HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Warren vs. Clinton in 201...

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 10:12 PM

Warren vs. Clinton in 2016? Don't buy it

By David Rothkopf
November 13, 2013

(CNN) -- Speculation among political "analysts" has recently heated up around the idea that newly minted Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts might pose a real challenge to Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

Never mind that Warren has zero executive experience, has been in Washington for the blink of an eye and has spent much of her life as an academic -- because of course, that's a formula that seems to have worked for the current occupant of the Oval Office (if not, as at least half the rabid commenters beneath this column will also argue, for the country.)

Never mind that she has expressed no interest in the job. Never mind that the election of 2016 is three full years away and that almost anything can happen in that time including, according to a recent study in the journal Nature, many more asteroid strikes than we originally believed possible.

Facts and sound reasoning be damned. Birds gotta fly and pundits gotta pundit. So off we go.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/13/opinion/rothkopf-warren-clinton/index.html

42 replies, 1965 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 42 replies Author Time Post
Reply Warren vs. Clinton in 2016? Don't buy it (Original post)
Beacool Nov 2013 OP
cantbeserious Nov 2013 #1
Beacool Nov 2013 #4
cantbeserious Nov 2013 #14
Tx4obama Nov 2013 #6
cantbeserious Nov 2013 #13
davidpdx Nov 2013 #15
Beacool Nov 2013 #16
davidpdx Nov 2013 #17
Beacool Nov 2013 #18
davidpdx Nov 2013 #32
Beacool Nov 2013 #33
davidpdx Nov 2013 #34
Beacool Nov 2013 #35
Always Randy Nov 2013 #40
Beacool Nov 2013 #42
Cosmocat Nov 2013 #36
Warpy Nov 2013 #2
Beacool Nov 2013 #3
Warpy Nov 2013 #11
dionysus Nov 2013 #5
Beacool Nov 2013 #8
NoOneMan Nov 2013 #7
Whisp Nov 2013 #9
libdem4life Nov 2013 #10
Beacool Nov 2013 #12
libdem4life Nov 2013 #22
Beacool Nov 2013 #23
libdem4life Nov 2013 #25
Beacool Nov 2013 #26
libdem4life Nov 2013 #29
Beacool Nov 2013 #30
libdem4life Nov 2013 #31
Whisp Nov 2013 #19
Beacool Nov 2013 #20
HappyMe Nov 2013 #21
Beacool Nov 2013 #24
Whisp Nov 2013 #39
polichick Nov 2013 #27
tularetom Nov 2013 #28
Rosco T. Nov 2013 #37
TheKentuckian Nov 2013 #38
libdem4life Nov 2013 #41

Response to Beacool (Original post)

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 10:16 PM

1. Similar Facts Didn't Seem To Slow Obama Down

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 10:32 PM

4. Obama at least had been a state senator for some years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 04:15 AM

14. Warren 2016

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 11:05 PM

6. You should brush up on Obama's history


Warren has no foreign policy experience and she is currently NOT loading up her resume` for a run in 2016.


Compare Warren's committees to those of Obama when he was in the U.S. Senate...

Senator Warren's committees: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Special Committee on Aging
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_warren#Committee_assignments



Senator Obama's committees
Obama held assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations, Environment and Public Works and Veterans' Affairs through December 2006. In January 2007, he left the Environment and Public Works committee and took additional assignments with Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. He also became Chairman of the Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. He met with Mahmoud Abbas before Abbas became President of the Palestinian National Authority, and gave a speech at the University of Nairobi in which he condemned corruption within the Kenyan government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama#Committees



And don't forget that Obama was Illinois State Senator for eight years: January 8, 1997 November 4, 2004

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 04:14 AM

13. Warren For President 2016

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 07:50 AM

15. A very good point

I highly doubt that Warren will run and I don't think Biden will either. With the exception of Hilary Clinton, we are going to have to recruit candidates.

The one person who I wish was a bit younger is John Kitzhaber, our governor in Oregon.

Some have mentioned Martin O'Malley. Andrew Cuomuo would be another possiblity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #15)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 09:15 AM

16. The Left that keeps complaining about Hillary being too centrist would go for Cuomo?

You must not be familiar with his record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #16)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 09:25 AM

17. No, I'm not

I'm merely throwing names out. In my opinion having names throw around as alternative is just thinking about it. I'm simply looking for other alternatives whether it be present or past governors, Congressman, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #17)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 09:32 AM

18. There will be other people running.

It's too soon for them to announce, but I honestly don't think that one of them will be Liz Warren. The presidency may come with lots of perks and it sure is an ego booster, but it's mostly a very tough and thankless job. I wonder if Obama really knew what he was about to encounter when he ran in 2008. I know that Hillary was fully aware of the difficulties of the job having already been in the WH with Bill, but I think that most politicians underestimate the crap that they are going to have to go through. Warren may just not be interested in going through that process. She may be perfectly content with being a warrior for the middle class from her Senate perch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:46 PM

32. I'd be shocked if Warren ran

In fact, I think we are going to be shocked over a few people who decide it's not their cup of tea. Like you said, who can blame them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #32)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:52 PM

33. I wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting to run.

Look what Obama is going through right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #33)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:59 PM

34. Yep, the adage "be careful of what you wish for" applies

It was 5 years ago this month he was first elected. After the next inauguration I'm sure he'll be headed to Hawaii for a vacation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #34)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 04:04 PM

35. I assume that they'll go there for the holidays.

Doesn't his sister still live there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #33)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 09:28 PM

40. Ok Ms Bea--you and I know that HRC eats controversy for breakfast

the more crap they throw at her the more energized she becomes-----I do think it is wearing on Obama ----because the biggest part of his opposition is racist ---HRC has been hated by them forever---I really do think they are in for a good ol ass whoopin from HRC----Obama seems to think he must be reserved------I really hope he gets a congress to back him for his last two years----

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Always Randy (Reply #40)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 10:02 PM

42. I think that it would be tough on anyone.

The presidency is no job for the faint of heart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 04:38 PM

36. Do you REALLY think she can run the path?

Rs and the "liberal media" have spent 8 years ravaging Barrack Obama, and they WILL have him framed in a VERY negative manner by the time the next election comes around.

Do you really think comparing her to him relative to experience when he is going to be framed a weak and ineffectual leader is going to get her elected in 2016?

And, I like Barrack Obama and I don't view him that way personally.

But, that is absolutely what more than 50% of this country is going to think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Original post)

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 10:28 PM

2. I don't have a whole lot of love for Clinton

but that would change should she pledge to put either Elizabet Warren or Eliot Spitzer into the AG spot.

I will vote for whatever stiff the party presents me with, of course. I just hope there are more possibilities than Clinton by early 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 10:31 PM

3. Other than staying in the Senate where she could be a liberal voice similar to Ted Kennedy's,

wouldn't a better job be Secretary of the Treasury. She's an economist after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 12:38 AM

11. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Comptroller_of_the_Currency

She'd be wasted as Secretary of the Treasury.

It would be nice to have an honest OCC chief.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Original post)

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 11:00 PM

5. i'm gonna have to follow you around with a blood pressure monitor and emergency bankies for all

the shit you're gonna get on DU for the next three years!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 11:40 PM

8. Well, I'm as much of a fighter as the lady in my avatar.

We fall down, shake ourselves off and keep going.........with the aid of a few bankies from friends.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Original post)

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 11:29 PM

7. "I am not running for president in four years. I am not running for president in 2008" - Obama

 

Speculation even about who has no interest in a job is premature. In any case, don't take your eye off of 2014

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Original post)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 12:22 AM

9. wasn't David Rothkopf a former official in the Clinton Admin?

 

seems to ring a bell or two.

I think he might be one of the Oath Keepers so of course the Tone of this Tripe he wrote explains itself.

Nice try tho!
and weren't you one of those here that bellyached about talking about 2016 when it should be 2014 2014 2014
2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014
2014 2014 2014
2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 !!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rothkopf

Prior to the establishment of Garten Rothkopf, Rothkopf was the chairman, CEO, and co-founder of Intellibridge Corporation, a leading provider of international analysis and open-source intelligence for the U.S. national security community and selected investors, financial organizations and other corporations. Before founding Intellibridge, Rothkopf was managing director of Kissinger Associates, the international advisory firm founded and chaired by former U.S. Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger. Immediately prior to joining Kissinger Associates, Rothkopf served as Acting U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade. In this capacity, Rothkopf directed the 2400 employees of the International Trade Administration including the U.S. Commercial Service, the International Economic Policy Bureau, the Bureau of Import Administration, and the Bureau of Trade Development. He joined the Clinton Administration in 1993 as Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade Policy and Development.

---
sounds like a sweet little man with no agenda!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Original post)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 12:35 AM

10. All this publicity is giving her increased power in her current landmark position and it's great.

Each election cycle is different, 2008 was then, this is now.

Like Fred Astaire used to say, women have to do everything backwards and in heels...or something like that. Now we've got an embarrassment of riches...two winners !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #10)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 01:13 AM

12. It wasn't Fred Astaire who said it.

This is the quote, "Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, except backwards and in high heels".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #12)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 10:51 AM

22. I tried to look it up...thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #22)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 11:13 AM

23. The quote has been attributed to several people.

The Ginger Rogers official website attributes the quote to Bob Thaves (he was a cartoonist). I remember that Ann Richards frequently liked to use that quote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #23)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 12:07 PM

25. Thanks, again. Sometimes I get a bit "carried away"...a unabashed political junkie. Still sad that

it's so currently descriptive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #25)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 12:36 PM

26. Yes, it is sad.

Ann used that quote often because it describes what women have to go through, particularly in occupations that have been traditionally dominated by men. In politics we lag behind most industrialized nations. We've never had a woman president and we are still a small minority in the Senate and House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #26)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 01:26 PM

29. and the SCOTUS. Justice Warren has a ring to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #29)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 01:29 PM

30. I never thought of her in the SCOTUS.

She's an economist, would she even be interested in becoming a Justice?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #30)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:38 PM

31. Who would have thought President a few months ago? Looked at her bio...her specialty was Bankruptcy

Law. And certainly not in the near future. There are no intended retirements for the next 8 years, unless a Republican wins, so they say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Original post)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 10:40 AM

19. This just shows the Clintons really Are worried about Warren.

 

I mean, what an emotional, stupid hit piece.

I can hear it now. Bubba gets on the phone to David:

Hey, Davey bud, I need you to do something for me. remember how I bla bla bla for you when you were in that trouble in '94...
well I need a little favour. Can you write up some trash piece about Warren - she seems to be getting better press and chatter lately than my wife is. Try knocking her down a peg.

Yes, sir. Mr. President. Consider it done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #19)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 10:44 AM

20. Try writing fiction, you have a wild imagination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #19)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 10:47 AM

21. Meh. It's just a crap article.

I think the Clintons should be concerned about any primary candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #21)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 11:20 AM

24. No one has said that there wouldn't be other people in the running.

This was written to counter the recent articles pushing Warren to run. Obviously not everyone is on the Hillary bandwagon, but not everyone is on the Warren bandwagon either.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #24)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 05:03 PM

39. but lots have said if Hillary runs, it's hers.

 

and everyone else will be loser invisibles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Original post)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 12:46 PM

27. imo it'll come down to Warren...

either deciding the country needs her or that another leader will stand for the people against corporations and the 1%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Original post)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 01:00 PM

28. Well then I'll just have to find somebody else to vote for in the primary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Original post)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 05:02 PM

37. You want the smart solution?

Right now Warren is smart, sharp and concise. And a rookie in government. That's a simple fact, not a dig. But you can be dammed sure the GOP would use it against her..

Clinton/Warren 2016
Clinton/Warren 2020

Now with 8 years of SOLID EXPERIENCE

Warren/? (Schweizer?) 2024
Warren/? 2028

Unless having 24 years of Democrats in the white house just makes you unhappy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosco T. (Reply #37)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:34 PM

38. The vice presidency is a hardly a stepping stone to the presidency

All it could possibly do here is prevent Warren from having any actual power and instead making her a fig leaf for a politician ideologically aligned with the very same fuckers she is trying to oppose.

What you propose is making her a Palin style beard to sop up the energy from the base with some ethereal promise of supporting her in her, maybe down the line.

The vice presidency is the very place to stick someone difficult to make the irrelevant unless the actual President wants them to have juice, which makes them influential but still constitutionally powerless to move events.

Considering where Clinton is economically, Warren would be nothing more than decorative fly paper to attract dissatisfied voters and in the end sully here with being tied to all the shit neoliberal crap the Clinton love and preach.

Queue Admiral Ackbar on that, we need Warren in the Senate if she isn't going to have some power over policy in an administration not playing hood ornament for Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #38)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 09:57 PM

41. The 1% dreams of getting rid of Warren...first paragraph nails it.

And so does the last paragraph. She's no hood ornament ... more like our strict mothers, or the nuns or our first grade teachers when they read us the riot act. Love it when she does it to the high and mighty banksters and to the entire Senate. She's good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread