Kennedys Pushing Elizabeth Warren To Run Against Hillary Clinton In 2016

[big_dog]

In an echo of 2008 — when Ted and Caroline Kennedy backed upstart Barack Obama over Hillary Rodham Clinton — members of the Kennedy clan have been quietly wooing Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and encouraging her to throw her hat in the ring, sources tell me.
The question of whom to back in the 2016 presidential race has split the Kennedys down the middle. Robert Kennedy’s widow, Ethel, and their eldest son, former US Rep. Joe Kennedy II, favor Warren — the darling of the party’s left-wing base who now sits in Ted Kennedy’s old seat — while Bobby Jr. and Max Kennedy remain loyal to Hillary Clinton.
Over the past several weeks, the Kennedys have tried to settle their family quarrel by inviting Clinton and Warren to their compound in Hyannis Port, where each woman has been put through a kind of audition for the role of party standard-bearer.
Clinton and Warren were feted on separate occasions at a catered buffet lunch under a large tent. In addition, Hillary and Bill Clinton were treated to a sail aboard the Kennedy schooner, the Maya.
Despite the death of the family patriarch, Ted, the Kennedys still consider themselves the torchbearers of the Democratic Party.
“A Kennedy endorsement matters,” said a family member. “It’s not just the aura of being compared to JFK, Bobby and Ted. But it’s also the use of the Hyannis Port compound and the JFK Library, which are magnets for fund-raisers.” http://nypost.com/2014/08/03/kennedys-pushing-warren-to-run-against-hillary-in-2016/

[Purveyor]

1. Oh please, please, please!!! eom

[PoliticAverse]

2. Edward Klein stirring the pot again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Klein

[bigdarryl]

3. Bad move on the party

Party infighting will put a republican in the WH

[onehandle]

12. It's hearsay in a tabloid by a scumbag author.

Total bullshit.

[elzenmahn]

18. I don't put a lot of weight in Ed Klein's "reporting" either...

...just go to Youtube, and for the search term, type "Al Franken Ed Klein".

Franken, Joe Conason and Katherine Lampher just go to town on this fraud. Entertaining viewing, and you'll see for yourself just how much "work" goes into Klein's reporting.

[winter is coming]

15. I missed the part where having more than one candidate in a primary is equivalent to "infighting".

If our party is so fragile it can't weather a vigorous primary season, then something's wrong with it.

I suspect the article cited in the OP is total bullshit, but the idea that primaries should be virtually uncontested is deeply disturbing. To me, it reeks of dysfunctional families, where no one's supposed to say/do anything that might rock the boat.

[bigdarryl]

16. It's Not me saying that it's Historian Allan Lichtman

Who developed the 13 keys to the WH. Read what his latest assessment is on 2016 and keep in mind he's NEVER been wrong on the popular vote count of the Presidential elections http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/208673-why-democrats-need-hillary-clinton-in-2016

[winter is coming]

22. Anyone who proceeds from the assumption that Hillary (or any other candidate) is inevitable, more

than a year from the beginning of primary season, isn't reasoning well.

This article, written by Nate Silver in the run-up to 2012, explains why Lichtman's Keys aren't the final word on elections, even though Obama did win re-election. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/despite-keys-obama-is-no-lock/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

I’m sure the White House would be thrilled with a 79 percent chance of winning another term. But this hints at a another, more fundamental issue. As you can see from the table, there are lots of cases in which an incumbent’s re-election is an open question: one having eight keys scored in his favor, for example, should win about 65 percent of the time over the long run — but not 100 percent of the time. One having five keys scored in his favor, as Mr. Hoover did, should usually lose — but will pull out the victory about 18 percent of the time.

What are the odds of all these close calls just having happened to turn out right? Very low. Given the margin of error inherent in the formula, the chance of it having called the winner of the popular vote correctly in all 38 elections is only about 0.03 percent, or about 1 chance in 3,300.

In other words, given that the formula has done quite badly in predicting the margin of victory on several occasions (1932, 1960, 1972, etc.) it has been extremely lucky not to have gotten the winner wrong on at least one occasion. Over the long run, the formula should get about 20 percent of elections wrong, which would be about seven or eight misses out of a sample of 38.

Or … maybe it’s something other than luck. Although none of Mr. Lichtman’s keys are intrinsically ridiculous (for example, “which candidate had more ‘n’s in their name”), one can conceivably think of any number of other areas that might have been included in the formula but which are not — looking at how messy the primaries were for the opposition party, for example, or the inflation rate, or the ideological positioning of the candidates. (I mention these particular ones because there is some empirical evidence that they do matter.)

IMO, the real joker in the deck for 2016 is economic populism. Income inequality is a pressing issue, and a candidate who can credibly project a populist message in that area will have a decided advantage, much more so than would be the case if people were doing well.

[JDPriestly]

29. Then, Hillary should not run -- for the sake of the party.

If her supporters think that our candidate should emerge unchallenged from the primaries, they should discourage Hillary from running.

Elizabeth Warren is the person we need in the White House at this time.

Hillary is strong on issues regarding women and children, but she is too closely tied to Wall Street to deal with the economic issues we now face.

Elizabeth Warren, with her expertise on bankruptcy is precisely the right person to lead America toward prosperity.

Hillary was involved in the negotiations for the Keystone Pipeline and the TPP. She voted for the Iraq War. The list of her "mistakes," suspicious alliances, bad judgment and carelessness is very long.

Just say "NO," to Hillary.

We want Elizabeth Warren. And we have good reasons for wanting her.

[brooklynite]

52. Point to any Hillary supporter here who says she SHOULDN'T be challenged...

...I think the only thing that's been said is that she WON'T be (certainly not aggressively), because most mainstream candidates won't want to take her on. But if you've got a progressive who actually WANTS to run, the more the merrier.

[progressoid]

23. Then how did Obama get elected?

[JDPriestly]

28. We need Warren.

The bad move on the party was letting too many mortgage holders and unemployed Americans out to hang dry on the line by themselves.

I have several friends whose previously very successful businesses went belly up in the recession. Do we hear about the small businesses like theirs that went out of business thanks to Bush?

Did the Obama administration do anything to help them out or to right the wrongs that the bankers and Wall Street did to them, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly?

I have a friend in his 50s, quite depressed, who is still without a job and about to lose his house.

I have a friend aged 71 who, with her husband ran a successful internet business prior to 2008. She now sleeps on friends' sofas, and he is in another state, presumably also sleeping on the sofas of friends.

It is great that the economy is picking up. Wall Street is still doing fabulously in spite of the downturn last week. Jobs are being created -- mostly low-wage jobs.

But the corporate, Hillary wing of the Democratic Party is not even acknowledging the struggle and pain of the small business owners and working-age Americans 50+ who have been deeply hurt by the Bush recession and have not received any help from the Obama administration.

Imagine a couple with a house worth over one million and a thriving business having to divide their house into three "apartments" and renting out two of them?

This friend is not poor. I know what poverty is about. I've never been what you would call rich, and I worked for a homeless project for eight years.

But my friends were cheated and let down by Wall Street. They are now part of the 99%. And Hillary is sold out to the very Wall Street that let them down. I think Elizabeth Warren will know how to earn the votes of these, my disappointed, disillusioned, struggling friends.

The risk of an America subject for four more years to the likes of a contemptuous Larry Summers or a Tim Geithner is great if Hillary is our nominee.

We need Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders to run in the Democratic primary. I will vote for Warren if she runs or if she does not for Sanders.

[demigoddess]

39. I do like what Warren says on the banking problem

Hillary has my vote unless Warren makes a good showing. If she would attack the banks, I would vote for her. However, the presidency is sometimes more a leadership position. She could give Warren a position where she could make good changes on this issue. Bernie Sanders would also be good in a supportive position to Warren. Personally I would love to see all three of them in power together. A triumvirate if you will. Obama did well to appoint Hillary SOS. we need some of that in the next admin.

[JDPriestly]

40. Hillary and Warren have opposing views on the banking crisis.

You will not read that in the press, but I assure you Warren will not receive money from Wall Street for her speeches. Warren gives speeches to labor unions and groups that represent the interests of working people. Hillary also gets invited by labor unions and working people but she is sold out to Wall Street. Wall Street would not support Hillary if they thought she would appoint Warren to any post that oversaw banks or Wall Street (short for the corporate and financial sectors of our economy).

BIll Clinton signed so many bills and carried out so many policies that have harmed the US. Hillary will do the same.

Think of the Telecommunications Act which resulted in the consolidation of the media and the near silencing of liberal voices across America's radio and TV. Think of NAFTA. Trade is not a wrong in itself. But the terms of that agreement have lowered the living standards for not just Americans but also many in Mexico. Hence, illegal immigration continues to divide families and create anger among displaced workers in the US. Then we have the Clinton appointments, some of whom were rehired by Obama: Larry Summers comes to mind. Further, the Clintons are on good terms with the likes of Pete Peterson, a major foe of Social Security.

The list of policies and bills signed by Bill Clinton that have harmed ordinary Americans is unfortunately long. Think of the changes to the welfare policies of the LBJ and Nixon eras and the problems they caused during the recent economic recession. That didn't get much press, but they were painful.

Our economy is by no means working as it should for middle-class Americans. Hard-working people have lost or are now losing their homes and businesses. We need someone who can take a good look at our economy and reform it. Everyone will benefit if we can get a person qualified to make those reforms in the White House.

Other issues can be handled by Elizabeth Warren because she has the common sense and the humility to hire good people to handle them.

I will not vote for Hillary, and I have good reasons for my stance.

Elizabeth Warren is a leader. Her energy and purpose come from very deep within her. That is what makes a good leader, that conviction in the soul.

Hillary is a controller. Don't confuse the two.

[demigoddess]

44. okay, I will do whatever you say

Last edited Tue Aug 5, 2014, 02:34 PM - Edit history (1)

little woman must learn from her betters. thanks.

[JDPriestly]

46. Actually, I am a woman if you were referring to me. Been one all my life.

Sorry if I struck you as being a man.

[demigoddess]

48. perhaps you noticed I stated my opinion

I did not say anyone else was wrong or was not entitled to their opinion.

[Wellstone ruled]

4. Remember well the old Kennedy

Presidential campaign. There are a lot of us old buggers out here that worked that campaign. Just get the clipboards out and away we go. Bring it on,you want to see a steam roller effect,give us a choice between the DLC and someone who will smack the Wall Street Money Grubbers,it won't even be close. Worked the Humphrey campaign and seen what a machine the Kennedy's bring. It is brutal and well oiled.

[JDPriestly]

30. I hope the Kennedys back Elizabeth Warren.

She is the woman of the moment. As president, she will get America on the move. She knows her stuff, thinks quickly on her feet, gives fantastic speeches, knows Americas heartland just as well as she knows its intellectual havens. She has not forgotten the difficult economic situation of her childhood.

I hope you have read Elizabeth Warren's book A Fighting Chance. She is amazing.

[Cal33]

49. According to the OP, Ethel Kennedy and her son have switched over to Elizabeth, and two of

their cousins have remained faithful to Hillary. But there is no mention of the others. It's
a large family. Does anyone know which one the Kennedy family, as a whole, favors?

[4now]

5. Let the fun begin.

I thought Clinton was a sure thing last time until Kennedy supported Obama.
Then everything changed.

[freshwest]

7. I never thought of her as sure thing. She had some good Democratic opposition in 2008.

Weird thing about this piece is that Warren has repeatedly said:

First, she is not running for President.

Second, she supports Clinton in 2016.

The Kennedy family endorsement of Obama in 2008 did have a strong effect then.

Hillary was not my choice, she just rubbed me the wrong way.

Obama was not my first choice either, but he became that when I looked into him.

I'm sorry we are focusing on this and not the 2014 election, although it's hard to avoid it.

Without a major win in the races this year, or worse yet, any losses, we are going to be in huge trouble.

And the next POTUS, if he or she is a Democrat, will be neutered.

[4now]

9. You are right. We should focus 2014

I tell people all the time that we should wait until after the next election before starting our primary fight.
I got carried away.
Sorry.

[freshwest]

11. Oh, no, you didn't get carried away! Besides, that's our job here, LOL!

[SummerSnow]

8. interesting

[onehandle]

10. Hearsay, in the New York Post, by the author of: “Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas”

Ok...

[Mass]

13. Edward Klein. Seriously. And you trust him.

This guy is a patented liar and affabulator.

[DURHAM D]

14. I actually laughed out loud at this pile of poop.

The NY Post, a rightwing hack, and pretending that the Kennedys still have political clout. Too funny.

[Indykatie]

17. I Think This Bull Shit from the NYPost

Many Warren supporters (me included) do not see her running and winning for Prez but feel she is an excellent Senator. Yes she is our darling of the left but it takes more than that to win a primary let alone the general election.

[JDPriestly]

31. I see Warren running and winning.

Her message speaks to millions of Americans.

Watch the reactions of her audiences to her speeches. There is an enthusiasm in those crowds that Hillary can never inspire. Never.

Nobody thought that Jack Kennedy could win. On top of his youth, he was a Catholic. At the time that spelled defeat.

Yet, because of his charm and personality, both of which were so winning because he really cared about ordinary people, he carried it off.

Elizabeth Warren has that same charisma. Just watch her speeches. Watch her on Jon Stewart. Read her book. You may change your mind.

[brooklynite]

53. Has it occured to you that "her audiences" might be self-selecting supporters?

I have no problem with her running (except for the fact that she won't), but I don't see her appeal translating to all the Democratic Party constituencies the way Clinton's does.

[JDPriestly]

55. That is true of all candidates.

Watch Elizabeth Warren's speeches. Then watch Hillary Clinton's.

Elizabeth Warren connects. It's not just her audiences.

Compared to Elizabeth Warren, Clinton sounds dry and bureaucratic.

(I'm a musician among other things.)

Elizabeth Warren explains complex facts and ideas so that almost anyone can understand.

Hillary Clinton sounds authoritative, controlling almost condescending, not all the time, but too often.

Elizabeth Warren speaks from the heart, and her audiences feel it.

Elizabeth Warren understands the economic realities of most Americans. Hillary Clinton -- better than a Republican, I suppose, but not much.

The relationship between Bill and Hillary Clinton and that infamous foe of Social Security, Pete Peterson insures that I will never, ever vote for Hillary. My income is Social Security. Millions of Americans are in my shoes. Don't talk about saving money during your working life because Social Security s supposed to just be a minimum supplemented by savings. Try to save money for retirement on today's wages. It's a cruel joke. People earn just enough to stay in debt to the banks. And when you get 40-50 and above, it is quite likely that you will suffered long periods of unemployment. People who are in their 50s and 60s today have spent their savings just trying to repay debts and keep alive.

The older you get, the worse it gets. My mother at 97 has friends in their 80s who have gone through their savings and are -- relying on Social Security for their income just like those who never saved. So

Besides, even if you do have savings, the bank rates for retired people who saved but not millions are so low that even those who were lucky enough to survive the 2008 recession without filing bankruptcy remain dependent for virtually all of their income on Social Security.

The average Social Security monthly payment is maybe $1300 per month. Elizabeth Warren understands the people who struggle to make ends meet on that income and less/ Ands she can convey that understanding to any audience. Hillary hob-nobs with Pete Peterson and other 1%ers.

Elizabeth Warren advocates for expanding Social Security. She relieve the pressure of student debt on America's best and brightest. Americans, I assure you, would much prefer to expand Social Security, keep funding and expanding Medicare (dental benefits? hearing aids? long-term care programs? than some of the military programs that are funded by corporate Republicans and Democrats alike?

Hillary Clinton has more name recognition than Elizabeth Warren. At this point that is to her advantage in the polls. But wait till America hears Elizabeth Warren.

Hillary Clinton represents the past. Elizabeth Warren represents new ideas -- the future.

Hillary Clinton is very polished. Elizabeth Warren is fresh and ingenuous.

Hillary Clinton represents the corporate wing of the Democratic Party.

Elizabeth Warren's donors are people like me who send small amounts but as often as we can.

Which of them can better understand and represent the interests of the majority of Americans.

I strongly believe that Americans are sick of the corporate crowd that, unfortunately Hillary is so much a part of.

I think that Elizabeth Warren's common sense, math ability (we desperately need a president who really understands economic charts and can question them, please, please, please) and personality will appeal to conservatives.

Thanks to the long history of Republican smears of Clinton, her name gets a Pavlovian reaction of disgust from most Republicans and some independents. It's sad but that is the fact.

Elizabeth Warren on the other hand is a force that Republicans will have difficulty reckoning with.

Elizabeth Warren bakes by the way. She bakes. She is very feminine. She is really smart. She is not establishment but also not really a "lefty." Americans will find her refreshing, just what the doctor ordered for our country. That's what I think.

[brooklynite]

57. And yet, with all those flaws, 17 million people voted for Hillary in 2008.

And she still doesn't want to be your candidate.

[wyldwolf]

19. Looks like NYPost picked it up from NewsMax - or vice versa

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/kennedys-pushing-warren-hillary-clinton/2014/08/03/id/586512/

[pnwmom]

20. The New York Post is a tabloid. One step up from the National Enquirer.

So anything read there should be taken with a large grain of salt.

[TNNurse]

21. All I know about this is

If you are a real Democrat, you will vote for the party's candidate. If that person is not your first choice, you will still not support the Republican. There is no current Republican that could be considered a better choice.

[JDPriestly]

32. True, but here in California, the Democrat will win without my vote.

If Hillary Clinton cannot carry California without my vote, she can't win anywhere.

[blkmusclmachine]

24. Somebody needs to take on the Blue Dog

[Rowdyboy]

25. What a match that would be-and it would leave the nominee much more focused and prepared....

Wish it was likely

[bluestateguy]

26. The Clintons must have really angered the Kennedys in 2008

The truth is, of course, that very very people, including Democrats, still look to the Kennedys for leadership.

Baby Boomers (particularly those born in the 1940's) have an inflated sense of the Kennedys' importance.

[DesertDiamond]

27. I hope Bobby Jr and Max change their minds. A unified Kennedy family endorsement

I think still means something here in America. I'm sorry, and I will vote for Hillary Clinton if she's the final candidate, but I will NOT settle in advance. Elizabeth Warren has been standing up for us in a way that I have never seen Hillary Clinton do.

[JDPriestly]

33. I agree. 100%.

[brooklynite]

35. Another week gone since the last "run, Elizbeth, run" thread...

...you're no closer to convincing Warren to run (since she DOESN'T WANT TO), and you've lost another week of time to find someone who DOES want to run that you'll find acceptably progressive.

Tick, tick, tick...

[PAProgressive28]

36. This is the second story The Post has run on Warren

There was one last month about Obama wanting Warren to run to continue his "dream of a socialist America." I wouldn't trust this.

[Sunlei]

37. Ed Klein is not their family spokesman. just -another- paparazzi writes opinion junk.

[Beacool]

38. You are quoting Ed Klein??????????

No wonder I've been staying away. This place is not that far from becoming a RW site when it comes to the Clintons. Any and all crap is posted, no matter the source and lack of factual evidence.

[Peacetrain]

45. ^^^^^^^^^^^^

.. Klein of all people?? I sometimes just shake my head in disbelief

[Leontius]

41. I'm sorry but screw the Kennedys

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

42. It's Ed Klein, for fuck's sake, people

This is Newsmax-Regnery garbage, trying to paint the Dems as being in chaos.

Klein is the same guy who absurdly claims his "contacts" told him Hillary is a lesbian, and that Chelsea was conceived in a rape by Bill.

His sources are pulled from his ass.

He has zero credibility on anything. He's a proven liar, time and time again.

Here's Al Franken and Joe Conason destroying him and leaving him a sputtering wreck:

[winter is coming]

43. I agree this story is bogus, but "trying to paint the Dems as being in chaos"?

When did "X would rather see Y as the nominee instead of Z" become "chaos"?

[oberliner]

47. NY Post is a right-wing tabloid rag

Do not take articles published there too seriously.

[Cal33]

50. NY Post is owned by News Corp, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. What can one expect?

[oberliner]

51. Yes exactly

Not sure if folks outside of the NY area are aware of what the Post actually is.

[mercuryblues]

54. jesus fucking

Christ on a popsicle stick. Not this crap again. Warren camp said this story is made up completely.

But hey, why not post it, it can create a false narrative among the Dems that they really are divided.

You know Klein also wrote a book where he claimed Cheslea was a product of rape because Hillary is a lesbian. But keep posting his shit on DU guys.

FFS keep up the good work.

[BainsBane]

56. He posted it Sunday

But still, makes you wonder how they just happen to come up with this stuff.

[Corey_Baker08]

58. Warren Should Absolutely Run, Democrats Deserve A Choice Of Great Nominees!!!