Elizabeth Warren for president? Where did that come from?

Anyone have any idea what this is all about?

Hillary’s Nightmare? A Democratic Party That Realizes Its Soul Lies With Elizabeth Warren

This is the cover article for the Nov. 25 issue of The New Republic, but is this something that people have actually been talking about, or was the writer just bored and decided to make something up.

I did a quick glance at the article, and it completely avoids the tidbits that make you even think someone is considering a run at the presidency. There is a reference to New Hampshire, site of the first presidential primary, but there’s no indication that Warren is testing the mood there. All the story says is that Warren is in a neighboring state and folks in the Granite State have seen her ads.

The word Iowa doesn’t even appear in the article. Iowa’s where the first caucuses are. Anyone who even thinks about politics knows that is someone is considering a run, they’re getting their machines together in Iowa and New Hampshire. We know already that Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Chris Christie have already been in New Hampshire and Iowa. That means they’re running for president. I should look this up, but would anyone want to pace a bet against Joe Biden having visited either of those states recently? I didn’t think so.

But here’s the New Republic, with it’s Elizabeth Warren as a “Being John Malokovich” substitute, saying that Hillary is in trouble because Elizabeth Warren can wipe out her presidential prospects.


And let’s conveniently ignore the fact that this happened:

All of the female Democratic senators signed a secret letter to Hillary Rodham Clinton early this year encouraging her to run for president in 2016 – a letter that includes the signature of Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other senators who are mentioned as potential candidates, two high-ranking Democratic Senate aides told ABC News.

The letter, organized at the urging of Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., was meant to be a private show of support from a group of 16 high-profile former colleagues and fans who are now senators, urging Clinton to do what much of the Democratic Party assumes she will, the aides said.

The existence of the letter was not revealed publicly until this week, when Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., mentioned it at an event in New York City on Monday. That was an apparent slip-up that prompted a round of apologetic e-mails from her Senate office to other offices on Capitol Hill, according to the aides.

Oh, and let’s call bulllshit on the “was meant to be a private show of support” part of this ABC News report. When 16 senators sign ANYTHING, they know it’s going public.

So I go back to my original question. What’s this all about? Are writers eager to create conflict in the political realm were none exists? It’s like we’ve already have the faux Benghazi scandal, which the GOP is going to hammer Hillary with when she actually makes a run because that’s the only thing they can dredge up (Drudge up would be a better term) to slow her down. But that’s a Republican attack point, which is to be expected and will be ignored by Democrats.

But if you have a “Guess what! Hillary is a woman and a Democrat, and there’s another woman who’s a Democrat who can take her down” scenario, well, By Golly, we got ourselves a Dem on Dem girl fight. Think about it, no one’s going to get excited if it’s a guy challenging Hillary. It has to be a woman to make things spicy.

What would be great though, is if Hillary got the nomination and he named Elizabeth Warren as her running mate. Wall Street, the GOP and all of Wingnut Land would have a stroke.

And I still love this Elizabeth Warren parody ad:

The women in the Senate

Before I forget, Democrat Elizabeth Warren won her Senate race in Massachusetts.

This Molly Erdman parody announcement now reaches new levels of greatness:

President Obama had nominated Warren to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the wake of the 2008 economic collapse. But Wall Street opposed her saying she was too aggressive in pursuing regulation, and Senate Republicans rejected her nomination. So she ran for Senate. And now, she’s going to be in their faces and on their cases for the next six years.

Meanwhile, a record was broken as of Tuesday’s election. There will be 20 women in the U.S. Senate, up from 17. That’s, of course, still too small a number, but I remember “back in the day” when having one woman in the Senate was an oddity.

Click here to go to a Washington Post photo gallery to see them all.

More tea party nonsense in Massachusetts

A teabagger showed up at an Elizabeth Warren event Wednesday and in the course of yelling at her because he’d been out of work for a year and a half, called her a “socialist whore” for her support of the Occupy Wall Street movement. He also referred to the president as Warren’s “foreign-born” boss.

Her response:

“I actually felt sorry for the guy. I really genuinely did,” Warren later told the Huffington Post. “He’s been out of work now for a year and a half. And bless his heart, I mean, he thought somehow it would help to come here and yell names.”

She also added: “I’m not angry with him, but he didn’t come up with the idea that his biggest problem was Occupy Wall Street. There’s someone else pre-packaging that poison — and that’s who makes me angry.”

I wonder who’s pre-packaging the poison to an uninformed member of the electorate? Could their initials be G-O-P or F-O-X-N-E-W-S?

Elizabeth Warren announces her bid for Senate

I hope Elizabeth Warren wins the U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts, so we can see more of Molly Erdman.

Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren is running for the Democratic nomination for senator in Massachusetts. When the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created in 2010, President Obama named her as a special adviser, and there was some talk that she would eventually head the bureau. But Republican opposition to her was so strong, Obama went with another candidate for the post.

If she wins the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race, the GOP will regret opposing her as head of the CFPB, because they will have no control over her as a senator. They would have been able to shut her up in the federal post, because all they’d have to do was cut off the bureau’s funding.