I referenced Warren and an article which labeled her as "Hillary's Worst Nightmare" in an earlier blog. But while Warren doesn't have Hillary's EXTENSIVE baggage, she also doesn't have Hillary's "record" and "legacy." Both are double-edged swords. But no candidate is perfect - and Warren has yet to run the gauntlet and be subjected to the intense scrutiny of a presidential candidate. You can be sure she will get beaten up over this:
And they were already digging into her background two years ago and came up with these issues:
And this lengthy opensalon.com article questions Warren's "sincerity" in excruciating detail:
So - if I were Karl Rove, I wouldn't be concerned one bit. In fact, I would be DELIGHTED if Warren were the Dem candidate instead of Hillary.
Never said she wouldn't be attacked. No doubt the Right will throw everything they've got or think they've got at her should she run. That's the nature of politics in today's world. The fact that the digging started two years ago bespeaks the Right's wariness of Warren and their search for anything to tarnish her as a candidate. They fear her. And they should.
The intense light of national scrutiny is a gauntlet that ALL candidates must run. Republicans and Democrats.
And Sebe, my friend, Karl Rove's mission in life is to DESTROY all Democrats. Not just Warren and Hillary.
I read all your links. And Republicans at risk for further alienating themselves from garnering the women voters. They are already in a hole with that one. Being perceived as trying to destroy a Woman candidacy plays directly into Democratic hands.
Karl Rove IS sweating. And his socks DO smell.
I will put my chips on Warren's chances of running the gauntlet better than Carson's chances of surviving the ordeal should either of them get their Party's nomination.
Once again; why do we seem obsessed with having someone's sex, ethnicity, sexual preference, etc. as a pre-cursor for presidential aspirations? After the last eventual 8 years of non-sequitor I would think that a "track record" would be more important... We do not need another "novelty"; we need a leader.
After the last social experiment I would like to see someone with an actual legislative background; prior military service would be a plus as well from the Commander and Chief perspective.
We need someone to help heal the wounds and attempt to unify the nation again. Now with that said; this does not mean I am opposed to any of the aforementioned but do not think that should be a "key" element of the choice.
I also feel that party lines should not be one of the main requirements as we all can agree; DEM, GOP, Left, Right, and upside down have failed collectively.
Personally there is no one right now that I would consider any of the above. If things continue along the same status quo we will once again be forced to choose the lessor of two evils as opposed to a clear choice.
"After the last social experiment I would like to see someone with an actual legislative background; prior military service would be a plus as well from the Commander and Chief perspective."
@HMJC: We HAD that opportunity when John Kerry ran for POTUS. He just got Karl Rovian Speed Boated! Remember? He was THE guy in your description. He got beat by a Republican draft dodger who hardly showed up for his National Guard morning musters.
You need to know that I am not advocating on 'the novelty' of just electing a woman President. I am, however, giving equal consideration to Elizabeth Warren amongst what may just be a crowded field, with or without Hillary. Should a stronger Democrat emerge, male or female, then they will have my support.
There are only TWO viable Political Party's in the US. Only on rare occasions does a Third party win politcal office especially, the Office of President of the United States.
Admitting that reality I realized I must take a side. I chose the Democrats as they more closely resembled my feelings and thoughts on governance.
I reject Conservative Republicanism out right. So, it is not an entirely a question of Gender for me, but a question of Party Policy.
As far as Libertarianism goes, they are Isolations and mainly consist of Conservatives that want to smoke Pot.
"And Sebe, my friend, Karl Rove's mission in life is to DESTROY all Democrats. Not just Warren and Hillary."
Good for him. We need more of those to offset the ones on the left whose sole purpose in life is to destroy all Republicans. It's called BALANCE, dontcha know.
For me, I reject liberal Democratism outright. It's not a quest of Gender for me, but a question of party policy. We have seen what destruction that policy can wreak over the past five years.
We need REGIME CHANGE. Start in November by voting Republican.
Hillary trumps every possible Republican I see that may be considering a run. The Right likes Rand Paul right now. Besides, we've got Elizabeth Warren in the batters box.
Besides, no body is going to vote for someone whose head of hair looks like pubic hair. 'Cept maybe Honey boo-boo's clan, Phil Robertson and some North Georgia Snake Handlers that live near Zell Miller.
Speaking of Zig-Zag..when is that old codger gonna buy the farm? My bladder is getting full.
Hopefully not any time soon.
The closer we get to 2016, the more optimistic I am for the GOP. We'll see how it goes this November. If the country elects a Republican-controlled Senate, it will be a good sign for the conservative cause in 2016.
I think we Dems will steal the Georgia Senate seat. As to the future of the National Republican Party they for a long time will be fighting amongst themselves to define their political souls i.e. "I'm more Conservative, "No, I am more Conservative," ad infinitum. That's assuming, of course,that anyone of them have a soul. That is a jump ball too.