Axelrod Says Warren Couldn’t Beat Clinton

[DonViejo]

Obama adviser David Axelrod told Hugh Hewitt that he doesn’t think Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) poses a credible threat to Hillary Clinton’s likely presidential bid in 2016.

Said Axelrod: “I know Elizabeth Warren well, and my strong feeling is she’s not going to run. I think she’s trying to influence the direction of the party, and you have more influence as a potential candidate than you do if you take yourself out. So she’s allowing, she’s sticking to this language of ‘I’m not running for president,’ and titillating people with it, because it gives her more leverage.”

He added: “Hillary is probably as well-positioned within her own party as any open seat candidate has been in our lifetime.”

###

http://politicalwire.com/2015/02/11/axelrod-says-warren-couldnt-beat-clinton/

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Basically, it's a no-lose game for Liz to keep her options open.

Either way, as long as the state of Schrödinger's cat is unknown, her effectiveness, power and pulpit are enhanced.

[libdem4life]

2. That makes sense... the last thing Warren wants to do is create a rift...and her candidacy

even though perhaps energizing the Dreamy Left, of which I am a member, would be a distraction in the Primary and possibly cost the Election. Purists will be purists and no candidate can afford to be a purist of any kind. That's why the Republicans are so fractured these days.

I congratulate Ms. Warren on her accomplishments and her strategy to stay in the forefront of the economic "feet to the fire" position on banking and see it through. Fortunately, her ego does not overrule her political intelligence.

[winter is coming]

8. I think our party is strong enough to withstand a competitive primary that includes substantive

debate about the best way to address income inequality. Shying away from the issue or mouthing vague platitudes will hurt us at the polls in 2016.

[libdem4life]

10. I'm going to skip right to ... She doesn't want to run, and wishing doesn't make it so. It really

is her right. Much more and we get into hyperbole and platitudes. She's got "income inequality" on speed dial right now and is doing a bang-up job.

[winter is coming]

11. Yes, Warren is doing a bang-up job, while Hillary is still trying to find her economic message,

with the help of a shit-ton of advisers. That's not a good sign for her campaign.

[libdem4life]

12. It may, in fact, mean that she is waiting to see how popular Warren/Sanders' progressive message

is affecting the base, as well as other matters. Let's think positive because we really don't know. We can pretty much safely guess she is determined to win this time and if she needs to slide a bit to the left, that she'll likely do. That Warren has her own advisors ups the ante and gets progressives good press is valuable, but she's not running. I'd guess she's going to get a Cabinet position, which would be perfect for her temperament, tenacity and skills.

And Bernie is getting prime time, as well.

[winter is coming]

13. If she's waiting to see how popular the Warren/Sanders message is, that's a bad sign.

At best, she'll campaign trying to sound "left" on this issue, but the rhetoric will be meaningless.

[libdem4life]

14. Well, she could be waiting to get more donors on board...that a better sign? I agree with

the need to shift to the "left", but frankly, it's not only better than nothing, but about all we can do, at this time. I, for one, do not plan to let down my Progressive Left Message just because someone is trying to read her mind and calls it futile.

Incremental changes are important, and follow up, if she is elected, while punctuating with 2018 GOTV. She is nothing, if not pragmatic.

[Scuba]

3. Axelrod says we're all screwn.

[Thinkingabout]

4. Warren knows what she wants, if she could be so easily swayed then she would not be good in

advocating for change in the financial sector. She is very good in her field of expertise, I don't think she wants to deal with the rest of the needs of being president.

[Octafish]

5. What would Goldman think of that?

http://www.gregpalast.com/larry-summers-goldman-sacked/

[NCTraveler]

6. I don't think she could beat Clinton either.

I still think it would be great if she jumped in. I also don't think it would draw the same kind of blood that was drawn by Obama and Hillary going at it. Not even close. I know that might sound strange to hear now but I really believe it to be the case. Obama and Hillary were two peas in a pod. They had to be more aggressive in order to separate themselves from one and other. They also hired some of the most ruthless and aggressive advisors they could find. Ends up on some areas where they differentiated themselves there was no true difference in the end. That created a lot of animosity between supporters. In certain areas I think there is simply a true difference between Warren and Hillary. That is when you end up with an honest debate. Right now there is just a lot of wishful thinking. That in itself has caused contention. It would be different in a primary in my opinion. Bad blood among supporters of each? Sure. Like many of Obama and Hillary supporters? I don't think so.

[global1]

7. Didn't They Say Obama Couldn't Beat Clinton Too?... nt

[Yavin4]

9. How does the statement ‘I’m not running for president,’ titillate people?

It's pretty clear that she's not running.