Desperate Republicans Are Urging Elizabeth Warren To Run Against Hillary Clinton

[apples and oranges]

They have called Senator Elizabeth Warren “an extremely attractive candidate” in the 2016 presidential campaign. They have said that she is the “hottest commodity” in the Democratic Party and that she has demonstrated the “passion and intensity” that Hillary Rodham Clinton lacks.

Those glowing compliments are not from the liberal activists who are trying to persuade Ms. Warren to challenge Mrs. Clinton, who is expected to be the party’s leading contender in 2016. They come from conservatives who are eager to drum up a contentious Democratic primary and who see Ms. Warren, a first-term senator from Massachusetts, as best positioned to weaken, and potentially defeat, Mrs. Clinton.

On cable television and in private strategy sessions, conservatives are steadily stoking the flames of a movement to recruit Ms. Warren, who has said she will not run but whose anti-Wall Street economic message resonates with the liberal base of the Democratic Party.

“Please give us Elizabeth Warren. Please, God, let us have Elizabeth Warren,” said Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, who is considering a presidential bid.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-vs-elizabeth-warren-could-be-a-dream-match-for-republicans.html

[Ykcutnek]

1. Free publicity for DU. Thanks, NY Times. nt

[HappyMe]

2. What's wrong with that?

They should be more scared of Warren.

[apples and oranges]

5. Ultimately, Warren would be defeated in the democratic primaries but

as the article says:

An easy path to the nomination could allow Mrs. Clinton to enter a general election with more funding than the Republican nominee, who would have had to spend heavily to beat a wide field of competitors. Ms. Warren represents Republicans’ best hope for an expensive, prolonged battle for the Democratic nomination, weakening Mrs. Clinton along the way, political operatives on both sides say.

Republicans don't want Clinton entering the GE unscathed and with a war chest.

[PAProgressive28]

9. Can't agree. Warren would win the primary.

Republicans think she's more beatable. Good example of the bubble.

[apples and oranges]

11. I don't think so. She would need the African American vote and

Warren has not said or done anything to attract or connect to non-white voters. Not that Hillary has, but Hillary at least has Bill Clinton.

[HappyMe]

12. Hillary has done nothing to endear herself to African Americans either.

Bill won't help there. Bill isn't running.

So far, all Hillary has is 'I canz raise money' and 'it's my turn'.

[Oilwellian]

28. Yes, many of us remember the Clintons racism in 2008

It just keeps happening again and again and again. The Clintons keeps doing things, saying things, that sound awfully racist. And we’re to believe that this, the – what? 8th, 10th time? – this has happened is again just a coincidence. The first half a dozen times you launch seemingly racist attacks on your black opponent, maybe – maybe – we can write it off as “boy you’re really dumb not to get it.” But having a seemingly-racist attack from the Clinton folks on Obama every single week, after a while, you don’t get to play the “I had no idea!” card anymore. After that many times, you’re race-baiting. You’re using racism to win. And you’re destroying your legacy and your husband’s. Enough already.

http://americablog.com/2008/03/why-is-obamas-skin-blacker-than-normal-in-hillarys-new-attack-ad.html

They definitely don't have the black vote shored up and I don't see the youth vote flocking to Hillary either. If she is nominated, the Republicans will win.

[HappyMe]

31. There was several times when my husband

and I looked at one another like . Cringe worthy, she's toast- kind of moments.

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. good send her some money

I wouldn't care........

[benz380]

4. I'm a desperate Democrat urging Elizabeth and Bernie to run against Hillary Clinton. n/t

[RiverLover]

6. Me too!

Run, Liz, Run!!

[apples and oranges]

8. Why do we continue to underestimate the importance of the Senate

and other branches of government? Warren is doing great in the Senate. Losing her there would be a HUGE loss. The president can only help us with the support of a great senate and congress.

[benz380]

14. Too bad Abe Lincoln became the President instead of a Senator, huh? n/t

[apples and oranges]

16. Just to clarify, I'm not a big fan of Clinton either

I used to be, but she's frustrated me many times since 2008. But until a viable alternative presents him or herself, I'm not comfortable with attacking our only major potential candidate.

[benz380]

19. If she's already the Chosen One, then my little vote for a real Democrat won't affect her. nt

[apples and oranges]

22. Except it's not about her. It's about we, the people, who cannot endure 4 years under

republican rule. You wouldn't be hurting Clinton by withholding your vote. She'll be fine either way. Women, gays, minorities? Not so much.

[aquart]

15. Protestors were taught "anyone who incites you to violence is a narc."

That's how I feel when I see this drumbeat for Warren.

Pit one woman against another? Check.

Fulfill Wall Street's wish list by getting Warren out of the Senate? Checkmate.

[Jackpine Radical]

23. The only way she'd be out of the Senate

is if she wins the General.

I guess the problem of filling her seat after she moves on to the White House is a risk I'm willing to take.

[aquart]

24. Sigh.

Gonna be a loooonnng election.

[Jackpine Radical]

26. Gonna be a loooong 2 years

whatever the hell happens, Amy.

I do not expect the situation in October 2016 to look like anything we can predict from here. There are very, very many balls in the air, so God knows how they may land in the coming months. 6 months ago, nobody was figuring the craziness in crude processing, or the Syriza victory, or any number of other events.

[denverbill]

7. Remember Rush Limbaugh promoting BO against Hillary in 2008?

How did that work out for them?

[OilemFirchen]

10. I sure don't.

His "Operation Chaos" was an attempt to get Clinton, presumably weaker in the general election, nominated. In fact, a significant number of PUMAs were Limbaugh acolytes - some of whom posted here.

[denverbill]

13. OK, bad memory I guess.

I do know early on Hillary was their biggest fear and he was promoting Obama. But Operation Chaos was against Obama for sure.

[RiverLover]

17. Yes, because no one thought Obama could win in the beginning.

Thank you denverbill for reminding people.

[apples and oranges]

18. I also remember that the people who vigorously supported him

viciously turned on him after the election, before he was even sworn in.

[RiverLover]

21. Before he was sworn in?

Did Obama appoint Geithner, the Rubin & Summers protege, before he was sworn in?

Something like that would make sense. That's when I knew we'd been had, anyways. ( And I worked with MoveOn & his campaign to help his election.) I just can't remember the timing of it.

[Jackpine Radical]

25. And creamed us with Rahm.

[Pathwalker]

20. Bill Bradley 2000: "There's no difference between Bush and Gore"

Gee, that worked out so well, didn't it? The Green Party thought so, said America needed to get much worse before it could get better. Do we need a third Bush and WW3 that badly?

[Jackpine Radical]

27. I first heard that line about hitting bottom before change can happen

as a justification offered by a socialist for voting for Nixon.

[Pathwalker]

29. And where did you first hear the no difference line about Bush/Gore?

Certainly not during Nixon's time. My point was that Bradley wounded Gore at the beginning of the 2000 campaign with that meme, later helped into the mainstream by Bill Maher's Gush/Bore rants. At least Maher later had the decency to apologize for that.

[Jackpine Radical]

30. I took your point.

I was just commenting on the antiquity of the concept. And it has never panned out politically as far as I know.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. I have heard here that Hillary is unstoppable and can easily raise $1bn. So, no worries.

She needn't spend a nickel against Warren or any other liberal/leftist. Right?