Conservative publications often report on a Bizarro World, fact-free version of the real world. I’m sure readers know about the general outlines of their alternate reality. In conservative publications Barack Obama is a Muslim Socialist born in Kenya, Republicans support limited government, and the generally accepted principles of science and economics do not exist. There are also lots of conspiracy theories and other stories which haven’t been repeated as often outside of the right wing echo chamber.

Generally their stories are pure fiction which is not worth paying any attention to. A story in The New York Post today realistically fits in that category, but in this case it differs from most of their claims in that I wish it was actually true:

President Obama has quietly promised Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren complete support if she runs for president — a stinging rebuke to his nemesis Hillary Clinton, sources tell me.

Publicly, Obama has remained noncommittal on the 2016 race, but privately he worries that Clinton would undo and undermine many of his policies. There’s also a personal animosity, especially with Bill Clinton, that dates from their tough race six years ago…

Obama has authorized his chief political adviser, Valerie Jarrett, to conduct a full-court press to convince Warren to throw her hat into the ring.

In the past several weeks, Jarrett has held a series of secret meetings with Warren. During these meetings, Jarrett has explained to Warren that Obama is worried that if Hillary succeeds him in the White House, she will undo many of his policies.

He believes that the populist Warren is the best person to convince the party faithful that Hillary is out of touch with poor Americans and the middle class. Warren, in his view, would carry on the Obama legacy after he leaves the White House.

If only they could have it right on this one, considering my hopes for a better Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton, but it is doubtful there is any validity to this story.

Originally posted at Liberal Values

Ron Chusid
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 The Moderate Voice
  • Bob Munck

    I tend to think that Warren can do more good in the Senate than in the White House, if and only if the Senate is able to do anything at all. That means it would require Democratic majorities in the Senate and the House of Representatives or something very close to that and a Democrat in the White House. We have an excellent chance of obtaining all three in 2016.

    Warren is highly knowledgeable about the inner workings of our economy, whereas the most effective presidents we’ve had recently — Clinton, Reagan, Obama — have not had that characteristic. I postulate that being an effective president requires something different, some set of management/leadership skills. I’m not completely certain, but I think that H. Clinton has those skills, and the combination of her in the WH and Warren leading the Senate (though not as Majority Leader) could be extremely effective.

  • dduck

    I love it, even if it is pure fiction.
    We win if EW gets close, another professor full more hope and little else.
    We win because Obama backing EW will confuse the hell out of the Dems.
    Look, I don’t like HC that much, but she is the real deal, not another puffed academic.
    We win if EW would somehow become the candidate, cause a good Rep (like Jeb Bush) should be able to show well against her.
    We win because then the Dems may be foolish enough not to push Kerry to the front.

  • ordinarysparrow

    Factor this from the WallStreet Journal into the equation: Hillary Clinton Begins To Move Away From Obama

    Hillary Clinton has begun distancing herself from President Barack Obama, suggesting that she would do more to woo Republicans and take a more assertive stance toward global crises, while sounding more downbeat than her former boss about the U.S. economic recovery.

    People are “really, really nervous” about their future, Mrs. Clinton said at an event in Colorado last week that included hints of her emerging strategy to convey that she would be more effective in the pursuit of Democratic policy goals than Mr. Obama has been during his time in office.

    “I mean, some people can paint a beautiful vision,” she said at a CNN event last month. “And, thankfully, we can all learn from that. But then, can you, with the tenacity, the persistence, the getting-knocked down/getting-back-up resilience, can you lead us there?”

    I would definitely vote Warren over Clinton… and i do believe Clinton would sway more to the Republicans than either Obama or Warren….

  • Please, somebody lead. Can we have a leader.

  • The_Ohioan

    Doesn’t do any good to have a leader if nobody follows.

    It used to be that the Democratic leaders compared it to herding cats. I don’t know what the Republican leaders call it, but I’m dying to read John Boehner’s tell-all book when it comes out.

  • More followers make a leader?!

    Rather, leaders encourage galvanized support.

    We haven’t had a leader in so long nobody knows what to call one.

    America will know a leader when it sees one lead.

    It hasn’t happened in a long time.

  • cjjack

    I think we can safely take anything the New York Post publishes with a mine of salt.

    And while Warren is a voice of sanity in a Capitol Hill gone mad, I’m against her running for two reasons. First, there’s the professor-who-served-part-of-a-Senate-term problem. While a lot can be blamed upon the Congressional Republicans’ intransigence, the truth is Obama was out of his political depth when he took office. He tried to reach across the aisle, but someone had built a wall there to block him.

    The next President – if a Democrat – is going to run into the same kind of wall, albeit one that has now been built high and reinforced with tea bags. Which brings me to point number two…

    As much as I don’t care for Hillary, she is at once tough enough to knock heads with any Republican on the Hill (see Benghazi hearings for evidence) and she is the Democrat’s 800 lb gorilla if she chooses to run. The GOP is right to fear her.

    With regards to the worry that she might undo some of Obama’s policies…um…hello? Every Republican candidate from the Presidential all the way down to dog catcher runs on a platform of repealing every single thing the Obama administration ever even thought about doing. If one actually gets in the White House, they’ll probably try to pass a resolution officially removing the name “Barack Obama” from the list of Presidents, retroactively impeach him, then vote to repeal Obamacare for what will by then be the 100th time.

    No, we need to keep the increasingly unstable Republican Party out of power until such time as they return to a modicum of sanity. If Hillary is the one to do that, then so be it.

    It will also be fun to watch the right wing collectively lose what is left of their minds when they hear the words “President Hillary Clinton” for at least four years.

  • As I see it we don’t need a lefty or righty to be elected President because he or she is a lefty or righty. We need a pragmatic leader. It remains to be seen if some universally recognized horrible national defense catastrophe produces one or voters do.

  • JSpencer

    It will also be fun to watch the right wing collectively lose what is left of their minds when they hear the words “President Hillary Clinton” for at least four years.

    Well, that’s enough reason in itself to vote for her. Seriously. I’d still like the opportunity to vote for Warren in the primary though.

  • Chris Fulmer

    Warren may be a good choice eventually, but I’m not convinced she’s quite ready for prime time just yet. Perhaps in 2020 or 2024 might be the better race for her. Then again, she’d certainly be a better candidate than most of the generally assumed Republican attemptees. Usually, though, I prefer to wait until all candidates for the presidency from both parties have officially declared before deciding who I want to win–and basically pray for God to make sure the best man or woman as he sees fit wins. A female president in the near future would probably do us good in the long term, I think, and there are many good possibilities (if Susan Collins declared, for instance, I’d vote for her in a heartbeat).

  • Warren may be a good choice eventually, but I’m not convinced she’s quite ready for prime time just yet. Perhaps in 2020 or 2024 might be the better race for her.

    Warren is as ready as candidate Obama was in 2008; i.e., not at all.

    Either Romney or H. Clinton would be // would have been // far superior.

  • ShannonLeee

    She needs to hold a position in the cabinet first. She has more economic knowledge than most everyone in government. Contrary to popular belief, most economic profs advise major corporations and extremely informed on the inter-workings of micro and macro economies. The stupid academic that only knows theory simply does not apply anymore.

  • slamfu


    Warren may be a good choice eventually, but I’m not convinced she’s quite ready for prime time just yet.

    Neither is Warren, which is why she said she isn’t running.

    Warren is as ready as candidate Obama was in 2008; i.e., not at all.

    Obama has proved he was quite ready. He only looks “not ready” because the GOP have succeeded in their plan, which is to obstruct everything and make Obama look bad, then expect voters to believe that its somehow the fault of the guy who tried to be sane. The fact is, in light of a GOP that has marching orders to shoot down any and all bills regardless of merit, there is no one, absolutely no one, who could have done any different. If George Washington had a baby with Jesus Christ, and it was schooled in politics by FDR and LBJ(or whoever you think was effective politically), if that baby got elected as a democrat, that being would have done no better in the face of the particular strategy employed by the GOP.

    Even so, Obama has managed to not screw things up completely, which after Bush I will take as a win. But until the voters are willing to call the GOP on their crap, its really not going to change much.

  • ordinarysparrow

    Fully agree with slamfu…our present state is not about leadership it is about inertia created by ignorance and ideology of the GOP that consistency and systematically put 100% plus of the energy into obstruction….If Warren gets in they will do the same to her, only more so because she is a woman. If Hilary gets in she will likely play a high risk game covert hardball….Had rather have Warren for at least there will be sunlight.

  • dduck

    Weak, management challenged “leaders”. I don’t think America is naive enough to fall for that twice in a row. Maybe in 2020 though, after the crucible.


    The truth is that it doesn’t matter who the Democratic candidate is. It will exactly like it is now until the House changes its composition. While it is entirely possible that 2016 will work out well for the Democrats in the presidential and senate races, the House won’t be changing until after 2020 at least. So you’ll see the same vitriol from the GOP and refusal to work with any Democrat in the White House for years.

  • Bob Munck

    Please, somebody lead

    Leaders, except for the really great ones, just figure out which way the mob is marching, then run over and take a place in front. The trouble with that is that we’re not marching in any particular direction; we’re just milling around as a nation.

    (Why are we just milling around? I think because we see two massive unsolvable problems in our future: global warming and nearly universal unemployment caused by automation.)

  • slamfu

    I was unaware till today that Warren has tried to reinstate Glass-Steagall in 2013, but that the bill is currently trapped in the Senate banking committee. When her time comes, she does have my vote. Hell, I might move to MA just to vote for her.

  • dduck

    Is that enough of a reason for a person to be president. Wouldn’t cabinet and governorship and other management experience be more important.
    BTW: I also back the return of GS and I am part of the financial advisory world. (Boy, would I make a lousy president.)

  • slamfu

    You really think that trains you up for the job? I think nothing trains you for that job. Closest would be State Governor, but really, no. Bush was a governor. That means nothing. What does matter is someone who gets it. Who understands action and consequence. Someone who deals in reality. The fact she isn’t running shows also she has a bit of self awareness. If anyone in the GOP was getting as much national attention as she’s getting they’d have their pants down around their ankles and on the first flight to visit Sheldon Addleson and the Koch brothers before you could say “Citizens United”.

    And also, I consider banking reform to be the most important thing this nation needs to do. Without it not only are we headed for another, likely worse catastrophe, but the world economy is coming with us. And in the wreckage, who’s to know who will come out as the new world financial super power? The fact that you support that in my book puts you ahead of anyone the GOP has offered for the job.

  • dduck

    Can we really compare the training I cited, excluding any particular person, with another professor with a little bit of Senate experience. HC wipes the floor with EW and any non-qualified Rep candidate.
    Forget tribal politics and focus on on who is best to run our country. At this early date, I suggest Clinton, Kerry or Bush.

  • Stop making sense and go tribal!

  • Bob Munck


    I think nothing trains you for that job.

    Strong agreement! Governor, Senator, short-term in Congress; it’s easy to find good and bad presidents in all of those categories. On the other hand, Eisenhower was a pretty good president. Was it his military career, running Germany after the war, or years as president of Columbia University? (If the latter, I’d like to nominate Ruth Simmons for POTUS.)