Kennedys pushing Warren to run against Hillary in 2016

[MannyGoldstein]

Only the NY Post, but an entertaining thought if it happens to be true. It *does* totally make sense that the Kennedys would want an FDR Democrat at the top of the ticket.

Kennedys pushing Warren to run against Hillary in 2016

In an echo of 2008 — when Ted and Caroline Kennedy backed upstart Barack Obama over Hillary Rodham Clinton — members of the Kennedy clan have been quietly wooing Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and encouraging her to throw her hat in the ring, sources tell me.

The question of whom to back in the 2016 presidential race has split the Kennedys down the middle. Robert Kennedy’s widow, Ethel, and their eldest son, former US Rep. Joe Kennedy II, favor Warren — the darling of the party’s left-wing base who now sits in Ted Kennedy’s old seat — while Bobby Jr. and Max Kennedy remain loyal to Hillary Clinton.

Over the past several weeks, the Kennedys have tried to settle their family quarrel by inviting Clinton and Warren to their compound in Hyannis Port, where each woman has been put through a kind of audition for the role of party standard-bearer.

Clinton and Warren were feted on separate occasions at a catered buffet lunch under a large tent. In addition, Hillary and Bill Clinton were treated to a sail aboard the Kennedy schooner, the Maya.

[HERVEPA]

1. New York Post isn't and never was a credible source for anything

Right wing rag.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. As I said... if it *happens* to be true.

That being said, they are right more often than not says my NYC-based dad who reads both th Post and the Times every day.

[msanthrope]

7. Ed Klein is a racist birther...nice job, quoting him.....

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/05/13/even-fox-guests-say-ed-klein-isnt-credible-so-w/184881

[msanthrope]

156. WARREN CAMP says this story is completely made up---

Sen. Warren’s camp responded swiftly and unequivocally denied the claims made in the New York Post article. “This story is completely made up,” Lacey J. Rose, Sen. Warren’s press secretary, told Boston.com.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2014/08/04/kennedys-unsure-whom-support-for-president-hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren/bzyHQAZLMGoWLjopAHD10L/story.html

[H2O Man]

188. It is.

[MannyGoldstein]

190. You're a brave man.

I knew that before, but posting that in this... very brave!

[H2O Man]

191. A cross between honest

and dumb, I suspect. But I know what I know. And those DUers who have come to know me over the past decade, know I don't spout shit.

I stand by what I said. And for good reason -- way better than anyone else on this forum could rightfully claim.

[BainsBane]

205. The fact is that Warren has repudiated this article

and says it is completely fabricated. So it is clearly not true.

[H2O Man]

208. Of course!

(re: your first point)

[BainsBane]

209. Do I understand correctly

That Warren's supposed supporters on DU now believe her to be a liar? Are you saying you believe the birther Klein over Senator Warren herself?

[msanthrope]

247. Well, the OP's in a bit of a pickle....Elizabeth Warren's Press Secretary has screwed him over.

Yesterday, the narrative was that this story was true, even though a racist, sexist birther had written it.

Then, Elizabeth Warren's press secretary took the rather unexpected step of repudiating this story, in full.

Suddenly, the narrative changed--midthread. Apparently the OP had not been posted for "truth" so much as for "context," or some such nonsense.

This is a difficult narrative change for all involved. I'm interested in seeing how it goes.


A post from The Magistrate I found very eloquent.....

There are some on the left who, when the effect of their actions is viewed objectively, actually serve the right rather than the left, despite their belief they are not only leftists but the vanguard of leftism. In this category it is not unreasonable to include people who circulate right-wing smears against, and who engage in incessant vitriol and disparagement against, political figures who will need some degree of left support, and who, while they not be fully of the left themselves, are yet in important respects much better for the people, and much better for the left, than their rightist electoral opponents. I am not speaking about a 'command control' relationship between 'the left auxiliary of the Republican party' and the paymasters and leadership of the right; I am speaking about people who, quite on their own, speak and act without concern for what the actual consequences of their actions might be, people who are willing, if it comes to cases, to see the triumph of extreme rightists at the polls in order to punish a Democratic candidate, and the Democratic Party, for being insufficiently left for their tastes. Such people provide real assistance to the extreme right, indeed, the right counts on this kind of factionalism and splintering on the left, viewing it as one of its most useful tools in maintaining power.

[msanthrope]

12. The writer of the piece is an author who claims Chelsea Clinton is the product of rape, because

Hilary Clinton is a lesbian.

I am not making this up...

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/05/13/even-fox-guests-say-ed-klein-isnt-credible-so-w/184881

[JI7]

31. so this is like orly taitz level bs

[msanthrope]

32. Orly Taitz looks like a reasoned jurist compared to this nut. He writes birther fanfic. nt

[sheshe2]

60. Holy Moley!

WTF!

Thanks for that link, msanthrope.

[msanthrope]

63. Check out down below--apparently I am now a sexist for correctly pointing out sexism. nt

[sheshe2]

69. I just finished reading it!

And I am not at all surprised, this is a Manny thread after all. All sorts of folks show up. Oh wait a second, isn't folks a dirty word here today?!

[msanthrope]

79. Gefilte Fish, Redux. nt

[sheshe2]

80. Yes it is!

Stirring always stirring.

Also, I question why so many wish Warren to leave her Senate seat so soon. She is my Senator and I met her and she is a powerhouse. She is going after the bad guys as she tried to do with the set up of the consumer protection bureau. The GOP blocked her nomination every step of the way. They feared her. LOL. She went on to become a new but very powerful Senator. Ha! She is once again a GOP nightmare. She can do them so much damage from where she sits in Teddies beloved seat. I keep asking the question why so many want her to leave that seat so soon. Hmmm?! I wonder why? They never wanted her anywhere near the big banks knowing how she would go after them..

[msanthrope]

120. The GOP is scared shitless of HRC as President and Warren as Senate Majority Leader. That's why the

false, sexist narrative of rivalry is being pushed, endlessly.

[sheshe2]

227. Exactly!

Not to mention it's kinda fun to bash women here. Sadly some seem to think it's a sport.

[hrmjustin]

2. Don't trust the NYPost.

Evil resides in those pages.

[msanthrope]

9. Ed Klein is a pretty notorious racist and birther. Jerome Corsi is more credible. nt

[hrmjustin]

13. I admit to using the ny post as a source in the NY room for non political stories and one on my

congressman Michael Grimm.

I don't think it is appropriate to post Ed Klein's work here even though it is not his most vile.

[msanthrope]

17. Ed Klein is not an appropriate source for anything. A click on the author's profile would have

revealed that to the OP.

[hrmjustin]

19. Yep! I am going to ask him to self delete.

[msanthrope]

20. Please do not! nt

[hrmjustin]

23. I did but he doesn't respond to me anymore so I might be ignored.

[msanthrope]

24. Because I think it gives us quite a bit of insight into the OP, as inadvertant as they may be. nt

[hrmjustin]

25. Well he no longer responds to me so I might be on ignore.

[MannyGoldstein]

28. I have nobody on ignore.

Sorry for not always responding!

[hrmjustin]

29. Oh ok. I was wondering if I made you mad or something.

[MannyGoldstein]

26. It's very telling, don't you think? nt

[msanthrope]

27. Manny--you go on with your bad self!!! This thread is a CLASSIC! nt

[rhett o rick]

144. It's good not to trust them, but not good to try to censor them. Let's see what they have to say

and not be afraid of them. If they lie, we can rebuke them accordingly.

[senseandsensibility]

4. Oh, so Warren

didn't get to sail on the Maya? Looks like the real story here is that Hillary is being favored. And I am not a Clinton fan.

[msanthrope]

8. No--the real story is how the OP gets to post what a racist birther has to say...with no

repercussion.

[MannyGoldstein]

39. Because the OP gave it proper context

That's how.

What was the jury decision, anyway?

[msanthrope]

41. Oh--I didn't alert on you Manny....this is a thread for the ages. nt

[Autumn]

145. I looked but no one fessed up so I alerted to see the results

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of the post on Mon Aug 4, 2014, 12:22 PM, and voted 3-4 to keep IT.

[SidDithers]

46. +1...

A racist, birther Republican wants to play up divisions among Democrats.

And there's Manny, only to eager to help.

Sid

[msanthrope]

50. Birthers. We are now featuring birthers in OPs and wondering if they are credible. nt

[SunSeeker]

84. As usual, you nail it, Sid.

[ronnykmarshall]

263. Of course ...

and he gets a free pass.

[JDPriestly]

55. Warren is from Oklahoma and, although wealthy, perhaps not

much of a sailor. I wouldn't read anything into that.

I'm just happy to hear that some of the Kennedys like Elizabeth Warren.

[DURHAM D]

90. Nonsense.

Oklahoma has many many lakes and more shoreline than the Gulf coast and East coast combined and the wind always blows so sailing is very common .

Note: This doesn't really matter given the article is a made up story.

[pscot]

195. Oklahoma used to have waterfront

on the Western Interior Seaway.

[cantbeserious]

5. Spare Us Another Clinton

eom

[msanthrope]

6. Edward Klein of the NY Post is the birther who wrote "Blood Feud"--

and various other racist and misogynist works about the Obamas and the Clintons.....

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/05/13/even-fox-guests-say-ed-klein-isnt-credible-so-w/184881

Really, Manny? You've got to be kidding--this guy is less credible than Jerome Corsi.

[joshcryer]

14. Holy crap.

I recognize that face, but not the name. He's like the male Ann Coulter.

[msanthrope]

16. Ann is smarter. This is going to be a classic thread. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

36. Damned straight!

Willard Straight. Student union, that is.

She was my classmate. (Just don't tell Josh - he thinks everything I say is made up.)

We were inseparable in school, but had to fight all that is good and decent in our separate ways after graduation. She fought in the light of day while I... well, here I am.

(OK, the last paragraph was utter bullshit.)

[msanthrope]

43. I am sure you are replete with many fine Cornell references. nt

[msanthrope]

10. You Better Believe It! nt

[JI7]

11. BENGHAZI

[msanthrope]

15. Oh--Manny's got a great post on Benghazi, too....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024339679#post2

[JI7]

18. the latest news must be disappointing

[msanthrope]

22. Indeed!!! nt

[MannyGoldstein]

30. Which part of "ginning up fully-fake scandals" did you not understand?

I can translate using words that are four letters or shorter, if that might help.

[hrmjustin]

21. Please self delete. Ed Klein is a vile right winger who makes stuff up against Hillary and

should not be given attention to here.

He really is infuriating and gets under my skin.

[MannyGoldstein]

33. See, here's the problem.

If I delete this, than for the rest of my days on DU, I'll get hit regularly with "remember the time you had to retract the post where you said it was a proven fact that the Kennedy family had endorsed Elizabeth Warren as the nominee? You had to hide that post because you were BUSTED lying, the information DIDN'T come from a White House Press briefing it came from the NY Post."

All other things being equal I'd honor your request, but because of the creepy retro-stalking of my posts, I must decline.

[hrmjustin]

34. well it is your choice and I won't bother you on it anymore but just remember the Klein is vile and

if Warren gets thenomination he will do to her what he did to Hillary.

Thanks for your consideration.

[msanthrope]

35. You could edit, with the explanation that you didn't know the article was written by a racist

birther nut.

I mean, you aren't disputing that you've posted an article by a racist, birther nut, right?

[MannyGoldstein]

37. Perhaps you should look up the word "context"

Jeez.

[msanthrope]

40. You know, Manny, if I had inadvertantly posted something from a racist, mysogynistic source, my

first concern would be that I had offended other DUers, who expect to participate on DU without racist, misogynistic vile shit.

And I would apologize, and delete/edit.

YMMV.

[MannyGoldstein]

45. I gave a warning as to what it was,

and stated that it was very likely BS.

There's nothing racist or misogynistic in the post.

If DU followed your nutty made-up-on-the-spot-torant-at-Manny rules, nobody would ever be able to post a quote by any Republican nor most Democrats.

[msanthrope]

48. Really? It's not mysogynistic to post utter lies about some imaginary catfight/power struggle

between two women?

Proceed, Manny.

[MannyGoldstein]

51. I don't see "catfight" or any other similar terms in the article.

But I *do* think it's misogynistic of you to believe that two woman can't compete against one another, and that it's a "catfight".

I think you're better than that. Please update your post.

[msanthrope]

57. But they aren't competing against each other. And there's the mysogyny--the insistence that these

two women are in a power struggle---a catfight, which is the imagery it is meant to evoke--when they are not.

They aren't competing--and it's sexist to keep insisting that they are. You demean both women when you insist they are in competition, when they are not.

[winter is coming]

52. Catfight? You've got no business lecturing Manny on misogyny.

There's nothing in that article implying personal animus between Warren and Clinton. It's a speculative piece of crap implying that the Kennedys would rather support Warren than Clinton. How you got "catfight" or "power struggle" out of that is a mystery to me. Two women vying for the same political office is an election, not a catfight.

[msanthrope]

54. They aren't vying for the same political office. That's the point of the catfight insinuation. It's

an article meant to demean both women by evoking sexist imagery of a power struggle--a catfight--over the approval of the Kennedys.

[winter is coming]

56. So if two female politicians seek endorsements from the same source, it's automatically a catfight?

[msanthrope]

58. Who sought endorsement from the same source? Dear sweet jeebus....you believe this birther? nt

[winter is coming]

65. You said, "an article meant to demean both women by evoking sexist imagery of a power struggle

--a catfight--over the approval of the Kennedys."

By "approval", I assumed you meant a political endorsement and my question to you was and is, why would two potential candidates seeking a political endorsement be considered a catfight? As near as I can tell, the only "sexist imagery" in the article exists in your imagination.

[msanthrope]

67. Okay--when a racist, sexist birther--one who claims Chelsea Clinton is the product of rape, mind you

writes an article about Clinton and Warren, what do you think his purpose is?????

When a man who has written actual birther fanfiction picks up the pen, do you think his purpose is to tell the truth?

Or do you think his purpose is to write propaganda for the masses?

This is a perfect example of why one should know one's sources.....I mean, you aren't taking this source as credible in any way, are you????

[winter is coming]

73. I think his purpose is to fill column inches and sell a paper.

You're so wrapped around the axle about the crap this guy's written in the past that you're projecting things onto this article that aren't there. The "sexist imagery" is this article is your invention, not his.

[msanthrope]

75. Wait a minute.....is it that you don't see the inherent sexism in just making up shit about a non-

existent rivalry between two women as they vie for the 'approval' of a patriarchal clan?

I'm projecting, because I can correctly gauge the intent of a racist, sexist birther?

I'm "wrapped around the axle?" (No sexist imagery there!!!! )

No--here's what I am---smart enough to see through what a racist, sexist birther writes.

[winter is coming]

81. Here's the thing.

Papers print rumors (some I think in good faith, but many just to have something to print) about elections all the time. Who's going to run, who's going to endorse whom, etc. When both candidates are male, some rag can print a speculative article without people being incensed at the implication of an unsubstantiated rivalry, the word "catfight" doesn't crop up, and the candidates are seeking "endorsements", not "approval". There's nothing smarmy in that article indicating the slant you'd like to put on it.

[Vattel]

232. You don't know when to give up. It's painful to watch.

[msanthrope]

244. Vattel, I am surprised that you have not rec'd this thread. If you are having pain reading

my posts, put me on ignore.

[MannyGoldstein]

59. It's very telling that just by mentioning a rivalry between two women

Your thinking goes to "cat fight". I guess you're just not ready to accept that two powerful women can potentially be rivals on a non-demeaning basis.

[msanthrope]

62. There isn't a rivalry. And that's the point....the insistence that there is one is sexist, and in

the case of Ed Klein, it is a deliberate attempt to provoke the imagery of a catfight--thereby demeaning BOTH women.

The promotion of the false narrative of rivalry is sexist.

[MannyGoldstein]

64. Nothing in that article implies a catfight

Nothing.

Seems like your mind is stuck in patriarchal mode. I know that it can be difficult to overcome, but we must try. And it starts by deleting your misogynistic posts.

[msanthrope]

72. When a racist, sexist birther writes about a non-existent rivalry between two women you don't hear

the dogwhistles????

You have posted an OP by a person nuttier than Orly Taitz. An OP by a person who claims that Chelsea Clinton is the product of rape. I'm actually rather glad you've dug yourself in and refuse to delete.

[winter is coming]

68. So it's not possible to speculate that Warren might run in 2016 without being sexist, because

that would imply a rivalry you claim doesn't exist, which would be a deliberate attempt to provoke the imagery of a catfight, thereby demeaning both Clinton and Warren.

[msanthrope]

76. What has Elizabeth Warren said? Did she not say she was not running? Do you think that

woman does not know her own mind?

[winter is coming]

82. Do you suppose she's incapable of changing her mind?

I don't think it's likely, but I wouldn't call it impossible. In any case, people will go on speculating about it until the primaries begin.

[MannyGoldstein]

83. Hillary has said, several times, that she's ruled out running in 2016

But for a certain handful of posters on DU - for whatever reason - they loudly insist that Hillary is running, Warren not. And they really, really need you to know that.

[DURHAM D]

86. Provide one link of Hillary "ruling out running in 2016".

It needs to be a video instead of your typical sources.

[msanthrope]

87. Kindly provide a link where Hilary Clinton says she isn't running. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

92. What do you think of this?

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/hillary-clintons-quotes-on-2016-86804.html

[msanthrope]

93. An excerpt please--I generally eschew blind links. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

98. LOL

A simple "you win, Manny" would have been less humiliating for you.

[msanthrope]

100. Manny--what exactly do you think you've won? You posted an OP from a racist, sexist birther who

has previously claimed that Chelsea Clinton was the product of rape.

You've refused to delete said OP because it might be taken the wrong way.

You've given SidDithers and I belly laughs.

And now, you post a blind link to Politico, and expect me to comment on it? That's what you think is winning?

Oh yeah Manny---you're winning!!!!

[Autumn]

117. That reminds me, has anyone heard from prosense? I do get worried when

long time DUers seem to disappear.

[msanthrope]

119. Haven't heard from her, but I am sure she is well. nt

[Bobbie Jo]

231. Tacky

[Vattel]

234. Here's an excerpt for you. Manny is correct.

“I am not.” — Asked about running in 2016 by Marie Claire magazine in an interview published Oct. 18, 2012.

“I have ruled it out. … I will always want to be in service to my country.” — Oct. 25, 2012 in an interview with the Wall Street Journal.

“Oh, I’ve ruled it out, but you know me. Everybody keeps asking me. So I keep ruling it out and being asked.” — Nov. 11, 2012 in an interview with the New York Times’ Gail Collins.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/hillary-clintons-quotes-on-2016-86804.html#ixzz39UIQFO21

[msanthrope]

236. Manny is correct in posting a story that EW's press secretary says is utter BS? But posting

a story that undercuts his own OP somehow saves the day?

You can't have it both ways.

[Vattel]

248. No, I meant he is correct in claiming that HRC has said several times that she will not run.

Remember? You were asking him to justify that claim, but you didn't want to click on his link.

[msanthrope]

251. And? This only sinks this OP deeper. If both HRC, and EW have said they aren't running, then why

on Earth would one see such an article as credible???

[Vattel]

253. Who is claiming that the article is credible?

Manny expressed skepticism in his initial post and that was before the author's lack of credibility was brought to light. Seriously, what is the big deal?

[msanthrope]

254. Manny thought the article credible, because he posted it. I mean, who would post something they did

not find credible, and then write--

That being said, they are right more often than not says my NYC-based dad who reads both th Post and the Times every day.

Am I reading you correctly? Are you suggesting that Manny, who claims to be a Warren supporter, is posting articles about her that he does not find credible?

[Vattel]

256. oh come on. he said that it was "only the new york post"

and he also said "if it happens to be true." That suggests that he would not be surprised at all if it was false. And that was before people like you pointed out that the author of the article is a complete hack. Now I suspect he thinks it is quite likely that the story is not true. Don't ya think?

[msanthrope]

257. Again...why would a supporter of EW post something that they did not find credible? I'm

perplexed as to exactly how a supporter of EW posts a story they are unsure about, particularly a story unflattering to EW.

I'm also perplexed at the insistence in keeping the OP, and not deleting it.

[Vattel]

258. Because it might be true?

He probably posted the story because he reasonably thought it might be at least partly true. If it is true, it is definitely newsworthy. Heck, he may have been interested in getting more information relevant to assessing whether the story is true. Keep in mind, he never said that the story was true.

Why delete the OP? If he had endorsed the story, deletion would be appropriate. But he never endorsed it.

[BainsBane]

215. Now Senator Warren is a liar?

And the right-wing birther is telling the truth? Is that the argument you are going with now?

[MannyGoldstein]

217. Please link to where I claimed either.

Or else people might think you're making things up.

[BainsBane]

223. Aren't you suggesting her repudiation of this article might not be truthful?

That she shouldn't be taken at her word that she isn't going to run?

[MannyGoldstein]

225. I agree that she's not running.

Now.

Might she be checking out the idea. Might she change her mind? Sure.

Who was the last President that didn't say they weren't running before they ran?

While it's possible that an unthinking person might infer that I accused Warren of lying, why are you claiming that I said a right-wing birther is telling the truth? You're straight-up lying about that, as far as I can tell.

[BainsBane]

239. You posted this article, did you not?

It's author is a right-wing birther. You chose to post it. When people last night pointed out the reputation of the author, you were undaunted. When Warren herself repudiated the article today, you again refused to delete it. You wouldn't as much as edit the OP to include Warren's response. Additionally, you have in the past insisted repeatedly that Warren's claims that she is not running should not be believed--which begs the question of why you would support someone for President you consider to be so untruthful.

You still haven't responded to the links you repeatedly demanded of me in the other thread, which I consider quite rude.

[MannyGoldstein]

246. It's called "going to sleep"

You should look into it sometime. It's this thing that humans do. I'm sure that you can get more information on the subject using internet search.

And you haven't answered my question as to the last President who did not say they weren't running before they did. Nor have you apologized for your flat-out lying that I presented a right-wing birther's stuff as truth.

[pnwmom]

179. No, you did NOT. Your OP said the story was entertaining.

And that it "made sense."

You didn't say it was "very likely BS."

[MannyGoldstein]

189. "*Only* the NY Post, but an entertaining thought if it *happens* to be true."

(Emphases added)

What are some other things that sentence could mean, other than there's a high probability that it's BS?

[pnwmom]

198. Funny you left this part out:

"It *does* totally make sense that the Kennedys would want an FDR Democrat at the top of the ticket."

In any case, you never said there was a "high probability that it's BS." And you didn't update the post even after Sen. Warren's office said the story was false.

[MannyGoldstein]

199. So you *can't* come up with an alternative that fits

what I wrote.

So instead of throwing more poop, would it kill you to say "Yeah Manny, you're right"?

[pnwmom]

211. Manny, you're wrong. You OP didn't say that it was likely to be BS

and you were also wrong to not update the OP -- or withdraw it -- when Sen Warren's office said the story was completely false.

[MannyGoldstein]

212. Both statements were essentially the same

As demonstrated by your inability to show a case where they could be substantially different.

I don't think this is very complicated stuff.

[BainsBane]

214. On one side we have the truth

As voiced by Senator Warren herself, and on the other side a piece of ratfucking written by a right-wing birther. Never the twain shall meet. It's not that complicated.

[LanternWaste]

135. Would that more or less difficult than looking up a story's author prior to posting his editorial?

"Perhaps you should look up the word "context"..."

Would that more or less difficult than looking up a story's author prior to posting his editorial?

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

85. On edit: Never mind.

It's pretty much a pointless exercise...

[L0oniX]

118. That does it ...I'm rec'n this just to piss off the pissed off.

[msanthrope]

132. Why do you think anyone on this thread is pissed? I happen to think this thread is HILARIOUS.

(See what I did there!)

I mean, we get an OP from a racist, sexist birther nut pundit/source.....and instead of deleting it, the OP digs in. And others sign on to it. Because they think they are proving some point.

And it's true you guys are proving a point....just not the one you thought.

[Fla Dem]

147. Well then, in all due respect, you should research articles and their authors before you post their

crap.

[MannyGoldstein]

170. To be clear, I'd only delete it as a favor to hrmjustin

Not because there's anything wrong with a correctly-attributed and -contexted post.

[BainsBane]

240. for a post to be "correctly-attributed and

-contexted" (it hurt me to write that non-word), it would need to communicate the fact that Senator Warren's office has repudiated the article.

[MineralMan]

163. Oh, I think you should leave it, for sure. Don't self-delete.

I've bookmarked it for further reference, and I'd hate to see this OP disappear. I'm planning to refer to it when the entire Kennedy family endorses Hillary in 2016 if she chooses to run.

[amandabeech]

38. Warren is best in the Senate where she can focus on her passion for quite a few years.

I've never been a Clinton fan.

Who else?

I live in Maryland and I can't get enthusiastic.

Webb?

He can't get along with anybody.

Cuomo?

Not looking good on the ethics front and I'm not sold on fracking?

What will I do?

Vote for the dem, whoever he or she is.

[SidDithers]

42. Ed fucking Klein?...

Jesus, Manny, this is BBI level bullshit.



Sid

[msanthrope]

44. Check the recs. nt

[SidDithers]

47. Love that transparency...nt

Sid

[msanthrope]

49. DU3 is an awesome beast. nt

[Union Scribe]

123. Rec shaming causes me to rec threads. nt

[msanthrope]

130. Why should anybody be ashamed to rec this? nt

[bahrbearian]

186. +1. love to see em twitch

[SMC22307]

193. Ditto.

One more can be added to whatever spreadsheet they're maintaining.

[pnwmom]

53. Next you'll be posting from the National Enquirer. n/t

[former9thward]

95. Yeah, the newspaper that broke the John Edwards story.

Which everyone mocked and laughed at until it was true.

[pnwmom]

125. They laughed because so much else is flat out wrong. So 1 out of 10 was correct.

They're not reliable.

[frylock]

149. what's the NYT's track record on WMDs?

[hootinholler]

97. IDK, they had Edwards right. n/t

[HERVEPA]

102. Enquirer has a much better record. They have changed. You need to keep up.

[Octafish]

61. I hope Sen. Warren runs.

It'd be great to have a president who holds Walls Street to account, rather than counts the days to cashing in on Wall Street.

For example, UBS proves it's buy-partisanship, loving both Phil Gramm and Bill Clinton. Since the repeal of Glass-Steagal, they've specialized in all kinds of Wealth Management:

http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html

And that's great for their portfolio. Not so much for the rest of us.

[msanthrope]

66. Senator Warren is running for her seat in 2018. She isn't running for President. nt

[Octafish]

70. Sen. Warren would make a good president because she has integrity.

Self-respect, too.

[msanthrope]

77. Senator Warren doesn't want the job. nt

[Octafish]

104. Hm. So why does Hillary want it?

Could it be the, uh, lasting friendships?

For instance:

Phil Gramm's UBS Vice Chairman home page separates the punters from the players.

It's a Buy-Partisan Who's Who:

President William J. Clinton
President George W. Bush
Robert J. McCann
James Carville
John V. Miller
Paula D. Polito
Anthony Roth
Mike Ryan
John Savercool

SOURCE: http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html

One of my attorney chums doesn't like to see his name on any committees, event letterhead or political campaign literature. These folks, it seems to me, are past caring. Guess that shows how important friends are -- family you choose, as they say.

Some of why DUers and ALL voters should care about Phil Gramm.

The fact the nation's "news media" don't should also be of great concern. Oh well. Nice people. Really. Some of them, anyway.

[msanthrope]

112. You've assumed she does. I make no assumptions. nt

[winter is coming]

126. Here's an assumption you've made, and it's a real stinker:

The GOP is scared shitless of HRC as President and Warren as Senate Majority Leader.

Warren doesn't begin to have enough seniority to be considered as a Majority Leader. There's absolutely no reason to imagine the GOP is scared shitless of that now. A decade from now, perhaps. So... we're supposed to think that the GOP is sooooo afraid of what might happen a decade or more from now that they're attacking Warren by implying that she could be a potential candidate for President in 2016? Exactly how would that damage Warren's chances of becoming Majority Leader?

[msanthrope]

129. Warren has an excellent chance of being Majority Leader as soon as 2018. And yeah...these guys are

scared shitless of powerful, reasoned women. The thought of HRC in the White House and EW in the Senate does and should terrify them. They will attack her in any way they can.

[winter is coming]

133. Not sure why you think she'd have "an excellent chance" as soon as 2018,

but again... why would a rumor circulating in 2014 that some want Warren to challenge Clinton in 2016 be damaging to Warren's chances at being a Majority Leader in 2018? What is so incredibly damaging about the idea that the Dems might have more than one female candidate running for the 2016 nomination?

[msanthrope]

134. You still haven't answered my question---do you find this story credible? nt

[winter is coming]

136. No, I think it's some yahoo stirring the pot to fill column inches and move a paper.

The idea that this article is some masterful attack to degrade the political opportunities of either Clinton or Warren is ludicrous. Either they'll run against each other (and others) in 2016 or they won't. There's nothing wrong or damaging about speculating about who's going to run and who might choose to support them. At its worst, the article implies the Kennedys are thinking about not supporting Clinton, who hasn't even declared yet. Woohoo. It's all guessing games and fantasy football matchups right now.

[msanthrope]

157. Warren Camp --completely made up--

Sen. Warren’s camp responded swiftly and unequivocally denied the claims made in the New York Post article. “This story is completely made up,” Lacey J. Rose, Sen. Warren’s press secretary, told Boston.com.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2014/08/04/kennedys-unsure-whom-support-for-president-hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren/bzyHQAZLMGoWLjopAHD10L/story.html

[winter is coming]

171. A Murdoch paper _made something up_? Be still, my heart. n/t

[msanthrope]

175. And posted here, breathlessly....there's another body part I'd reference. nt

[maddezmom]

173. Thank you for this... Not surprising

[rhett o rick]

143. Funny, I believe that Sen Warren would love to run for president. We seem to disagree.

How liberal of us.

[msanthrope]

152. If you have a single quote of EW's that indicates she wants the job, please post it. nt

[herding cats]

71. I was going to point out this is pure E Klein BS

Which I didn't realize until after I clicked on the link, but I see it's been covered here already.

Hopefully others will read the thread and see who the wacko is who authored the article before they waste their time reading it like I did.

I gave and Edward Klein article a hit. I feel cheapened and dirty.

[Heather MC]

74. Damn it can't the rich stay the hayle out of it and let the voters decide???

I know Kenndy's are DEMs but how is this any different from the kock brothers picking repugs.

I just feel like we are constantly being manipulated by the rich and powerful on ALL sides

[zappaman]

78. You better believe it!

[msanthrope]

88. No shit. And the refusal to delete the racist, sexist birther because, well, it might be taken the

wrong way?

Priceless.....

[wyldwolf]

89. FDR Democrat?

[muriel_volestrangler]

91. OK, Manny's admitted he's fine posting RW turds; what about the 19 of you that have recc'ed this?

Own up - is it because you enjoy RW attacks on Hillary, you like any title that paints the Kennedys as some unified conglomerate that leans left (although the text reveals the title to be misleading, since some Kennedys support Hillary) or what?

[Octafish]

103. Own up is right after Hillary Clinton explains why she's sided with Wall Street and the Warmongers.

For starters:

Poor, Poor Pitiful Me

Down and Out With Hillary Clinton

by JEFFREY ST. CLAIR
CounterPunch, Weekend Edition August 1-3, 2014

Pity Hillary. Evicted from her home, jobless, and, as she evocatively put it to Diane Sawyer, “dead broke.” Such were the perilous straits of the Clinton family in the early winter months of 2001, as they packed their belongings at the White House, and scurried away like refugees from Washington toward a harsh and uncertain future.

“We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt,” Hillary recalled. “We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea’s education. You know, it was not easy.”

Hillary was on the cusp of middle age and, at this point, for all practical purposes a single mother. She hadn’t had a paying job in years and the prospects of resurrecting her law career were dim. She was emotionally drained, physically debilitated and hounded wherever she went by the dark forces of the right. All in all, her prospects on that cold January morning were grave.

With no life-ring to cling to, Hillary was forced to work furiously to save her family from a Dickensian existence of privation and destitution. Though she spared Sawyer the harrowing details, we can recreate some of her most grueling tasks. This meant giving several speeches a week to demanding audiences for $200,000 a pop, burning the midnight oil to complete her book so that she wouldn’t have to return her $8 million advance, booking Bill’s speeches at $500,000 an appearance and scrutinizing Bill’s $10 million book contract for any troublesome pitfalls. There were also those tedious documents to sign for Bill’s $200,000 presidential pension and her own $20,000 annual pension for her term as First Lady.

There was also that rather irksome request from the Banker’s Trust that Hillary authorize them to accept for deposit $1.35 million from a certain Terry McAuliffe to secure the Clinton’s loan for the purchase a five-bedroom house in Chappaqua, New York. She was also tasked with itemizing the $190,000 worth of gifts for the family’s new home that flooded into the White House during the last cruel weeks of the Clinton presidency and arranging moving vans for the $28,000 of White House furnishings the family took with them to their humble new digs in New York.

But Hillary put her nose to the grindstone. She didn’t complain. She didn’t apply for unemployment compensation or food stamps. She simply devoted herself feverishly to the tasks at hand and over the course the next few months the Clinton’s fraught condition began to improve rather dramatically.

By the end of 2001, the Clintons owned two homes: the $5.95 million Dutch Colonial in Chappaqua and the $2.85 Georgian mansion in DC’s bucolic Observatory Circle neighborhood. Her deft management of the family finances, a feat worthy of Cardinal Mazarin himself, allowed the displaced couple’s bank accounts to swell to more than $20 million. A carefully nourished blind trust also fattened to more than $5 million. In twelve short months, their net worth rose from “dead broke” to a fortune of more than $35 million. Thus was the Clinton family was saved from a life of poverty.

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/01/down-and-out-with-hillary-clinton/

Then there's Honduras:

Hillary Clinton's Real Scandal Is Honduras, Not Benghazi

By Emily Schwartz Greco
Truth-Out, OtherWords | Op-Ed, Saturday, 26 July 2014

EXCERPT...

Clinton's apparent unbeatability this time around helps explain the right-wing hysteria over the Benghazi tragedy. The conspiracy theories about the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya amount to a desperate effort to discredit the Democratic Party's strong centrist candidate. It's no surprise that this ploy isn't making a dent on her popularity.

What beats me is why more Democrats aren't deeply troubled by the legacy of Clinton's foreign policy blunder in Honduras.

Maybe you've forgotten what happened in that small country in the first year of the Obama administration — more on that in a moment. But surely you've noticed the ugly wave of xenophobia greeting a growing number of Central American child refugees arriving on our southern border.

Some of President Barack Obama's supporters are trying to blame this immigration crisis on the Bush administration because of an anti-trafficking law George W. signed in 2008 specifically written to protect Central American children that preceded an uptick in their arrivals. But which country is the top source of kids crossing the border? Honduras, home to the world's highest murder rate, Latin America's worst economic inequality, and a repressive U.S.-backed government.

When Honduran military forces allied with rightist lawmakers ousted democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya in 2009, then-Secretary of State Clinton sided with the armed forces and fought global pressure to reinstate him.

Washington wields great influence over Honduras, thanks to the numerous military bases built with U.S. funds where training and joint military and anti-drug operations take place. Since the coup, nearly $350 million in U.S. assistance, including more than $50 million in military aid has poured into the country.

That's a lot of investment in a nation where the police, the military, and private security forces are killing people with alarming frequency and impunity, according to Human Rights Watch.

CONTINUED...

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/25184-hillary-clintons-real-scandal-is-honduras-not-benghazi

Then there's the time the Senator sided with the Republicans over democracy in Haiti...

Bill and Hillary Clinton: “Friends of Haiti?”

Marty Goodman
Black Agenda Report, Wed, 12/05/2012

Bill Clinton and Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are called “the Friends of Haiti.” Oh, really?

After the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, President Obama appointed Bill Clinton as US envoy, partnering with the Katrina and Iraq criminal George Bush, Jr., a supporter of the 2004 CIA-backed military coup which overthrew the elected President, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. After the earthquake, Bill headed relief agencies, while excluding Haitians themselves. The stated theme of the Clinton-Bush effort was to “build back better.” Today, Bill is the UN envoy and acknowledged guiding hand behind international relief efforts.

Both Bill and Hillary are promoters of the U.S. dominated World Bank low-wage sweatshop plan for Haiti, angrily dubbed “the American Plan” by Haitians. Last year, Hillary signed an agreement committing $124 million tax dollars to the building of the Caracol sweatshop assembly park in the north of Haiti. The agreement includes massive tax breaks for sweatshop bosses. Workers there are making the starvation wage of about $3.50 a day.

On Oct 22, 2012 Bill and Hillary were on hand for the inaugural ceremony in Caracol. Also there was Haitian President Michael Martelly, a pro-coup right-winger linked to Duvalier era thugs. Hillary praised Martelly as Haiti’s “chief dreamer and believer.” Martelly, once again, declared Haiti “open for business.”

The sweatshop park was launched with $3 million from the “Clinton Bush Haiti Fund,” set up by the two Obama appointees to spearhead so-called earthquake relief fundraising. One park occupant, Sae-A Trading, is a large textile company cited by the AFL-CIO for “acts of violence and intimidation” against workers in Guatemala.

“Last year, Hillary signed an agreement committing $124 million tax dollars to the building of the Caracol sweatshop assembly park in the north of Haiti.”

In 1993, during Bill Clinton’s administration, he appointed his close friend Ron Brown as Secretary of Commerce. In the early 1980s, Brown was a partner in the powerful Washington law firm of Patton, Boggs & Blow. Brown was a paid attorney and a lobbyist for Haitian dictator Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier and his family. Brown was also personally linked to wealthy Haitian pro-Duvalier figures.

CONTINUED...

http://blackagendareport.com/content/bill-and-hillary-clinton-%E2%80%9Cfriends-haiti%E2%80%9D

Then again, War Inc needs the oil. Right?

There's tons more owning up. Are you going to own up to supporting all that, Muriel _volestrangler?

[muriel_volestrangler]

105. I don't recommend threads written by supporters of them

Since you didn't answer the question directly, but came up with reasons why you don't like Hillary, you appear to be admitting it's because you enjoy RW attacks on Hillary, as I suspected.

[Octafish]

106. That's not what I wrote, however.

I don't like people accusing me of siding with the right wing, merely for reccing a thread.

[muriel_volestrangler]

107. I'm sure you don't - but that's what you're doing

Better that you recognise it, and either change your behaviour, or learn to live with it, rather than live in denial.

[Octafish]

110. Before I pull the 'Hillary' lever, I want to know why she sides with Wall Street and War Inc.

No doubt about that. Am I clear now?

[maddezmom]

94. Sad to see people rec this garbage

[msanthrope]

121. See, here I disagree with you. The recs give us an accurate list of who finds a sexist, racist

birther credible.

A BIRTHER for Christ's sake. One that makes Orly Taitz sound reasonable.

[Union Scribe]

124. Ooo, a list!

Remember to check it twice. And spell my name right.

[msanthrope]

131. I think you should be proud to rec this, Union Scribe. I mean, granted that Ed Klein is nuttier

than squirrel poo, but you should totally rec this if you feel like it.

[Autumn]

127. See, here I disagree with you. The recs give us an accurate list of who finds an OP interesting or

who just get a kick out of recommending a thread for one reason or another such as they may like to see discussion on a discussion board or they find it hilarious for one reason or another or maybe just to see people get all outraged. There are no sites that are not permitted here at Democratic Underground, post whatever you want just realize you take your chances. That would kind of defeat the purpose of being a Democrat since (most) Democrats are against censorship.

[msanthrope]

128. Who called for censorship? On the contrary, I think one of the strengths of this site is that you

can fly your freak flag, and see what flies.

[Autumn]

138. Did I say anyone called for censorship? You got it right. As Skinner said, you take your chances.

I merely commented on the outrage about the OP being posted from a site that some in this thread don't find appropriate and are saying the OP should delete. You probably missed those posts.

[msanthrope]

140. It isn't the site that is at issue. It is the author of the piece, who is a birther. nt

[Autumn]

142. That is a CS issue. Ultimately it's up to the members of DU as to what they will or will not allow.

I'm sure someone has the jury result.

[msanthrope]

150. Jury result??? I hope no one alerted on this. This is one for the ages, like the moon bombing

thread.

[bahrbearian]

187. Or People that like to see you agitated

[msanthrope]

196. Do you mistake my stance for agitation? You are mistaken. I am belly laughing....

I could not have scripted this better.

Seriously.....the defense of an OP disowned by EW's own press secretary. I could not have bought this.

[MannyGoldstein]

201. Approximately one-third of all the posts on this thread are yours.

You seem to be pretty worked up about this in some way, shape, or form. Someone has quite a bit of time on their hands, methinks, but I'm certainly flattered by the attention!

Regards,

Getting-back-to-work-in-a-few-minutes Manny

[msanthrope]

203. Manny-you've pointed out that I've taken more care to answer posters on this thread than you have.

Thank you for that acknowledgement.

FYI---Warren's spokesman has called the article you posted a complete fabrication. Will you delete????

[MannyGoldstein]

210. Good point.

ODS isn't a disease, it's simply applying adequate care to situations.

Since the article was offered up as a dubious article that might possibly be true, rather than as fact, a retraction would be silly. It's still a dubious article that might possibly be true: your mightily-amusing flailing doesn't change the reality of the situation any more than Baghdad Bob's proclamation's saved Saddam's regime.

[msanthrope]

213. Manny....no one who read your OP can credibly fail to understand what you meant. The worm turns. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

221. Hey! We finally agree on something!

[NCTraveler]

96. You are taking a lot of flack for bringing this article here.

I think it is very beneficial. It is really good to know what the right wing are attempting to promote through this slight of hand article and similar sentiments that can be found all over the place. It is clear to everyone the right wing would love to go head to head with Warren.

[brooklynite]

99. Manny - if Warren didn't listen to you, why would she listen to the Kennedy's?

You HAVE asked her, right?

[maddezmom]

101. ...

[rhett o rick]

108. Did Manny post an article that is a Right-Wing attack on H. Clinton?

If this article is a Right-Wing attack, then Manny did us a favor posting it so we can dismantle it.

Personally, I don't see the Right-Wing attacks in the article and would appreciate it if someone would point them out, instead of attacking Manny.

It seems some here are deathly afraid that we will be exposed to Right-Wing propaganda? We can handle it?

[Octafish]

113. That really is the heart of the matter...

...Some really don't like it when DUers point out inconvenient truth, let alone ideas. Perhaps it interferes with a plan.

[leftstreet]

148. +1

There seem to be subtle and unfathomable 'rules' for who may/may not post RW sentiments at DU

Maybe Manny failed here by not posting that he was only 'concerned' about the article

[pnwmom]

180. Yes, it's a classic right-wing divide-and-conquer attack.

It wasn't a specific sentence in the article that was an attack, it was the act of trying to pit Warren and HRC supporters against each other.

And Manny didn't just post it to expose it. He said it "made sense."

[winter is coming]

192. Let's review what Manny actually said in the OP.

Only the NY Post, but an entertaining thought if it happens to be true. It *does* totally make sense that the Kennedys would want an FDR Democrat at the top of the ticket.

From that, I get a clear hint that Manny's not taking the article as gospel, but merely finds it an interesting thought: something to shoot the shit about for a few hours. Since Ted Kennedy chose not to endorse Hillary back in '08, is it that odd to think the Kennedys might want to encourage some competition this time around? If Hillary wasn't the Kennedy first choice then, why would she be now?

The really entertaining aspect of this whole thread is the way some people have attacked this article as if they were leaping on a live grenade to protect us from the incredibly dangerous idea that people might want someone other than Hillary or (worse yet!) that we might have two female primary candidates in 2016. Yeah, Klein is a birther asshat, but there's no hint of it in this article: pretty much any rumor-mongering reporter or pundit could have belched up this tidbit. If the initial reaction to this had been, "Yeah, right, a Murdoch rag does it again", the thread would likely have sunk with a few dozen posts. The "OMG, how could you!" reaction has given this thread--and the bullshit article linked to in the OP--far more visibility than it would have had otherwise. I wonder what response the OP would have gotten if the article had implied that the Kennedys had vetted both Warren and Clinton and decided to give the nod to Clinton.

There have already been a lot of rumors about 2016 and there will be plenty more. If we're going to treat each and every one as a Threat To The Very Existence Of The Party, it's going to be a long two years. The zealous, near-frantic efforts to disprove this article tell me that HRC supporters are very, very scared that Warren (or someone with her politics) will decide to run in 2016. If the HRC supporters weren't so worried about that, they'd roll their eyes at the Warren supporters and move on, instead of using any and every opportunity to tell us that she's not running, she's not, so don't even think about it!

[MannyGoldstein]

222. Don't ruin it with facts.

That just makes 'em take their ball and go home.

[pnwmom]

249. An "interesting thought" that "does totally make sense." And when it was proven to him

that Warren's office said the story was completely made up, he refused to take it down or even update it. Because this an idea that makes sense to Manny, he's using a RW source to push it.

[winter is coming]

250. And Manny said why he thought it made sense. You keep skipping that part.

Clinton didn't get Kennedy's endorsement in '08. It went to a candidate slightly to her left. It does make sense that a Kennedy endorsement might again go to a candidate to Hillary's left. Not sure why you find that so disturbing.

As for taking down or updating the OP, that's Manny's choice. I would have updated the OP, but it's his OP, not mine. I find it interesting, though, that this thread has five times as many posts and at least twice the outrage of a thread in the Politics forum that references the exact same article, implying that the "crime" isn't posting the article but agreeing with the idea that the Kennedys should endorse Warren.

[pnwmom]

255. And you've skipped the part that Warren said the story was completely made up.

Democrats shouldn't keep pushing this false story about Democrats.

[winter is coming]

259. No, I haven't skipped that part, nor am I "pushing" this story, but thanks for playing.

[Union Scribe]

242. Psst.

Warren and Clinton supporters are already in two very different camps here.

[m-lekktor]

109. Ed Klein creates lengthy dialogue and always attributes it to anonymous sources

like Hillary coffee clache gatherings where they badmouth Obama or whoever else. He seems to have an anonymous source at every social gathering where people chit chat and they are always willing to give him the exact blow by blow conversations to put in his books. i listened to that nutbag "Blood Feud" audiobook (i didn't pay for it, btw) and he is just not credible despite whatever issues I have with Hillary or Obama.

I am often on the same side as you on the issues but Ed Klein is where i draw the line! lol

I also admit i didnt read through the whole thread to see if you happened to explain why you used this source! no big thing.

[Autumn]

111. Please edit your OP Manny. You have upset the people who don't like you or anything you post.

Just kidding.By the way, here's a rec just in case anyone is still keeping track.

[L0oniX]

116. +1

[L0oniX]

114. Wow ...this one really brought out the anti Warren warriors.

[msanthrope]

122. Cann you name a single anti-Warren warrior, and post anything they've had to say about Warren that

would indicate such a stance?

[rhett o rick]

139. It has nothing to do with Warren,

it has all to do with ad hominem attacks. If one can't provide a good argument against, then resort to attacking the messenger. As the populist movement grows we will see more and more attacks by those that are clinging onto the status quo like a life preserver.

[msanthrope]

153. Is there a reason someone like Ed Klein should not be attacked? nt

[WI_DEM]

115. Not a good source, but I take Warren at her word that she isn't running.

[DonViejo]

137. Wow! A New York Post (Murdoch owned) newspaper article being

headlined/featured on NewsMax and on DU by that great progressive Manny.

[msanthrope]

161. Oh yeah---it's on the front page of Newsmax, I just checked. nt

[bettyellen]

141. OMG, hilarious. Not the Onion, but almost....

[rhett o rick]

172. This is intended to be a politically liberal message board. Politically liberal posters shouldn't

be trying to set themselves as the self-righteous moderators. When people post articles that you don't like, it gives you a great opportunity to get your message out. Provide a decent argument or simply trash the OP. Trying to push a POV by ridicule, ad hominem attacks, obsessive alerts, hides and locks, isn't very "politically liberal". In fact it smacks of conservatism.

I commend this jury that could see thru the attempts at censorship.

[pnwmom]

184. Once Sen. Warren's office said this story was completely made up,

I think Manny had an obligation to withdraw it. Or at the very least, to update his OP with the statement from Sen. Warren's office.

Being politically liberal shouldn't mean you are free to post negative stories that have been proven to be lies.

[rhett o rick]

219. I have no problem and welcome stories that may counter the OP article.

I don't agree the OP author has an obligation to update his OP unless he has endorsed the article, which he didn't. My objections here are the multiple ad hominem attacks on the OP author. Never any excuse for that. One poster here has posted over 35 posts, mostly repeating the same things over and over, with other joining in posting over and over the same things. If they disagree, they should provide their arguments. What is the purpose of the 50 -60 posts that essentially say the same thing? Maybe trying to push the POV with shear might?
I am disappointed that some here were so panicked that they had to go crazy with posts. If the article was a right-wing attack, then let's discuss it w/o going crazy. We are liberal adults and can handle it.

[pnwmom]

224. Many people never go back to a thread unless someone replies to them specifically.

That is a reason for answering numerous posts. Otherwise, the misinformation is still out there.

I think the OP does have an obligation not to push lies about Democrats once they've been demonstrated to be lies.

[brooklynite]

218. I would never alert on Manny...

He's too much fun.

[MineralMan]

151. Why would you post the mewlings of Klein the Birther on anything?

Any source that fits your bias? We know what the biases of the NY Post and Klein are. Both are ratfucking astroturfers. And they've either taken you in or you agree with them. Uff da!

[leftstreet]

154. Are articles by Klein banned on DU?

[msanthrope]

158. Warren's camp says he lied......

Sen. Warren’s camp responded swiftly and unequivocally denied the claims made in the New York Post article. “This story is completely made up,” Lacey J. Rose, Sen. Warren’s press secretary, told Boston.com.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2014/08/04/kennedys-unsure-whom-support-for-president-hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren/bzyHQAZLMGoWLjopAHD10L/story.html

I have a problem with anyone who thinks this guy is a credible source.

[MineralMan]

160. Not as far as I know. Why do you ask?

I'm not an Admin of this site, nor do I have any authority here at all. I stated my opinion, which I believe my membership here allows me to do.

I said nothing about any source being banned, either. I questioned a DUer who has taken the name of a fictional character from 1984 about the wisdom of posting this OP. Is questioning OPs banned on DU?

Thanks for asking. I'm always glad to answer questions from other DUers.

[msanthrope]

155. FYI Manny--Warren says the article you quoted was completely made up....

Sen. Warren’s camp responded swiftly and unequivocally denied the claims made in the New York Post article. “This story is completely made up,” Lacey J. Rose, Sen. Warren’s press secretary, told Boston.com.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2014/08/04/kennedys-unsure-whom-support-for-president-hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren/bzyHQAZLMGoWLjopAHD10L/story.html

[DonViejo]

164. Gee, what a surprise!

Given the source of this story (Newsmax and the New York Post), shouldn't this be posted in the Creative Speculation Group?

[Kingofalldems]

159. You should think about deleting this false story.

[msanthrope]

162. No...he should not. He should keep this OP, because even thought EW's press secretary

has refuted it, and even though the source is a racist birther, Manny has indicated he does not want to delete it.

So let it stay. Because it is quite revealing.

[DonViejo]

165. "...it is quite revealing."

ain't it!?

[msanthrope]

168. You Better Believe It! Seriously....Warren's own press secretary says this story is a lie. And yet

it is still here.

This is Ed Klein.....

[Major Hogwash]

167. The Disscusionist forum also has links to this article, as well.

So, does the Free Republic forum.

But, all of those threads were started by right wingers.

Face it, DU has more trolls than the bridges in Germany.
So, what's the point?

[msanthrope]

169. The point? I will not speculate as to another DUer's motives. I wish Manny would tell us the point

of posting this article, though.

[BainsBane]

204. I'll speculate

I just won't put it in writing.

[msanthrope]

206. No--lest one incur a hide....

Last edited Tue Aug 5, 2014, 07:49 AM - Edit history (1)

[pnwmom]

181. That's true. It reveals the truth about the poster, even as it lies about the Kennedy's,

Warren, and HRC.

[MineralMan]

166. He says he has already thought about it and has decided

not to self-delete. Like several others, I've bookmarked the thread, so I can find it easily when the Kennedy family endorses Hillary, if she chooses to run in 2016.

[Corruption Inc]

174. Please run all stories past the censorship committee, LOL!

All forms of expression must be approved by the self-appointed overseers of a website that isn't theirs.

[BainsBane]

200. Hey, if it's good enough for Free Republic

It's good enough for DU. Damn censors wanting Democratic-type stuff. Hell with 'em.

[DanTex]

176. LOL. An article by Ed Klein based entirely on anonymous sources.

Last edited Mon Aug 4, 2014, 10:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Looks like you flew too close to the sun on this one. Might as well stop playing games and just start signing your OPs "Right-Wing Manny".

[pnwmom]

177. AND the OP knows that Sen. Warren's office says the story is completely MADE UP.

So I wonder why he hasn't withdrawn it?

[JI7]

182. you assume they actually support or care about elizabeth warren

other than using her to attack other democrats.

[maddezmom]

183. Hmmmm, I think you are onto something

It has gone in overdrive lately.

[SidDithers]

185. +1...nt

Sid

[Number23]

261. NAILED IT. Nailed it clean through

This thread is classic in its utter failery, both by the OP and his seal clapping supporters.

[SidDithers]

178. And boom goes the dynamite...

Sid

[BainsBane]

194. . . .

[MannyGoldstein]

197. And can you believe that Manny reported it AS A FACT!

Holy crap!

Regards,

Just-visiting-your-alternate-universe Manny

[emulatorloo]

202. I'm sure he was just following directions. Don't be so hard on him.

[DanTex]

226. I've never known Manny to deal in fact. Mostly right-wing propaganda.

Remember, this is a guy who thinks Reagan was a better president than Obama.

[MannyGoldstein]

228. Manny said that?

Link to it! Let's see what that bastard said! Because you couldn't possibly be making that up, could you?

[Number23]

262. +a billion. You just have to laugh that he thinks he's fooling anyone

Besides those so easily and so desperate to be fooled they think he's for real.

[pscot]

207. Seems plausible

A catered buffet at Hyannis is a long way from the Ozarks.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

216. Recommended (but only to piss off the perpetually & aggrieved game players).

I WANT my name on that goddamned Orwellian list.

[Garthem]

220. It's the Post

/

[brooklynite]

229. C'mon now, work with what you've got...

[MannyGoldstein]

230. I know! Can you believe that Manny conveniently

left that fact out? Very telling.

Oh wait...

[countryjake]

233. ...

Thanks for this hilarious thread, Manny! After this past month, I think many of us need a good laugh.

A song, I dedicate to you:

Keep on keepin' on!

[Garthem]

235. .....

[MannyGoldstein]

238. Man, I'm livin' large

Between Manny-Oh! and this!

I attended a few Dead Concerts. It's amazing that I found a full recording of one of 'em on the Interwebs decades later. That happened with a Clash concert, too.

The world is filled with many wonderful delights, along with the #$%^ of course.

[MannyGoldstein]

237. That song's awesome, thanks!

Have to coax the wife into learning it!

[pnwmom]

241. Why do you always refer to yourself in the third person, like royalty?

[DURHAM D]

243. and like Richard Nixon

[MannyGoldstein]

245. Because Manny is Bob Dole. nt

[LordGlenconner]

252. People in love with themselves often do

[stevenleser]

260. OP and everyone who rec'ed this and those who attacked those who disputed it should apologize.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025335851