her candidacy, she’s scooping up support from key party bigwigs and donors, who are working to impose a sense of inevitability about her nomination. Unfortunately, the strategy’s working .... Fairly or not, many Americans already view Clinton skeptically, and waltzing to the nomination may actually hurt her in the November election against the Republican nominee..... Unlike Clinton, or any of the prospective Republican candidates, Warren has made closing the economic gaps in America her main political priority, in a career that has included standing up for homeowners facing illegal foreclosures and calling for more bankruptcy protections. If she runs, it’ll ensure that those issues take their rightful place at the center of the national political debate. Some of Warren’s admirers feel she’d be better off fighting for those causes in the Senate — but her opportunities to enact reforms there are shrinking, which should make a presidential run more attractive. As a member of the minority party in the Senate, her effectiveness is now much more limited than when she first won election, since Republicans control the legislative agenda. Democrats face an uphill challenge to reclaim the Senate in 2016 and face even slimmer prospects in the House. For the foreseeable future, the best pathway Warren and other Democrats have for implementing their agenda runs through the White House.
To drive home the point, The Globe today features several Op-Eds also urging Warren to run:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 11, 2015 17 Comments
Elizabeth Warren is gaining quite the reputation for avoiding the press in public areas of the Capitol. Now the latest, from the Hill, on how Democratic Senators are rallying around Hillary, though Warren isn't talking and has aides run interference for her -- physically (emphasis added):
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has effectively stopped dealing personally with the press in public areas on Capitol Hill, declined to comment on the issue Wednesday. The liberal favorite walked briskly away from questions as an aide stepped in as a buffer.
(h/t Brad Dayspring and Colin Reed on Twitter.) (video added) We at Legal Insurrection are aware of Warren's strategy of using bouncers and aides to block access to Warren. At Netroots Nation in 2012, Warren used security guards to keep our Anne Sorock away from Warren, after Kos Kidz figured out who Anne was and blew the whistle. All Anne wanted to do was ask Warren
"Do you view yourself as a role model for women of color?"
since Warren was listed as a Woman of Color in Legal Academia when she was a visiting professor at Harvard Law School in 1993:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 04, 2015 27 Comments
Hillary Clinton's email scandal gets worse by the day. First, the NY Times broke the story of Hillary's exclusive use of personal email account, raising serious security issues in addition to record keeping issues.  Then WaPo broke that Hillary set up her own email domain. The White House appears ready to abandon her on the issue: AP reports that Hillary had her own email server in her house:
The email practices of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who used a private account exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state, grew more intriguing with the disclosure Wednesday that the computer server she used traced back to her family's New York home, according to Internet records reviewed by The Associated Press.

Posted by Mike LaChance on March 03, 2015 23 Comments
Leaders in the Democratic Party have begun to figure out that if their far left base gets too excited about a candidate like Elizabeth Warren, it could create problems for the presumed nominee, Hillary Clinton. Weasel Zippers points to a column by Think Progress:
Sexist Warren Buffett Goes On The War Path Against Liz Warren (Socialist – MA) – She Is Too ‘Angry’ And ‘Violent’ With Rich People Liz sure as heck isn’t friendly with the middle class either.
Via Think Progress: In an interview Monday morning with CNBC, Berkshire Hathaway CEO and billionaire Warren Buffett was asked what he thinks of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and her views of Wall Street. “I think that she would do better if she was less angry and demonized less,” he responded. “I believe in hate the sin, love the sinner, and I also believe in praising by name and criticizing by category.” He continued that while there are “plenty of other candidates” whose political style he doesn’t agree with, “I do think it’s — I think it’s a mistake to get angry with your, with people that disagree with you,” he said of her. “In the end we do have to work together… And it does not help when you demonize or get too violent with the people you’re talking to.”[…] But Buffett’s use of the emotional word “angry” may be a sign of some subtle sexism.
The effort to squash the 'Warren wing' is on. Big time.

Posted by Mike LaChance on February 24, 2015 11 Comments
When it comes to talk of banks and money in America, Elizabeth Warren says the game is rigged. In the case of the Clinton Family Foundation, she may have a point. A new ad from American Crossroads uses Elizabeth Warren's own words to skewer the Clintons and the funds they freely take from foreign governments. The Washington Free Beacon reports:
Ad Featuring Elizabeth Warren Hits Clinton Foundation on Money from Foreign Governments American Crossroads has found the unlikeliest of partners: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.). In an ad released Monday, the Super PAC headed by Karl Rove attacked Clinton for reports that the Clinton Foundation has accepted millions of dollars from countries barred from making political contributions.
Watch the video. It's short but it makes a powerful point.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 22, 2015 33 Comments
If you think the mainstream media is not out to elect Hillary Clinton in 2016 every bit as much as it was for Obama in 2008 and 2012, then you need your head examined. The multi-day and ongoing demand that Scott Walker verify that Obama is Christian and loves America is a good example. Why is it that Republican candidates and politicians are required to verify the bona fides of Democrats? Here are three questions I have yet to hear Obama or any Democrat asked:

1. Should Joe Biden stop touching women without consent?

2. Is Elizabeth Warren Native American?

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 17, 2015 33 Comments
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. https://youtu.be/uUiehszTswU Warren backers see this as an unequal relationship, as in Hillary is barely worthy of being in the presence of Liz, via Bloomberg:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 11, 2015 19 Comments
I'm a believer, a true believer, that Elizabeth Warren would crush Hillary, if she wanted to. Just Run, Elizabeth, Run! Now a poll backs me up, Shock poll: Warren leads Clinton in Iowa, N.H.:
Populist groups cheering "Run Warren Run," today released 2016 election polls from Iowa and New Hampshire showing Sen. Elizabeth Warren ahead of dominant Democrat Hillary Clinton. The YouGov poll of likely Democratic voters for MoveOn.org and Democracy for America also found that 79 percent want Warren and majorities support her anti-Wall Street positions. The poll of 400 conducted Jan. 30 to Feb. 5 put Warren ahead of Clinton in Iowa, 31 percent to 24 percent. In New Hampshire, her lead is 30 percent to 27 percent.
SCIENCE! Why do some people hate SCIENCE?

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 13, 2015 13 Comments
Until now, it's been purely present tense. "I am not running for President." The tea leaf readers were undeterred, insisting that Warren had not ruled out running in the future. BREAKING: A possible twist. Someone asked Warren if she is "going to run" for President, and she said "No." Granted, the words "going to run" did not come from her mouth, but were built into the question, but she did say "No." TPM reports:
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) gave a new type of answer about possibly running for president: she's not going to run for president. Warren, a favorite of the liberal wing of the Democratic party, was asked if she was going to run for president in an interview with Sheila Bair for Fortune magazine. "So are you going to run for president?" Bair asked. "No," Warren responded. That response is different from one Warren gave in an interview with NPR where she said she's not running for president but declined to say in the future tense that she wouldn't run for president. Fans of Warren running for president in 2016 said this showed that she had not completely closed the door to the idea.
How significant is this? She didn't say it herself.  It could have been Warren didn't pick up on the nuance between present and future (?) tenses: Elizabeth Warren Not Going To Run The Wall Street Journal reports the progressive groups who want Warren to run are undeterred:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 10, 2015 28 Comments
Hillary is the presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee. She has a large double-digit lead over other potential contenders. The one thing Hillary doesn't have, however, is grassroots enthusiasm. Her support as the presumptive nominee is a mile wide and an inch deep. She's popular because of name recognition and organizational power. No one wants to be on Bill and Hillary's enemies list. But Hillary has an image problem, as reflected in this Jay Leno appearance, via The Daily Caller:
Comedian Jay Leno says he likes presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, but she just seems so old. Speaking of Clinton on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” Friday, Leno commented, “I don’t see the fire.” “Her and Elizabeth Warren are almost the same age,” Leno said, comparing Hillary to the Massachusetts senator beloved by the left wing of the Democratic Party. “And I see Elizabeth Warren come out — ‘boom’ — throwing punches. ‘Boom, boom, boom, boom.’” “And I like her,” Leno continued, speaking of Hillary. “But she seems to be sort of, she seems very slow and very — I don’t see that fire, you know, that fire that I used to see, that I see in Elizabeth Warren. Because I say to people, ‘how much younger is Elizabeth Warren than Hillary?’ And people go, ‘oh, 15 years.’ No! 18 months.”
Elizabeth Warren, by contrast? She's intriguing:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on December 29, 2014 16 Comments
Ignore the polls showing Hillary up by 50%+ over potential Democratic rivals. Elizabeth Warren "is not" running. Everyone knows (or assumes) Hillary is. The second Warren declares she's seeking the nomination, if she declares, the polls will narrow. The second Warren goes after Hillary as the crony-capitalist, contrived-candidate that she is, the polls would narrow. Defeating the Clinton machine would not be easy or quick, but I stand by my view that if Warren were to run, she would end up crushing Hillary. The massive lead would narrow and then evaporate, just like it did with Obama. But it would end there. As part of my effort to spread the word, I have a column today at The Boston Herald, Will Elizabeth Warren sell ‘outside the bubble’?. Boston Herald Will Elizabeth Warren Sell Outside the Bubble Here is an excerpt, head over to The Herald for the full story:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on December 15, 2014 67 Comments
The internets have exploded with Elizabeth Warren-mentum. Elizabeth Warren is playing hard to get when it comes to running for President. She still "is" not running, which literally is true, but never says that under no circumstances will she ever run:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is not running for president, but might she in the future? She wouldn’t say when repeatedly pressed on NPR Monday morning. Instead, she just repeated the same present tense denial she’s uttered dozens of times this year: “I’m not running for president.” It’s hardly the first time Warren, who became a progressive hero this week during a high-profile Senate showdown over Wall Street regulation, has dodged a question on 2016. Even as she and her staff insist the senator is not interested in running – and she distances herself from an effort to draft her into the race – Warren appears to be intentionally leaving some doubt hanging in the air. She may not want to run, but she would like voters to think there’s a chance. “She’s never slammed the door shut,” said Ben Wikler of MoveOn.org, who is hopeful she will run and recently launched a campaign to draft Warren. “As senator Warren has said many times, she is not running for president,” Warren spokesperson Lacey Rose told msnbc.
That tease is getting attention.
Accessibility by WAH