Quote of the Day

“And, to be quite frank, those who think Warren should run to in order to “start a conversation” are the kind of people who have attempted this kind of thing in the past and, as my grandmother used to put it, “don’t have dick to show for it”.” Tbogg regarding an Elizabeth Warren challenge to a would-be Hillary Clinton candidacy

Again, what does the left win if it unnecessarily weakens the Democratic frontrunner, regardless of who it is? Nothing. You get nothing.

bcs_wonka_you_lose

(ht Attorney John Yannone, Price Benowitz LLP)
This entry was posted in Election 2016 and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Treading_Water

    I love Elizabeth Warren. She’s proving to be a strong advocate for progressive causes in the Senate, and we need more senators like her. I hope that she elects to stay in the Senate this election cycle, gains some more seniority and committee assignments and becomes even more successful and more of a role model for other progressive senators to follow. We need a counterweight in the Senate for those wimpy blue dogs like Mary Landrieu, and we need someone who knows how to fight for the people and not the banks.

    • Draxiar

      You stated exactly what I was thinking.

  • Bubble Genius

    Welllllllllllllll…the same could’ve been said about Barack Obama in 2006, and probably was.

    • Badgerite

      It wasn’t. Quite the opposite. Harry Reid was the one who suggested to then Senator Barack Obama that the Senate was probably not the best place for him to make an impact. He wasn’t suited to it. Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, seems made for the job. On the other hand. I don’t see her as the type of candidate to engage in slash and burn. She cares too much about the issues to do that. And I think the ultimate effect of what she does will factor into any decision she makes. N’est pas.

  • chris ellis

    Primaries in an open election serve an important service for both the party and those running. It makes donor bases, volunteer bases and voter bases larger and stronger, as wellas helping to define for prospective voters the message and core principles of both party and candidate. This is vastly different than Tea Party fools primarying incumbent republicans. Instead of a purification, it would be simply an airing of the issues and finding the best fit for the party.

    I didn’t see the problem with those challenginfg Booker, and don’t see the problem in this instance, either.

    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      >>>finding the best fit for the party.

      That just means “finding a better fit” for the emoprogs in the party, and anyone they choose is not going to win in 2016.
      “The party” is comprised of primarily liberal and center-left individuals, not of the burn-down-the-damn-house emoprogs.

  • Christopher Foxx

    What conversation are they hoping to start? “Can a woman be President?” Why would it require two women running for that to happen?

    • Christopher Foxx

      Heh. Three up-votes, and all from women. Couldn’t have predicted that. :)

      • Sabyen91

        Combo breaker!

        • Christopher Foxx

          Well, isn’t that just like a man!

          ;)

  • missliberties

    Warren aint running people, so just get over it.

    • D_C_Wilson

      We can still dream.

  • Victor_the_Crab

    Elizabeth Warren will make a fine Presidential candidate as well as a fine President. But not in 2016. Give her enough time in the Senate and she’ll be more than ready in the future.

    • chris ellis

      she’s 64 years old. If not now, when?

      • D_C_Wilson

        And Hillary Clinton will be 69 in 2016. Already people are making noise that she’s too old. I don’t agree with them, but her age is going to be a factor in the race. I think it is foolish to bet everything on just one candidate at this time.

        • cleos_mom

          For many people, any woman over prime bikini age would be “too old”. And you can bet your assets we’ll be hearing from them if and when either of them announces she’s running.

    • D_C_Wilson

      A lot of people said that about Obama before he ran in 2008. Myself included.

  • D_C_Wilson

    I absolutely think Elizabeth Warren should run. Not to start a dialogue, but because she would be a damn good president and the kind we’d need to rein in corporate excess.

    I think that’s one area where she’s superior to Hillary Clinton. Clinton is more beholden to the Wall Street status quo. Warren would definitely shake things up.

    • Christopher Foxx

      And Warren comes without some of the unfortunate Clinton baggage. I’m not saying it’s “fair”, but Clintons have been a bit of a lightning rod for the right.

      • cleos_mom

        And Elizabeth Warren *totally* isn’t going to be.

        This is just getting so predictable. But hey, what’s the prospect of a President Cruz compared to the entertainment value that goes with “shaking things up”?