Author Topic: Will Obama Back Warren For President In 2016 To Screw Over The Clintons One Last Time?  (Read 250 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 253,180
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/07/will-obama-back-warren-for-president-in-2016-to-screw-over-the-clintons-one-last-time/?print=1

Will Obama Back Warren For President In 2016 To Screw Over The Clintons One Last Time?
Posted By Eric Owens On 12:15 AM 07/07/2014

President Barack Obama has vowed to throw his complete support behind Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren if she chooses to run for president in 2016, writes Ed Klein in the New York Post.

Obama has ordered his political svengali, Valerie Jarrett, to convince Warren, who currently has two years of experience as an elected official, to run against the Clinton machine in 2016.

There have been secret meetings, Klein says.

The reasons that Obama can’t stand Clinton (either one of them) are both personal and political, the bombshell-loving reporter explains.

Personally, the president doesn’t like Bill Clinton because of some of the things the former president said back in 2008.

Politically, Obama fears that Hillary Clinton would reverse several of his policies. He thinks she is out of touch with poor and middle-class Americans. (RELATED: The Obamas Have Spent At Least $44,351,777.12 In Taxpayer Cash On Travel)

“Barack, Michelle, and Valerie have been talking about Elizabeth Warren for quite some time,” an Obama administration source allegedly told Klein. “Valerie has told Warren that Obama is prepared to throw a great deal of money and organizational support behind her.”

Both Barack and Michelle Obama believe Warren shares their leftist ideology.

“She is a committed progressive who, like Obama, wants to transform America into a European-style democratic-socialist state,” Klein quotes his deep-throat source as saying.

There’s also the fact that Obama could see a little of himself in Warren. Both were law professors at fancypants law schools. Both would have had very little political experience before they ran for president. Also, like Obama, Warren is expected to invigorate progressives and idealists in the Democratic Party.

For her part, Warren has remained cagily noncommittal about her 2016 plans.

A person Klein calls a Democratic operative called the whole story bogus.

“It’s all bullshit,” the unnamed operative told Klein. “The media is creating a Hillary Clinton-Elizabeth Warren rivalry to hype the storyline. If Warren dared to challenge Hillary, women all over America would never forgive her. She’d lose all her credibility.”

However, Klein says, Bill Clinton believes Obama is actively searching for “his Mini-Me.”

In recent weeks, Klein has been laying down what are either the greatest political-gossip scoops in American history or some of the finest tall tales in tall-tale-telling history.

In late June, he released a book, Blood Feud, claiming – among much else – that Hillary Clinton spewed a drunken rant during a dinner with a bunch of fellow Wellesley College graduates in which she called Obama “a joke” who can’t govern and has “allowed his hatred for his enemies to screw him the way Nixon did.”

“The thing with Obama is that he can’t be bothered and there is no hand on the tiller half the time. That’s the story of the Obama presidency. No hand on the bleep tiller,” the former first lady said, according to Klein, as reported in the Daily Mail.

“You can’t trust the motherfucker,” she also allegedly added.

Support the USO

Offline massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,124
    • Auktion Online
If there was no quid pro quo for Bill Clinton backing OPapaDoc in 2012 I would be very, very surprised.  It would mean Bill Clinton is a political idiot, and I simply don't believe that.  Therefore, I take this story with a huge grain of salt.  I fully expect OPapaDoc to back Hitlery to the hilt, at least publicly.
"She only coughs when she lies."

Offline Lando Lincoln

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,926
If there was no quid pro quo for Bill Clinton backing OPapaDoc in 2012 I would be very, very surprised.  It would mean Bill Clinton is a political idiot, and I simply don't believe that.  Therefore, I take this story with a huge grain of salt.  I fully expect OPapaDoc to back Hitlery to the hilt, at least publicly.

Can there be a substantive quid pro quo among this duplicitous duo?
For the progressive, there is very little to love about the United States. Washington, Jefferson, Madison? A bunch of rotten slaveholders, hypocrites, and cowards even when their hearts were in the right places. The Declaration of Independence? A manifesto for the propertied classes. The Constitution? An artifact of sexism and white supremacy. The sacrifices in the great wars of the 20th century? Feeding the poor and the disenfranchised into the meat-grinder of imperialism. The gifts of Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Astor? Blood money from self-aggrandizing robber barons. Nat Rev

Offline Lando Lincoln

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,926
As I think about it, there indeed can be a quid pro quo arrangement among this pair.  It would not be one of mutual trust, however.  It would be one of threats and blackmail.  "If you don't help me when the time comes, I will... (fill in the blank)".

I wasn't thinking in the right way.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2014, 11:08:45 AM by Lando Lincoln »
For the progressive, there is very little to love about the United States. Washington, Jefferson, Madison? A bunch of rotten slaveholders, hypocrites, and cowards even when their hearts were in the right places. The Declaration of Independence? A manifesto for the propertied classes. The Constitution? An artifact of sexism and white supremacy. The sacrifices in the great wars of the 20th century? Feeding the poor and the disenfranchised into the meat-grinder of imperialism. The gifts of Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Astor? Blood money from self-aggrandizing robber barons. Nat Rev

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,736
  • There's no one out there quite like me.
    • Fullervision
Obama will back the one who gives him the best chance of maintaining power behind the throne after his reign is over.

Warren is a crapshoot. She barely beat Scott Brown in a state that is so blue it could be confused for toilet bowl cleaner.

Hillary, however, is an extremely formidable force just on name recognition alone—IF she runs. Obama worked with Hillary for a full term, with her as SOS.

Make no mistake: if Hillary runs, Obama will give her his endorsement.
"Just because people in positions of authority are stupid, it doesn’t mean you have to go along with it." —Arlo Guthrie

"In the excitement of great popular elections, deciding the policy of the country, and its vast patronage, frauds will be committed, if a chance is given for them." —Richard Henry Dana, Jr.

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 46,032
  • #ToldYouSo
I rather highly doubt this.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf