Clinton is so Yesterday – Warren is Today But Does it Really Matter?

[Ichingcarpenter]

As the pre-primary season begins, it becomes obvious to me that Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are relics from our political past and Elizabeth Warren is a gathering fresh breeze for our rapidly changing political climate. Jeb looks old, wane and somewhat conscious of the impossible burden his name carries. Hillary has so much political baggage that it may never get unpacked and many are having second thoughts about her political leanings and presidential ambitions. That leaves the stage open for Senator Elizabeth Warren who will soon be making her presence felt on the national stage as the only authentic voice for true change ~ but does it really matter: Allen L Roland, Ph.D



"I'm really concerned that too big to fail has become too big to jail. That just seems wrong to me." Elizabeth Warren ~ remarks to bank regulators during Senate hearing, Feb. 14


As Hillary Clinton arrogantly recently sends message to Democrats and the media according to Fox news ~ Suck it up. I'm all you've got ~ there’s no viable alternative to me other than a Republican president ~ she conveniently forgets that a legitimate populist Democrat is in the wings and rapidly picking up voter poll momentum as not only an alternative to yesterday's Hillary and Jeb Bush, with all their well-known baggage, but Elizabeth Warren represents a true other choice, a genuine grassroots candidate who just might deliver on Obama's broken promises and commitment to the status quo. See Fox report: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/11/hillary-tells-dems-press-to-suck-it-up/#.VQBwKXjXsuE.email



Here's Warren writing about the recent Republican ambush on basic workers' rights while Hillary puts out email fires as well as continues to ignore her dwindling progressive base;



"Republicans say government should keep on working for employers who don’t like unions and who have figured out how to exploit a tangled system. They complain about government inefficiencies, but then they introduce a bill that is specifically designed so that a broken, inefficient system will stay broken and inefficient ~ even when we know how to fix it.

But we weren’t sent here just to represent employers who don’t like unions. We’re here to support working people who just want a fighting chance to level the playing field. Join me right now to tell Congress to let the NLRB do its job. " See RSN article: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/28955-the-republican-ambush-on-workers-basic-rights


Mark my words, Elizabeth Warren is the stealth candidate who has slipped beneath the radar of the main stream press infatuation with political dinosaurs Bush and Hillary and has already become the darling of the people of Iowa ~ who are fed up with Republican arrogance, Hillary's worn out baggage and Obama's broken promises .

http://allenlrolandsweblog.blogspot.dk/

[RiverLover]

1. I hope it matters. /nt

[Divernan]

2. Attention, HRC fans flocking here to flame.

I refer everyone to this video of this past week's Friday News Roundup on NPR/Diane Rehm, with her distinguished guests:

(1) John Dickerson chief political correspondent for Slate magazine and political director for CBS. Author of "On Her Trail: My Mother, Nancy Dickerson, TV News' First Woman Star."
(2) John Prideaux washington correspondent, The Economist.
(3) Karen Tumulty national political reporter, The Washington Post.

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-03-13/friday-news-roundup-domestic

They start discussing HRC and her ineffectual and inept handling of the whole email debacle at 24:20 on the video.

What's a poor Hill Fan to do? Desperately shriek that Diane Rehm, the Washington Post, The Economist and Slate are all right wing sources?

It's an excellent discussion of all the ways HRC is in trouble with her blundering attempts to spin her self-regulated document dump, SIX YEARS AFTER THE FACT, as complying with the regulations in place while she was SOS - AND the fact that this matter will take months to get sorted. And that her paranoid insecurity is her own worst enemy and the reason she seems incapable of transparency.

Anyone else reminded of the attempted early spin on the Watergate breakin? Nothing here - just move along. But then along came Martha Mitchell. A grateful nation thanks you, Martha.

When the Watergate scandal broke, it was Martha Mitchell, wife of Attorney General, John Mitchell and who was often self-medicated with martinis, who started calling up reporters about her fears that Mitchell was being set up as a scapegoat. The Mitchells lived at the Watergate at that time. Among those reporters were Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. She didn’t know how much John was really involved.

When it became apparent to Nixon and Mitchell that she couldn’t be shut up, they had her kidnapped and medicated. She still managed to call a reporter in the middle of the night about the incident. Well, the rest as they say is history.

Is there anyone involved in Hilary's document dump who will step forward? What about senders or recipients of incendiary or politically sensitive emails to her personal account? Just because Hillary "disappeared" incriminating emails from her server in no way guarantees they won't be revealed by others. As many have speculated, the GOP will hold on to any they discover until the election campaign. Perhaps save them to spring on her in the midst of a nationally televised presidential debate. Now, more than ever, her candidacy would be a train wreck waiting to happen.

[RiverLover]

3. Really great point. The writing is on the wall.

The grenade will be waiting for the most opportune time to blow Democrats up.

Its just such a shameful time. How can our party back a cabinet member using her own email account out of her home for official business on behalf of the US? Its mind-blowing that she did it anyways & its compounded by her charity accepting foreign donations while she was in office. And Democratic Leaders are backing her up.

[GoneFishin]

9. I don't support the email witch hunt. But it's a good point about the potential of emails

being held back then used like time bombs in the middle of the election.

Considering the voluminous use of email, and the compliant right-wing network press, they will find some phrase in her emails to conjure a scandal even where there isn't one.

[zeemike]

12. Yep the timing is just about right.

And we are told to circle the wagons around HRC and vote for her because the GOP does not want her...when it just might be they want her because they have a bomb to drop when it is too late for us to change our mind.

[DeSwiss]

4. K&R

''And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles.''

Mark 2:22 (KJV)

- This one is true, we'll need a new bottle as well.....

[merrily]

7. In politics, Carroll Quigley trumps Jesus.

Much is made of Quigley's focus on secret societies, which makes him sound kooky. However, his other message was that change makes financial markets skittish, while same old, same old makes them comfy. (My words, not his.)

So, according to Quigley, the more similar one administration is to the next, the better financial markets like it. (As if Presidents control all change?)

(I recommend muting.)

Sound familiar?

Influence on Bill Clinton

In his freshman year in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown, future U.S. President Bill Clinton took Quigley's course, receiving a 'B' as his final grade in both semesters (an excellent grade in a course where nearly half the students received D or lower). [2]: 9 4, 96

Clinton named Quigley as an important influence on his aspirations and political philosophy in 1991, when launching his presidential campaign in a speech at Georgetown.[2]: 96 He also mentioned Quigley again during his acceptance speech to the 1992 Democratic National Convention, as follows:

As a teenager, I heard John Kennedy's summons to citizenship. And then, as a student at Georgetown, I heard that call clarified by a professor named Carroll Quigley, who said to us that America was the greatest Nation in history because our people had always believed in two things–that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of us has a personal moral responsibility to make it so.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley#Influence_on_Bill_Clinton

[merrily]

5. Sanders gets a good reception, too, but media will acknowledge that even less than it

acknowledges that Warren gets a good reception.

I heard coverage of the Firefighters' Convention saying both of them got a lot of applause.

I think many people are ready for a barnburning Democratic primary, but the Democratic Party doesn't want that.

[Mike Nelson]

6. Both of these women...

...get better with age!

[merrily]

8. Did you post that in the Hillary Group, too?

[Mike Nelson]

15. Not sure. I read the "Latest Threads" and "Greatest Threads"...

I see now this is the "Elizabeth Warren Group". Sorry...

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

10. Sure it matters

But there is a lot going on

http://nypost.com/2015/03/14/obama-adviser-behind-leak-of-hillary-clintons-e-mail-scandal/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995342/Top-Obama-adviser-Valerie-Jarrett-reported-leaked-Hillary-Clinton-email-scandal-press-just-announce-candidacy-president-leaks-planned.html

[Divernan]

13. News flash, HRC! Revenge is a two way street.

These two links have multiple bombshells - none of them good for either Clinton.

Instead of that dorky "Madame Secretary" TV series, there should be one called Revenge of The Whitehouse."

[mountain grammy]

11. I will not bash Hillary for this email crap

when there are much better reasons I'd rather her not be our candidate. I've come to the conclusion, however, that the main reason I don't want a Hillary candidacy is because the whole race will be about her and I don't think she can win. We need to get serious and keep the conversation about global climate change, worker's rights, civil rights, peace, income inequality, poverty etc, etc. Hillary has been a strong voice for human rights, but will enough voters come out and vote for her? I fear not.

I know, she says she's not running, but I think Warren's our only hope.

I remember feeling this way in 1968 when, as a huge McGovern supporter, I began to realize that only RFK could win that election. He had the spark, he had the ability to reach people and inspire them to vote. I was making my decision after the California primary. I think Bobby would have won that election. McGovern was buried by American voters, who I began to realize weren't as smart as I thought they were. Funny thing, I didn't turn 21 until 3 weeks after that election, so I couldn't even vote, but I could campaign, and did. With my infant son on my back, I walked miles for McGovern. The draft, along with the Vietnam War was a great motivator.

Instead, we got Nixon, then ALEC, and the race to the bottom was on.

[merrily]

16. I don't think Hillary can win, either. I also think it's near insane not to have a

hard fought primary.

It's one thing for the Democratic Party as a whole to say to America, this is our candidate, like it or lump it.

It's another thing for the Democratic Party's politicians to tell Democratic voters, this is your candidate, like it or lump it.

[rhett o rick]

14. I think we've come to a point in our history where we are going to have to make

a big decision. For 30 years the corporatists and conservatives have run rough-shod over the middle and lower classes. I don't think any of us here will disagree. Where we disagree is when are we going to stop retreating into poverty and tyranny and stand and fight?

Sadly we have posters here that will argue that things aren't so bad and we can continue down the path for a little while longer. This is the rational that I see used to justify the support of H. Clinton.

In 2008 people recognized that H. Clinton, the apparent claimer of the throne, would not provide the change we needed and a relatively unknown easily defeated her with the promise of change. Whether or not Obama wanted change and failed with his promises or he never was that hot about change is another debate. But here we are faced with the need for change and guess who is once again "the claimer of the throne".

The Democratic Party grassroots should have learned from 2008 and also 2000. In 2000 the DLC/Conservative Wing ran Gore which looked to many as a continuation of the status quo. Gore failed in 2000 and Clinton failed in 2008.

We need a candidate that is willing to take a chance and fight for change.

The American people are ready for change and Clinton v. Bush doesn't offer that change.

[merrily]

17. I am not so sure that is what happened in 2008, rhett.

The way I saw it then--and I was a lot more naive then--is that the most powerful people within the Party then wanted Obama, not Hillary. And now, for whatever reason, they want Hillary.

It doesn't matter that much because 2008 is moot, to say the least, and I agree with you on your main points.

[rhett o rick]

18. I agree with you and believe that the Powers That Be wanted Obama.

They figured they would get the Republicons to obstruct him and show the country what happens when you elect a Democrat. But I was referring to the grass-root Democrats that looked to Obama for change, they didn't want HRC, esp the left.

[merrily]

19. I don't know if that was the reason the powerful people in the Dem Party wanted Obama.

I have a different theory on that, but it doesn't matter. However, in my prior post and in this one, I am questioning that it was the voters who wanted Obama.

When the powerful people in either party want someone, the media seems to follow their lead. We saw this with the media hatchet job on Dean (at least, that I how I perceived it at the time--and I was for Kerry then). We can see it now with Jeb, who the media often says is the frontrunner, even though Republican polls tell us that is not how rank and file Republican voters see it--at least not yet. Maybe by the time the media is finished with them, they'll see it that way.

That is how I saw it with Obama and Hillary in 2008. The media was far more in for him than for her. I remember Pelosi saying Hillary was not going to win (after Hillary made the famous 3 am phone call comment). There were more things, too. Bottom line, I think voters get manipulated six ways to Sunday, once the higher ups decide what they want. This time, for example, I have been hearing all media say the nomination is Hillary's since before Obama got re-elected. wtf?

Don't forget, too, that the Party decided not count a chunk of Hillary's votes in 2008.

[NYC_SKP]

20. Uh Oh. Hillary never signed her SOS "separation papers"... News today.

State Department: No record of Hillary signing ‘separation’ form

The State Department said Tuesday it has no record of Hillary Clinton signing a key form stating she turned over all official documents upon leaving the department — a form that was the subject of intense speculation since the issue could determine whether she broke the law.

That document is known as a “separation” form, which officials are supposed to sign upon leaving the department. It certifies that the person who signs it has turned over all “classified or administratively controlled” materials, as well as all “unclassified documents and papers” relating to official government business.

Given that Clinton exclusively used personal email while secretary of state and didn’t turn over official records until late last year, a former Justice Department official said last week that if Clinton signed that form, she probably gave a false statement and broke the law.

http://nypost.com/2015/03/18/state-department-no-record-of-hillary-signing-separation-form/