Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren's Dynamic Appeal

Warren's positions far more closely reflect the sensibilities of the modern-day Democratic Party than Hillary Clinton's.

|

When Sen. Elizabeth Warren rallied beleaguered House liberals to push back against a bank-coddling omnibus bill and the spineless White House that enabled it, she showed us some of her dynamic appeal. Passing trillion-dollar pieces of legislation should never be easy, and disrupting the current cozy, bipartisan environment surely can't be a bad thing.

As Warren was disrupting D.C., it's not difficult to imagine Hillary Clinton ensconced in her penthouse suite in whatever city she's about to give a six-figure lecture in, contemplating every conceivable political angle of this debate, tabulating every potential big-money donor's interests, and asking obsequious staffers how polling looks before composing her own opinion on the matter. That's because Hillary is the Democrats' Mitt Romney. And Democrats would be engaging in a historic act of negligence if they allowed her to run unopposed for president.

The most obvious reason bolstering my concern trolling is that Warren's positions far more closely reflect the sensibilities of constituents in the modern-day Democratic Party, not only in substance but in tone.

Her hard-left economics—what the press quixotically refers to as "economic populism"—propel today's liberal argument. It's the default position of nearly every grass-roots constituency on the left, the center of the Democrats' agenda. This is not just reflected in the embrace of class struggle ("inequality") but a slow warming to socialist ideas (and I'm not throwing the word in as invective; I mean it in the most literal sense). Right now, few, if any, politicians are better than Warren at stoking the anxiety that makes that work.

Moreover, Warren, hopelessly wrong as she is, is liable to offer the country a better class of political debate than the one we've lived through for the past eight years. There's no doubt that hackneyed wars on women, minorities, and common sense will remain. But it's fair to say that Warren's histrionics are often built atop genuine policy beefs rather than straw men. They often reflect legitimate questions about cronyism. Not only would Warren compel Hillary to avoid any premature triangulation but also her presence in the race might impel Republican candidates to engage in a worthwhile conversation about corporatism and free markets.

On a practical level, Warren has simply one thing to think about: Hillary is beatable—very beatable.

It would be one thing if the establishment candidate had proved her worth as a scary political entity. There is no Rick Lazio on her horizon. And there is not a single shred of evidence that demonstrates Hillary is a talented or charismatic candidate or leader.

Much like Romney, who struggled to offer a credible argument against Obamacare because of his own history, Clinton will be constrained to make the Democrats' most powerful cases against big business, big banks, or big anything. The most persuasive reasons Hillary has are her inevitability (again) and name recognition. One of those is ephemeral. The other can work both ways.

Last week, a number of pro-Hillary pundits pointed to a new Bloomberg poll that found that more than half of Americans hold favorable views of Clinton. What they talked about less, though, was that her favorability has significantly dropped from a 70 percent rating at the end of 2012. History tells us that Clinton is most liked when she's least seen. It is clear that most of her popularity is derived from name ID, because another noteworthy aspect from the Bloomberg poll is that her most obvious advantages could easily be turned against her.

Here, for example, are the top areas those polled gave as advantages for her candidacy:

1) She has served as secretary of state for four years; 77 percent believe this is an advantage.

2) She is married to former President Bill Clinton (67 percent).

3) She has run for president before (60 percent).

4) She served for four years in the Obama administration (59 percent).

5) She has close ties to Wall Street (52 percent).

6) She has lived in Washington and worked in the federal government (78 percent).

When was the last time you heard a political ad boasting about a candidate's close ties to Wall Street? Is that really going to be helpful? When was the last time you heard an ad argue that the right choice was someone who had spent most of his or her life working for the federal government and living in Washington? When was the last time anyone was bragging about his or her association with the Obama administration? Does anyone really believe that the person who was principally concerned with the foreign affairs of the United States for four years left us in a better position?

You may remember that in 2008, we heard a lot about Hillary's appeal to white working-class Democrats. You couldn't win without them. In 2008, much of the establishment lined up behind her inevitability and ability to raise money. Barack Obama spent more than any candidate in both his races. Hillary was beatable then, and she is beatable now. Her complete lack of authenticity remains. The history that made her unappealing to so many in 2008 remains. She is impure. Like all those who put their faith in politics, the flock will, in the end, be disenchanted with Warren. But messianic figures win elections. And right now, Democrats need a new one.

Do it for America, Liz.

Advertisement

NEXT: Drop Comedy Bombs, Not Real Bombs: Why Not "Drop" The Interview on North Korea?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Her supposed dislike of crony capitalism aside, her appeal is rooted in a whole lot of Kool-Aid and not much thought.

    1. It would be fun to watch a debate between Hilary and Warren, though.

      1. It would also be fun to watch a debate between Warren and a Tea Party-approved GOP candidate.

        1. I would love to watch a debate where the Democrat actually says what the average SJW socialist-leaning democrat actually thinks.

          1. Yeah, I’d love to see how that goes down on national television. Would Jim Lehrer just sit there with his mouth agape, too astonished for words?

            1. No, my guess is that he’d be looking for every opportunity to let Ms. Warren “clarify” her positions.

          2. Bernie Sanders 2016

            1. That wouold not end well for team blue…it would be interesting though.

              1. There’s a big group of Team Blue who genuinely believes that if the Democratic Party would just have the gumption to nominate somebody like Sanders, he would clean up in the general election. Those people should be encouraged.

            2. 1. Most Americans are distrustful of socialism. This is a good thing.
              2. Sanders is the only socialist member of Congress at the moment. This is a bad thing.
              3. You do the math.

              1. #2 should read “the only only socialist member.

                1. s/only only/only open/

      2. It would be fun to watch a debate between Hilary and Warren, though.

        Why? For the trainwreck aspect? You won’t et it- they’ll be focus-grouped and answer-coached to within an inch of their lives. “Debates” never actually are- they’re two candidates reciting set-pieces. Lots of, “Well, Bob, that’s not really the question. What we need to focus on is…”

        1. Warren’s biggest appeal to the leftist hordes is her wide open screaming mouth full of fury against crony capitalism.

          In a debate, if she kept her mouth shut or only voiced calm platitudes, her fan base would drop her like a cold potato.

    2. For someone opposed to crony capitalism, she sure has no problem with actual cronies.

      Warren has done fundraising for several of her Senate colleagues, allowing the party committees to use her name for some email solicitations and making calls on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. She has also traveled to New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Pittsburgh and Martha’s Vineyard for DSCC fundraising events, according to sources familiar with her activities.

      http://www.politico.com/story/…..02501.html

      Her entire career is built on fraud. Why would anyone expect her political persona to be any different?

      1. Like any far-left pol she is opposed to wrong-crony cronyism. Right-crony cronyism is just fine.

        1. My cronies are awesome, however, your cronies can fuck off.

        2. If you say you are a progressive, rant against Wall Street and one percenters, and say you want to tax the Koch Brothers, then you’re the true one who is to come. No matter what you actually do after you’re elected, it’s all about the rhetoric.

          1. JFK was assassinated by a right wing cabal.

            A higher minimum wage is always good!

            The ice caps are melting!

            Do I qualify to be the next “true one to come”?

    3. Drake posted this on the last Warren article.

      Drake|12.18.14 @ 9:28AM|#

      She isn’t naive at all. The only think different about her is her money comes from Wall Street lawyers, not the banks. More regulations = more fees.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/…..williamson

  2. Be careful when enabling hard-left populists. Libertarian ideals can sometimes intersect, like pushing back against corporate welfare and crony capitalism. But what you’ll ultimately get is an anti freedom, anti-free speech, anti-freedom of association, anti-property, and pro-mega state-empowering candidate that simply believes that the state can and should be leviathon, but simply without icky corporate influence from running dog capitalist roaders.

    1. That’s like saying that ISIS and the Taliban are somewhat libertarians because they don’t US foreign policy, their governments or the public school either.

      1. Fuck:

        That’s like saying that ISIS and the Taliban are somewhat libertarian because they don’t like US foreign policy, their governments or the public school system either.

        1. Well, that’s not what I’m saying. That’s what the lede in this blogpost suggests which I’m taking to task.

          1. I agree with you. Libertarian ideals intersect with hard-left populists just as much as with the Taliban or ISIS.

  3. I keep thinking that one of the commenters here has been saying, long before the Draft Warren movement even began, that she was going to be the Democratic nominee. Going so far as to make multiple (if unenforceable) bets on that.

    1. My money’s on Hillary. Warren is the Ned Lamont/Howard Dean. She generates some excitement at the grass roots level, but ultimately lacks the big party machine support.

      1. ultimately lacks the big party machine support.

        She’s building it now, the old-fashioned way:

        She’s buying it. See my link above.

      2. My money’s on Hillary. Warren is the Ned Lamont/Howard Dean. She generates some excitement at the grass roots level, but ultimately lacks the big party machine support.

        I lean more toward Howard Dean. If anyone was going to pull a “scream” moment and lose all credibility in one, swift stroke, It’s Warren.

        1. My take is that “Powwow Chow” is that momet. Pretend to be an American Indian. Then plagiarize someone else’s recipes and submit them for inclusion in an American Indian cookbook. I could easily see a (non-Democratic) candidate visiting that often in a debate.

          1. Eight years ago I would have agreed with you. Now I have no doubt the press will say, “no she didn’t” and soon anyone mentioning it will be portrayed as insanely fixated on something that was ‘settled’ months ago.

            The two examples that come easiest to mind are Bill Ayers and Benghazi.

    2. I have, but I haven’t been making bets. Groovus schooled me on that.

    3. Playa will totally make sure at least one of them is enforced. You know how he can be when he gets his needle stuck on something.

  4. The political arena needs extremes, be it Lie-awatha (Warren) or back-in-the-kitchen Ted Cruise. And I’d contend there has always been Left and Right extremists, it’s just until recently the press and the parties have stifled these voices. With the explosion in media the extremes have lots of air-time.

    But this is good for the debate, expose the absurdities of each extreme and folks will (reasonable folks at least) will settle somewhere in the middle.

    1. *or back-in-the-kitchen Ted Cruise.*

      Apparently that smell is what you are full of. Please give the class examples of Ted “Cruise”‘s “back in the kitchen” ethos.

      We’ll wait.

      1. well, he’s a Repub, so there’s that. Isn’t that all that is needed to wage war on the wimminz?

    2. Like Barack Obama or Kashama Sawant.

    3. Wow, if Ted Cruz is what you consider an extreme right winger, your “center” must be somewhere in the political spectrum of hard socialist.

  5. This reads disturbingly like the ‘Obama can’t be nearly as bad as Bush’ apologia we got just prior to getting a continuation of the WORST of Bush, plus a heaping helping of lefty intrusion into my damn med insurance.
    Not to worry, whatever wrench she threw into the budget, she’ll make that up and more in some scheme to ‘help the people’ and screw us all as a result.
    McCain (barf) is preferable. Hell, a random rodent would do better.

  6. Yes, let us trust a woman who actually claims to be an American Indian.

    Lets be frankly honest here. If Warren tries to run for any higher office she would be absolutely destroyed in the general election. There is simply too much easily obtained ammo for anyone except a blind socialist fool to vote for her.

    1. “Yes, let us trust a woman who actually claims to be an American Indian.”

      You don’t know what you are talking about.

      http://www.thelookingspoon.com…..indian.jpg

    2. Isn’t that what we thought about Obama and his “bitter clingers” and “everyone’s racist” moments?

  7. Wait a minnit, you show those polls that say everything we sensible people hate about Hillary is why everyone else supports her — by big numbers. You brush it off by blithely saying “her most obvious advantages could easily be turned against her.”

    Looks to me like she’ll win the nom handily, and she’ll then give the Republican a run for his money.

    1. Hillary has severe health problems. Her husband has a Bill Cosby problem, the details of which the average young voter does not know. She has string of other scandals that have been out of the news for years. She’s rich, out of touch, and unpleasant in person. Her last book failed, her appearances are often under-attended. She will have a hard time running as Obama’s third term, a hard time running to his left (losing moderates), and a hard time running to his right (losing the Dem base).

      1. *Her husband has a Bill Cosby problem, the details of which the average young voter does not know.*

        Nor will they care once they do know.

        1. Oh, I don’t know. Rape and sexual assault are a big deal among young lefties these days. Many will have a hard time supporting a woman who got one child rapist off, even though she knew he was guilty, by attacking the victim, and who attacked her husband’s victims as well.

          1. Not sure how old you are but you’d be shocked when you see how fast they forgot their principles when their guy was involved.

            1. I agree with this. I don’t think Hillary has a snowball’s chance in hell because she’s simply not well liked among her party’s rank and file voters.

              1. No, she’s not. But the important thing is that she’s less disliked by the base than any other emergent candidate.

              2. You underestimate the hatred that the Democrats rank and file voters have for Republicans. The Democrats could run the rotting corpses of Hitler and Stalin and their voters would turn out just to stick it to the Republicans.

                Just wait until the media two-minutes hate starts on whoever the Republican candidate is.

                Remember that a goodly number of Democrat voters in 2012 thought that Mitt Romney was running on a platform of banning tampons, bringing back slavery and banning the one dollar menu at McDonald’s. These people are beyond help.

                1. This is true. One side of my family is pretty hardcore progressive, and the discussions at dinner are eye-opening (to the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the progressive movement).

                  There’s plenty of Obama and Warren ass-kissing that goes on, but 90% of the conversation is seething, raging hatred of the Republicans, and I think that their definition of “Republican” is anyone who does not religiously vote Democrat.

                  I honestly believe that if there was a party called the Anti-Republican Party and they had no platform whatsoever except destroying Republicans, they would vote for them over the Democrat party in a heartbeat.

            2. Yep, none of that matters when 1) she’s the only “electable” Dem running, and 2) she’s still so much better than the real rape apologist running the R ticket.

              1. I appreciate that there isn’t even a name associated to the R candidate because we all know no matter who gets nominated that they are obviously going to be a “real” rape apologist, because that exists.

                1. And, according to the media, the R will also be “ultra right” and “extremist.” You know, like McLame and Romney.

            3. True. Also the famous Whoopi question regarding Polanski and ‘rape rape’.

          2. Except not when Democrats do it.

            As soon by the media ignoring that Democratic staffer who was convicted of rape (twice), vs the Republican staffer who criticized the Obama daughters.

            Or for that matter, when Muslims do it. Does any lefty care about ISIS or Boko Harum? The rape gangs in England?

            Nope.

            1. Who exactly is this Democrat Party staffer convicted of rape?

              I’m not disputing it; I just haven’t heard about it and that sounds like good information to have.

              1. Donny Ray Williams, Jr.

          3. PapayaSF|12.19.14 @ 5:23PM|#
            “Oh, I don’t know. Rape and sexual assault are a big deal among young lefties these days”

            Only if they are committed by someone without a “D” behind the name.

            1. Known as the Kennedy clause.

              1. Yeah, works for drowning who your porking, too.
                Right, Ted?

                1. Ted’s dead baby, Ted’s dead.

          4. I know a young person who, after tweeting about how sexual assault is bad, posted a pic of ol’ B.C. with a caption declaring how much he loves the guy.

            Much like killing foreigners, young people don’t care about sex crimes when it’s a Democrat committing them. Heck, today I saw a car with both anti-drone and pro-Obama bumper stickers. Go figure.

      2. While each of these things individually is true, in aggregate (strangely) they don’t mean much.

        This list reads much like the logical reasons we were given as to why Obama wouldn’t be re-elected in ’12.

        1. She’s not well liked among vast portions of her base. Her biggest asset in the Democratic primary, her vagina, will not be unique should Lizzie run.

          1. It’s not just that she’s not liked…it’s that she’s incapable of not alienating people when she meets them. She’s got the most toxic personality I’ve ever seen in politics…her Q&As; should be a lesson in how *not* to act towards friendly people asking you questions.

  8. [From last year.] The best I’ve seen, from Twitter, arranged Letterman-style.

    Top Ten Elizabeth Warren Indian Names

    10. Little Pantsonfire

    9. Woman Who Loves Eater of Dogs

    8. Lie-a-watha

    7. Hoarder of Feathers Who Hates Feather Hoarders

    6. Sitting Bullsh*t

    5. Hunts at Whole Foods

    4. Running Joke

    3. Taxagawea

    2. Dances With Occupiers

    And the number one Elizabeth Warren Indian name:

    1. Fauxcahontas

    1. #6 is still my favorite, with apologies to #8 and #1.

    2. You left out White Squaw.

      I like 8 and 3 a lot also.

    3. Funny as hell!
      And the Ds still elected her…

      1. In Craig’s home state of Mass. Kinda like when DC re-elected Marion Barry.

    4. Poca-hotmess

      1. No thank you. Not even with Warty’s dick.

    5. I like #1 in print, but its pun loses a lot when only heard.

    6. Fucking Bitch. Brevity and accuracy.

      1. Aho!

    7. Old “jokes” – stay fresh

  9. hopelessly wrong as she is, is liable to offer the country a better class of political debate than the one we’ve lived through for the past eight years.

    Yes someone who is totally wrong will bring a better class of debate.

    But it’s fair to say that Warren’s histrionics are often built atop genuine policy beefs rather than straw men. They often reflect legitimate questions about cronyism.

    You Know Who Else…

    1. Will someone tell the Beltway libertarians that, no matter how much they appease their lefty comrades, they’re still not gonna get any of their own policies passed?

      Honestly, this trend of cafeteria libertarians coddling liberals is dispiriting.

    1. Warren said she opposes the outright legalization of marijuana.

      1. A true liberal!

        1. Do what we say because we said so.

  10. Rhetoric based on nothing but puffery, mumbo-jumbo, and emotionalism.

    She’s a shoo-in.

  11. Oh for the lub of bejeebus. When Warren sees a trillion dollar bill that she likes, she won’t hesitate to vote for it.

    Run Lizzy, run! double, tripe *barf*

  12. Harsanyi is really trolling hard with this one. He hates Warren as much as any of us do, but he is trying to give the Dems enough rope to hang themselves with – and he figures nominating Warren is the best way to do that. Hence, his semi-serious attempt to act like he takes her seriously and make the oh-so-concerned argument that she should be their candidate. I have seen this article at the Fedreralist, here and at NRO. They are really trying to sell it not so much to conservatives but to the democratic base so that she gets destroyed in the general election.

    1. I dunno. The trend here at Reason is to sometimes give way too much significance to the least little thing that could be construed as being libertarian. It’s like the Millenial thing. Or the fact that there were too many stories after Holder announced that he wanted to reduce mandatory minimums, like it was a libertarian moment that Holder was having, and not that Rand Paul was dragging him around by the nuts and he was totally insincere.

      1. No. Harsanyi’s totally trolling. He even says it.

      2. “way too much significance to the least little thing that could be construed as being libertarian. It’s like the Millenial thing.”

        Yeah! I thought I was alone on this.

        I know quite a few Millenials. Some could even be my grandchildren. And, as far as I’ve been able to tell, they are political eunuchs. They have no interest in politics, let alone current events. They certainly don’t vote. And, they really don’t see why it matters………….until, as is true of human folly throughout time, their ox is gored.

        I just didn’t get where Reason was finding committed libertarians amongst this demographic. I really thought that Reason’s authors were believing what they wanted to believe without any solid evidence of a Millenial embrace of Libertarinism. I thought they were reading too much into the Millenial’s callous attitudes towards social norms.

        Anyone can be antisocial or even cantankerous. But, neither of those traits indicate any serious political or social leanings.

    2. Operation Chaos springs to my mind every time I see a conservative propping Warren as the Dem candidate.

  13. “And there is not a single shred of evidence that demonstrates Hillary is a talented or charismatic candidate or leader.”

    That horse cackle doesn’t help either

    1. The cankles are a real asset though.

      1. #waroncankles

        1. Not #warrencankles?

          1. #waronwarren?

  14. Quite simply her appeal is that she’s willing to do anything, including commit fraud, to advance the cause.

    1. Essentially she is the perfect Dem candidate.

  15. I imagine Warren would be able to play the intentions angle of helping the little guy well (rather than actual results and unintended consequences). I think she would win a lot of people over with that, frighteningly.

  16. My guns have killed fewer people than Hillary Clinton’s botched land deal.

  17. Economic populism?! 2 words, or maybe 3: Ex-Im Bank.

  18. Sometimes I have to wonder about that.

    http://www.TheAnonBay.tk

  19. But Hillary’s still toast. She’ll be knocked over by the 1st puff of wind of a candidate this time. All the Clintons could do would be to go negative on every single opponent for the nomination, and that’ll be enough only to cover everyone in filth, not to lower them below Hillary. As if Bengazi weren’t enough, as bad as Obamacare’s name is getting now, Hillarycare will be compared unfavorably with it; Democrats want either tax-funded single payer or nothing, now that they’ve had a taste of a fascist approach, and it’s way too late for her to switch to either of those sides without voters pinning her old folly on her. If Obama could come out of nowhere to beat her last time, it’ll take far less this time.

  20. From my very personal perspective, there is one good thing come of Warren being president: she would no longer be a senator from my current state of residence.

    Of course, if I could have Rand Paul for president, then Warren can continue to …. No, never mind, I’d prefer that she just went away.

    1. GroundTruth|12.19.14 @ 8:50PM|#
      “From my very personal perspective, there is one good thing come of Warren being president: she would no longer be a senator from my current state of residence.”

      Hey, as a CA resident, I’ll swap a Pelosi any…
      Uh, maybe not…

  21. Hell yes, for once, let’s give the American people a choice. Rand Paul vs Elizabeth Warren. Small government vs big government. Let’s throw the dice and win, or lose, big. Of course, if Hillary runs, we’re screwed.

  22. After reading the title, I thought the article was going to be a blank page.

    1. dude

  23. If Sen. Warren runs, HRC will somehow make it a right-wing conspiracy.

  24. Reading many of these comments illustrates how extreme far right this country has come. They call Warren a “lefty”, a “commie”. She created the Consumer Protection Bureau and took on the scum at Wall Street. Tell me what’s communistic about those things.

    1. How exactly did she “take on the scum at Wall Street” again?

    2. Yeah, dude, lotsa far rightists here. And hoarders, wreckers and kulaks. You new here, bro?

      1. Good point – it took me reading 2 whole comments to figure out the readers here just barely made to the 3rd grade. Thanks for pointing that out.

        1. Ah yes, an ad hominem argument, and not even one based in fact. Your education truly shines among us all.

          1. Obviously a product of our great, public education system.

    3. The CFPB, the agency that does not get funded from Congress so it can run forever without any oversight.

      The CFPB who is creating all kinds of new rules and regs that make banking more expensive: my international wire transfers went from $35 to $60 / wire due to the new CFPB rules. (And yes, they get that, not the banks.) New rules mean no Saturday wires and no wires after 3:00 pm for non-business wires, too.

      Now we have Lizzy warning banks that they were “predators” lending to hapless minorities…but before the line was they were “racists” for not lending.

      CFPB has also had many staffers parachute into cushy jobs into the financial sectors.

      I do not view the CFPB as a very useful agency. Its just another new agency to harras us.

  25. true story: as i began reading this article, i had been sitting, constipated, on the toilet for 30 minutes. reading this thoughtful analysis of the various pros and cons of warren and clinton allowed me to squeeze out the dry, angry turd that haf backed up my plumbing. just imagining their faces, those two post-menopausul Big Sister wannabes, just conjuring those wrinkled mugs is enough to have me shit myself like an over excites dog.

    Thank you once again, Reason. Journalism is the best medicine.

  26. Yesterday I picked up a brand new Lotus Esprit after making $6059 this ? 4 weeks past an would you believe $10 thousand this past-month; this is actually the most-comfortable work I’ve had . I actually started 10-months ago and pretty much immediately got minimum $80 per-hr . Get More Info @
    handsome earning dream is just a click away… http://www.MoneyKin.Com

    1. What? We have moneykin now?

  27. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did————- http://www.Paygazette.com

  28. the hillary isn’t inevitable anymore story has been put forward with fervor mainly because the flip side isn’t a story anyone is interested in. the idea that warren is 2016’s obama or that hillary can no longer win is wishful thinking. if hillary wants it, she’s the nominee, and it’ll take a strong gop campaign to beat her. if the gop buys into to the current press narrative, they’ll fail despite their best efforts regardless.

  29. The key idea here is that we’d have clarity of position.

    Hillary is really good at looking moderate. She seems so moderate. But is she?

    No one knows, because she hides her real beliefs. For example, we are now told she secretly wanted the Cuba deal for years.

    Really? Or is that just convenient now to glom onto what the media calls a “success.”

    (BTW, if the media were not biased, I’m sure we could get a few stories in the next 12 months about “more dissidents arrested in Cuba, raising question marks…” but we won’t. It will be kite-flying and rivers of milk and honey.

    1. But Liz/Hillary battel would force
      Hillary to come out and take positions.

      Like she did when she had to echo Liz’s “you didn’t build it” line with “companies don’t create jobs.”

      This is very enlightening for the electorate. To deny us this information does us a disservice.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.