ADVERTISEMENT

Despite her statements that she is not running, and her inaction on visiting early primary states or building a nascent campaign, supporters of Elizabeth Warren remain undeterred from attempting to draft her into the 2016 presidential race. With Hillary Clinton’s State Department email questions still lingering, Warren supporters are pushing more strongly than ever.

ADVERTISEMENT

Report from the Washington Times:

With Hillary Rodham Clinton’s poll numbers sagging and questions about her honesty and integrity creeping into the presidential race, analysts say it’s an ideal time for a Democratic challenger to make a move — and a growing number of influential liberals want that challenger to be Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

More than 40 current and former lawmakers in the key states of Iowa and New Hampshire signed letters this week urging Ms. Warren, Massachusetts Democrat, to enter the race. The freshman senator and progressive hero consistently has said she won’t run, but support for a Warren candidacy now is extending beyond activist groups such as MoveOn.org and Democracy for America and reaching into the political power structure in crucial early-primary states.

At the same time, Mrs. Clinton’s poll numbers are slipping as she struggles to explain why she used a private email address during her four years as secretary of state and faces a dogged investigation from Republicans who openly question whether she deleted messages related to the deadly 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack.

Warren supporters keep sending letters, holding rallies, and launching petitions, but so far, the answer continues to be a strong negative. There are two possible scenarios here:

Scenario One: Elizabeth Warren has no desire to run for the presidency. I can’t believe that since, like nearly every politician today, they always want to seek higher office.

Scenario Two: Warren has made a pact with Hillary or decided she’ll sit out 2016. This is plausible, I suppose.

Scenario Three: Warren is simply biding her time, playing hard to get, and waiting a while to see how Hillary’s campaign or non-campaign continues to evolve. This is also plausible.

It’s interesting since most politicians with Warren’s profile would jump into a race with both feet. From the outside looking in, she’s got nothing to lose and yet, she resists.

15 COMMENTS

  1. I follow Elizabeth Warren’s Blog. Everyone should read it occasionally and get an unbiased review of America’s problems. Elizabeth Warren is an educator, a believer, so perhaps she isn’t aggressively persuing the presidency. Elizabeth Warren takes a problem and views it from all angles…the good that will come with it….the bad that comes along with the good…and how it will affect every citizens of our country, regardless of race, creed or political leanings. I’m not sure America is ready for Elizabeth
    Warren.

      • Goethe…I am surprised that you are capable of such maliciousness. First sentence: “I follow Elizabeth Warren’s Blog”. So set your lazy fingers to work and type in Elizabeth Warren’s Blog and then post your opinion of what she has written. You may not agree with her blog and you have every right to dissect it your way but, please, don’t act dumb.

        • Hah, the only maliciousness being posted here comes from you — Tess Liehard. Your incessant Googling of the utter fringes, to find-copy-and-paste the most outlandish takes (“supported” only by some defunct socialist “professors”) that slam with their prevarications the Foundation of our Nation, are truly malicious.

          But that’s your job as a liberal shill — to post utter nonsense as “truth” trying to save Liberalism, which is on its deathbed in America.

          And you are doing a great job — putting the final nails to the pernicious dead dogma of Liberalism — by exposing yourself, and all your liberal ilk to all, how ruthless and American-hating your lies are.

          From the Tea Party and all Libertarians — we thank you, Tess Liehard.

        • “Maliciousness”??? Please.

          I don’t really think I offended the gentle sensibility of readers by suggesting that they are too lazy to Google something.

          My guess is that only one out of 20 of us go to the links, even when they ARE provided. [I have been tempted to make up some insane point, and write up a bunch of non-existent links. Then, if anyone DOES check one, and it doesn’t work, IF they go to the trouble to point it out, I could say maybe there’s something wrong with their computer–OR–“it must have been taken down by the establishment.”]

          So when you say “yeah, I read something, and if you care enough, you can probably find it, too,” my guess is that NOBODY did, in fact, look for it. I didn’t.

          We’re just lazy, and since you were too lazy to provide the link, here it is:

          http://elizabethwarren.com/blog

          • Je suis votre ami, Goethe. You’re so right… “laziness” is an affliction suffered by many. My concern was not if you offended the gentle sensibility of other readers…the post was addressed to me. I am reminded of a little poem I read on the internet:
            We shall pass
            away
            Die
            Before you
            Or I
            make a dusted nickle
            from our sticky prevarications
            Our summations
            The declarations
            Of self we purport
            To be of some interest
            To others, other than us……written by Timothy Mooney

            • Yeah. I was just trying to help. If you want to make a point, it helps to back it up with support. That support is stronger if you give a link. But it’s even stronger if you QUOTE the main points from the link–since, as I say, most of us will seldom bother to use a link.

  2. Elizabeth Warren is unelectable — being a two-faced liar. While “fighting” the super rich, she is one of the 1% — with net worth of about $8.75 million — so, will sit on the sidelines raking up more money while a Senator (since that’s all she is interested in).

    Read the article below: “Warren’s Wealth Hypocrisy on Display”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/09/warrens-wealth-hypocrisy-on-display/

    Further proof she is in it only for self-enrichment — and nothing else.

    The Wall Street Journal: “Elizabeth Warren Won’t Back Rand Paul’s Audit the Fed Bill”

    Read this short and to the point article to see what a snake in the grass Warren actually is!

    http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/11/elizabeth-warren-wont-back-rand-pauls-au

    Spot on conclusion:
    “So the next time anyone talks about Warren in the context of a populist hero, remind them that the senator from Massachusetts believes the activities of the most powerful money-related institution in the country [The Federal Reserve Board] should be hidden from public scrutiny.” !!!

    • Surfisher…The one thing you need to accept into your world is that everyone is different. You fill your pointless monologues, addressed to me, with toxic, reasonless hatred. It is a waste of emotion for my response is not what you are striving to attain. Knowing it is not a face to face discussion, you use your posts as a bully pulpit of toxic thoughts. Why is a label so important? Whether one is an independent, or a Liberal, or Republican, or Tea Party, or Democrator Liberterian, aren’t we all citizens of America. You are so quick to debunk anything I post you must have forgotten that Senator Elizabeth Warren ask (The
      Washington Times – Monday, September 29, 2014) for a congressional hearing to determine if corruption permeates the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Because she disagrees with some of the points in Rand Paul’s bill does not mean she thinks all is well at the Federal Reserve.

      • Tess Liehard — the only toxicity here comes from your nonstop shilling for the Liberal Left (who are out to destroy our Free Nation and turn it into a Socialist Dictatorship).

        When exposed for being a vile anti-American shill — you bemoan and postulate non sequiturs as “proof”.

        The good news is: You ain’t earning your thirty pieces of silver….

    • I am sensitive to language.

      It strikes me that just about any Democrat is labeled “far left.”

      I’m curious whether people on here think there’s ANYONE who is “too far right”?

      • “Anybody?. . .Anybody?. . .Anybody?. . .Anybody?”
        (Quote by Ben Stein from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.)

        • Die Hündin is more “centralist” than “far” but I’m sure will chameleon herself to be whatever her audience is. There are several 2016 possibles similar to the Bitch, but Warrren and B.O. really set the example for far left Socialist (but everyone forgets gotta to go through Communism to get to pure Socialism.

          Far right – there are none who are running for office, because usually they are anti-abortion, anti gay marriage, anti illegal immigration, phase out SocSec, and minimize welfare + limited government. The fact is the three “anti’s” alone would kill a candidates chances. Any Republican candidate who want’s to win must be ambivalent about those three “anti’s” and declare these are personal choices and don’t plan on driving or opposing any legislation associated with LGBT, or abortion.

Comments are closed.