Left Throwing Hillary Under The Bus?

[Cow Poke]

There is no intelligence requirement for voting. And we elected a community organizer.

Well, WE didn't, but... yeah.

[Starlight]

If by win the Democratic nomination, you are quite likely right. If you mean the presidential election... I wouldn't bet on it.

I would be quite happy betting money that (1) the Democratic nominee will win the general election, regardless of who it ends up being, and (2) if Warren runs, she'll beat Hillary for the Democratic nomination.

I'm not sure if America is willing to elect yet another first term Democrat Senator.

I doubt any significant number of voters would consider that to be at all relevant.

And one who pretended to be of Native American heritage while a professor at Harvard.

There's enough murkiness around the truth of this that I doubt it will hurt her.

pretending on the one hand to being opposed to avaricious banks and corporations while being a major supporter of subsidizing the Export-Import Bank which has the reputation of favoring special interests ahead of those of the U.S. taxpayer. So while publicly claiming to be against "greedy Wall Street bullies" behind the scenes she runs interference for them so that they can keep getting a better credit deal than is available in the marketplace giving them a significant competitive edge over smaller businesses who aren't so politically connected.

The making-BS-up department of the right-wing blogosphere seems to have been hard at work on this one.

Warren likes to claim that she's not among the wealthy although her wealth is estimated by CNN to be somewhere between $3.7 and $10 million

Wealth is a relative term. Having a few million makes her well-off, but doesn't put her among the super-elite. I think most people are well-aware that politicians tend to be far more wealthy than the average person.

[Zymologist]

Elizabeth Warren isn't wealthy, she just has a few million and is "well-off".

[rogue06]

I would be quite happy betting money that (1) the Democratic nominee will win the general election, regardless of who it ends up being, and (2) if Warren runs, she'll beat Hillary for the Democratic nomination.

I doubt any significant number of voters would consider that to be at all relevant.

There's enough murkiness around the truth of this that I doubt it will hurt her.


The making-BS-up department of the right-wing blogosphere seems to have been hard at work on this one.

Wealth is a relative term. Having a few million makes her well-off, but doesn't put her among the super-elite. I think most people are well-aware that politicians tend to be far more wealthy than the average person.

You might want to research the Export-Import Bank (even what the left says of it) and Warren's connection before hand waving this away.

And since when is not being in the much despised (by those who champion Warren as a candidate) top 1% not considered to be among the elite?

[Darth Executor]

The super-elite rich are overwhelmingly liberal anyway, even if Warren isn't among them.

[Bill the Cat]

My main criteria for political candidates in general are intelligence, integrity, and policies I agree with. I've never been much interested in whether they have experience - that's something they can get on the job, whereas those other things they are highly unlikely to get on the job. Experience is even less relevant for Presidents because they have so many advisers and staff to help them.

That's where people like you fail so miserably in understanding what it takes to lead and why you think Obama is doing a reasonable job. The most powerful man in the world is simply not an "OJT" job. It is evident when the US elects someone who doesn't have the experience necessary to be THE leader.

[Starlight]

That's where people like you fail so miserably in understanding what it takes to lead and why you think Obama is doing a reasonable job.

Obama has plenty of experience now at being President. That doesn't seem to make conservatives like him any better - you guys don't seem to be following your own alleged criteria.

[Bill the Cat]

Obama has plenty of experience now at being President.

Experience, yes. So did the CEO of Enron. Both possess the qualifications to lead, but both lack the skill to do so effectively.

That doesn't seem to make conservatives like him any better - you guys don't seem to be following your own alleged criteria.

[rogue06]

Obama has plenty of experience now at being President. That doesn't seem to make conservatives like him any better - you guys don't seem to be following your own alleged criteria.

But he hasn't gotten any better at it. It is still amateur hour at the White House. So much so even liberal pundits are becoming increasingly dismayed at the continued ineptitude that is often displayed. It is like he really isn't all that interested in the job and unwilling to put the effort in to do it. This is why he wants to "rule" by proclamation rather than doing the work of dealing with not only members of the opposition party but even members of his own party. For someone who is supposed to be a constitutional attorney it is like he doesn't have a clue how things operate.

[Starlight]

But he hasn't gotten any better at it. It is still amateur hour at the White House.

It's amateur hour in congress: Republicans' failure to pass a proper bill to fund Homeland Security was absurdly embarrassing for them.

So much so even liberal pundits are becoming increasingly dismayed at the continued ineptitude that is often displayed. It is like he really isn't all that interested in the job and unwilling to put the effort in to do it.

I confused as to what you're even talking about here. Offhand I can't recall ever seeing Obama do anything where I have thought "that's a mistake he wouldn't have made if he was more experienced", and I don't recall ever hearing any liberal commentator say that.

The usual complaints from progressive commentators about Obama are that his policies aren't progressive enough, and that he's not pushing his policies through forcefully enough (ie there's a lot he could have done by executive order that he's been reluctant to do by that route).

This is why he wants to "rule" by proclamation rather than doing the work of dealing with not only members of the opposition party but even members of his own party. For someone who is supposed to be a constitutional attorney it is like he doesn't have a clue how things operate.

Obama has averaged less executive orders per year than any president in the last hundred years.

[Cow Poke]

Obama has averaged less executive orders per year....

It's not the QUANTITY, it's the EXTENT and the IMPACT!

[Starlight]

It's not the QUANTITY, it's the EXTENT and the IMPACT!

You are welcome to try to make that case if you want. I see no particular reason to think it is true.

[Cow Poke]

You are welcome to try to make that case if you want. I see no particular reason to think it is true.

Of COURSE you don't see any reason to believe it's true --- you"re a true believer!

[lilpixieofterror]

If Warren runs, she'll win. That's been fairly obvious for a while now. It's hard to tell if she's at all interested in doing that though.

If you believe that, I have some beachfront property to sell you on the moon.

[lilpixieofterror]

Of COURSE you don't see any reason to believe it's true --- you"re a true believer!

The democrats are pretty much in the same position that the republicans were in back in 2007. An unpopular president in the white house, with unpopular policies, that saw congress being filled with his political rivals. Starlight likes covering his eyes and ignoring reality though. As long as the republicans don't mess up too bad between now and the next November election; I highly doubt that a democrat will end up winning the presidency.