Conventional wisdom has said since Barack Obama’s victories in 2008 and 2012, that Hillary Clinton would clearly be the Democratic nominee in 2016. However, the rift within the party between the progressive wing and the “Clinton” wing seems to be growing and that narrative is becoming murkier.

Report from the Washington Post:

The tension — shown in high relief during the messy final days of the congressional session — is in some ways a mirror image of the stresses within the Republican Party, which has been divided between its tea party and establishment factions in recent years.

In the case of both parties, the argument pits the more populist, purist elements of the base against the more pragmatic center.

For Democrats, “it is a conflict that was looking for an occasion,” said William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, who was a policy adviser to former President Bill Clinton. “The election provided the occasion.”

Having lost big in November, two wings within the party have been trading recriminations over which was more to blame while jostling for position to be the face of the Democrats going into 2016.

They are personified by former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, the presumptive presidential front-runner by virtue of her stature and fame, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the anti-Wall Street clarion favored by many on the left to challenge Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

A similar story played out in 2008 between then-Senator Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. You already know who won that battle. Hillary is a polarizing figure, even within the Democratic Party. She has a loyal following of backers but she also has some serious detractors, as noted by MoveOn.org’s decision to drop up to $1 million to draft Elizabeth Warren for 2016.

28 COMMENTS

    • I think they’re different articles. I don’t think you can fully delete your post unless you posted it minutes ago. Only admin can do that.

      • I’ve attempted to delete minutes after posting in other instances and as I said it only changed it to “Guest”
        Oh well “Xin loi” about that ! thanks anyway !

        • Bob — click EDIT (than you can delete all but one character from your post — such as a punctuation mark).

          Hope this helps.

    • On your article (why delete it, it is good):

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/amid-warren-buzz-clinton-might-do-well-not-to-wait-too-long-to-announce-2016-bid/2014/12/14/e0ffdd8c-83b9-11e4-b9b7-b8632ae73d25_story.html

      Only Warren can challenge Hitlery — and she will run (Warren) since she said she won’t (clear indication since ultra-liberals lie the most of all)!

      I’m going to predict that Warren will eventually win the Dems nomination — after a drag-down-mud-wrestling-squealing-sows-fighting-for-the-Dems-money-trough settles down. Which will destroy the Dems to the core by exposing all their dirty laundry!

      This, I’m prefacing only if Warren is still alive (and does not meet an “accidental” death, thus clearing a smooth Hitlery win).

      The rest of the Dems field mentioned in this article are non-entities, with the exception of Joe Biden. Biden is recognizable as the Vice President — and that’s the only thing he has going as an advantage. However, Old-near-dementia-ridden Biden can hardly put two sentences together that do not sound as contradictions, thus idiocies spouted by a near-retard. As such, he is also a non-entity.

      So, Warren if alive — and bye, bye Hitlery Clinton forever!

        • It’s really the same thing the other Warren is saying (Warren Buffett)–that it’s not bad to BE rich, but the system shouldn’t be rigged to the overwhelming benefit of the rich and powerful.

        • Bob….I have a feeling that you posted the above with tongue in cheek but someone might believe it. Elizabeth Warren lives in a 700,000.00 home with a mortgage. She does not claim Native American status. Everyone believes their bloodline is whatever family lore tells us. To claim Native American Status, you have to go before the Council and prove your lineage to become a “card carrying Indian” and receive their special benefits. Elizabeth Warren was a tenured professor at Harvard University where the beginning salary for Professors starts at $200,000.00 per year. It was only her last full year at Harvard that she was paid 350,000.00.

          • A number of articles will prove you are mistaken. First we have an article where she acknowledges identifying herself as “native American” to schools to procure employment.

            • Bogus, Bob.

              I’m not a big Warren fan, but I actually went to your articles.

              (1) The STORY in the Boston article, itself, is that she told about her heritage AFTER she was hired, not to GET the job.

              (2) The Cherokee link is bogus. They seem to be just another “Swiftboat” group with NO purpose at all except to attack a candidate about a perceived strength.

              (3) And I really don’t see any sense in the argument over her house. If someone made that kinda argument about one of your heroes, you’d be incensed. Having property is not a crime. The issue is only how one got the property, or how one uses it.

              When I see bogus-ity, I usually go to Snopes to see if crappy emails my brother forwards are as bogus as they sound, and they usually are. This is what they say about “Squaw” Warren:

              http://www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/warren.asp

              From what I’ve been able to dig up, Warren’s extended FAMILY believes they have Native American ancestry, and she is proud of that (and why not?)–just as my own sister-in-law claims that she is a direct relative of Sitting Bull, but has no proof.

              But I don’t see anywhere that Warren benefited from that belief, much less unfairly. It seems to be the institutions that have bragged about it, not she. So it’s a bogus non-issue.

            • “……………And everywhere Mary went her sheep were sure to go”

              Goethe: I provided proof. It’s ironic the left can piss and moan about the Redskins degrading the Indian name but will defend to the death one of their own who is a bogus hypocrite degrading native Americans. The same goes for the lefts anger over the original swift boat group but now claim these Cherokees are swift boating her. Sen. Warren and her family can believe they are related to Tarzan but that doesn’t mean they are. Tell me doesn’t the left ever tire of using the lame bias card?

              I have no doubt you and Tess know each other through blood or marriage. However as I’ve said many times to you “You have me confused with someone who gives a crapola what you think.”

              http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/untitled.2014.12.19b-500×445.png

            • I just don’t like crap.

              Your criticisms were crap.

              Your links were crap and irrelevant.

              If you want to make an argument, come up with a reasonable point and offer reasonable arguments to support it.

              I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

            • But your arguments are crap.
              (1) Warren is proud that her family believes that they have Native American heritage.
              (2) She never used that fact unfairly, nor benefited from it, except for personal pride.
              (3) It was only the institutions who bragged about it, after they found out about it.
              (4) And the property thing is just BS. She has a house that’s nicer than yours. Deal with it.

            • NO YOU NEED TO DEAL WITH IT !

              Get off this merry go round because neither one of us is going to admit we are wrong ! Let the people on this site read both of our sides and make up their own opinion. OR you could do the childish thing you usually do and get in the final post to satisfy your ego.

        • I’ve said before that I find Bob’s cartoon mildly amusing for poking Warren for the fact that the university tried to boast of her “Native Amercan” heritage.

          But the copy is just idiotic. It implies that Warren benefits because the system is rigged to benefit the rich, and yet, that’s exactly what she’s complaining about. The system IS rigged to benefit the rich, yet ONLY the rich have a voice to complain about it.

          However, that’s not the reason for my post. I was appreciating the humorous angle of Bob’s post. So here’s a new one that’s fun. This site lets you compare YOUR house to one of Romney’s mansions:

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/28/how-big-is-mitt-romneys-california-house-here-compare-it-to-yours/?tid=pm_politics_pop

    • Bob: I don’t understand why you wanted to delete your post.

      This article is timely now that Jeb has set up an exploratory committee. As I said elsewhere, that should free us of worrying about another Willard run.

      Perhaps if that becomes obvious, Hillary may decide to do the same thing–to solidify her “frontrunner” status, and discourage opponents.

      • Perhaps if that becomes obvious, Hillary may decide to do the same thing–to solidify her “frontrunner” status, and discourage opponents.

        I actually think that’s going to happen sooner than later with the Warren wing rising on the left. She will not want to make any similar mistakes to 2008.

      • Goethe / Surfisher;
        What happened was I posted the link to my article above and then saw Nate’s article also was from the Washington “Com-“Post assumed it was the same article and panicked. I then asked to have it deleted but when I read it I realized it wasn’t the same was relieved.

        I believe Mrs. Clinton took for granted she was going to be the nominee in 2008 and figured she would save her donation fund for the general election and coast. If she doesn’t start getting her name in the news more often even if it is only giving her opinion about a current issue she will get blind sided by Sen. Warren. What’s the general consensus about her regretting taking the Sec. of State job? For someone who has a political savvy husband like Bill she sure is getting the wrong advice enough.

        As far as believing everything we read in different publications. I know they lean strong left but I don’t go on the “Kos” or “Huffington Post” sites very often so I don’t know if their articles lean toward Mrs. Clinton or Sen. Warren more. Does Sen. Warren feel she is in place to be the leading left voice in the Senate now that Harry Reid is no longer Majority Leader and thus influence her decision to run? Was she promised a cabinet position by Bill and Hillary to stay out of the 2016 race? Will BIG MONEY donors eventually talk Sen. Warren into running? It’s all to early to tell !

        • Bob: I agree that Hillary took her supporters for granted in 2008, as she is again. But I don’t think Warren wants to run. However, it would be interesting to see Hillary caught between Webb and Warren on issues.

          No, I don’t think she regrets taking State. Before then, she was just a president’s wife and a carpetbagger senator. State gave her the gravitas she needed, and she was considered an energetic and tough Secretary. The recent bipartisan report on Benghazi says the flap over that was nonsense. I think people are tired of hearing about it–unless it is their last chance to come up with some/any way to try to discredit her.

          I don’t read Kos unless someone sends me a link for some reason. I do read Huff sometimes, when I go to AOL to check mail. Mostly, they talk about Kim Kardashian’s ass and what are child actors doing now–but it does try to seem objective. Kos is the left’s equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. There is no pretense of objectivity. Rush and Kos just use facts as props on which to hang rants.

          • George W Bush didn’t want to run in 2000 either but was talked into it because the party feared no one could beat Vice President Gore. It winds up even George Bush had difficulty beating Mr. Gore.

            What Mrs. Clinton received from being Sec. of State could hardly be called “Gravitas”. Considered “energetic” maybe but “tough” you have got to be kidding? Name one accomplishment she had as Secretary of State. She has nothing to hang her hat on in that area. She’s STILL ONLY A PRESIDENTS WIFE.

            • Secretaries of State seldom get credit for anything. It particularly annoyed Nixon that Kissinger got credit for their foreign policy initiatives. And it’s no secret that Obama micromanaged State, anyway.

              Wiki has a pretty good synopsis, if you really care:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton%27s_tenure_as_Secretary_of_State

              The important thing is that she took the job and stayed with it the full four years. If she had not taken it, she’d just be another senator seeking the top job.

              Reminds me of when they asked George Bush what was the “best moment of his presidency,” and he said, “I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound (3.402 kilos) perch in my lake,”

            • “The important thing is she took the job and stayed with it the full four years”????? That’s the best you can say about qualifications for someone who wants to run the entire foreign policy of the strongest nation on earth? LMAO ! Talk about low expectations voters. Well lets build her a statue for staying with it the full four years. I notice you failed to mention one accomplishment of her time in office.

              There would have been no shame or mistake for her to stay a Senator. There were more Senators who ran for President than Secretary of State. Most Senators didn’t make it but unless you go back to Monroe and Madison I can’t remember a former Secretary of State being elected.

            • I said she was the political equivalent of Paris Hilton and you’re still not satisfied. It’s bordering on neurosis, dude.

              “I can’t remember a former Secretary of State being elected.”

              Well, there were Jefferson, Van Buren, and Buchanan, in addition to Monroe and Madison, but that’s because the people chosen for the spot in recent times are foreign policy specialists (or political hacks), rather than politicians.

              It’s not that there’s anything wrong with the office of Secretary of State, in fact, I consider it the most important and visible cabinet post. And it’s not like they all ran for president and were rejected.

              Personally, I think that Hillary made a giant leap in credibility by taking State. She was seen as just a rock star, as Bobby Kennedy was before her, and both were just “awarded” the seat as senator in New York.

              The position as Secretary of State was a national and international office that put her into a different league, just having it on her vitae.

              The “accomplishment” argument is BS. Its like “when did you stop beating your wife?” What “accomplishments” did any Sec of State have that can’t be claimed by the president, instead?? Nixon said even Kissinger was just following orders.

            • There is so much wrong with the twist and turns you take in your above argument that we could spend hours discussing it. It however isn’t worth the time we would exhaust as exhibited by when you stated you simply believe the “important thing is she took the job and stayed the full four years”. If her becoming “Rock Star ” status BECAUSE SHE TOOK the Sec. of State job (see Wikipedia link) is what you look for then she’s your girl. But then again you have been known to make critiques without reading what has to be said (TLDR….To Lazy Didn’t Read).

  1. OK — let me post my wife’s view, who is a cynic (and despises the Dems even more than I do, but disagrees with me on what will happen), on the upcoming Dems debates, and final nomination:

    Hillary wins by defeating all male Dems candidates handily in the debates.

    All will be orchestrated by a desperate Democrat Party to place Hillary upfront as the definitive winner by overwhelming the “opposing” Dem candidates with her common sense, cleverness and goodness (no Warren run allowed, just the obvious male losers). No controversy, strictly yes-men falling short of the mark, without any ill feelings, to illuminate how superior this female is to the rest of all male candidates. And the media will eat it up!

    Finally America will have a strong female candidate for the US Presidency — and by handily defeating the male Dem shills “opposing” her, she can proclaim this is the Year of the Woman (and the media will eat that up, too)!

    How scary is this —- if this Clinton creature actually manages to win the US Presidency in 2016 ?!?

  2. Well, fellows, I would like to remind you that Hillary Rodham Clinton is not the only Carpetbagger and Scalawag that came South and captured fame and fortune. I do not pretend she is my choice but she is a woman of great strength and character. And the fact that that the electorate still focuses more on Bill Clinton than on Hillary speaks volumes as to why the United States still has not had a female president. Hillary Clinton advocated the creation of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides state support for children whose parents cannot provide them with health
    coverage. She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses. She worked to investigate illnesses that were affecting Veterans of the Gulf War; now commonly known as Gulf War Syndrome. She created an Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice. As a U.S. senator, she was the first woman to be elected to this office. She was instrumental in securing $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center site’s. Hillary Clinton cointroduced legislation to increase the size of the regular Army by 80,000 soldiers to ease the strain and supported retaining
    and improving health benefits for veterans. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton visited 112 countries, helping to repair a badly damaged U.S. reputation. She advised the president with major decisions as to the U.S. position with regard to the revolution in Egypt and the decision to use military force in Libya. There’s more but I know you are tired of reading so you can yell Benghazi. Just remember, these were accusations but no factual proof and no conviction.

Comments are closed.