The New York Times reports today presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton courted Senator Elizabeth Warren in December at Clinton’s Washington home.
The Times, citing insider Democrats, says Clinton “solicited policy ideas and suggestions from Ms. Warren” and “did not ask for Mrs. Warren to consider endorsing her likely presidential candidacy.”
She did not do this for a good reason — any such endorsement would be nearly worthless and Warren would be unlikely to issue one. The liberal and supposedly progressive side of the Democrat Party dislike Clinton and many consider her no better than a neocon Republican.
Libs are entranced by Elizabeth Warren. They consider her an advocate for Wall Street reform and a champion of the socialist cause. Taking cues from the Occupy Wall Street movement, the liberal left is calling for income inequality, a code word for wealth redistribution.
Ms. Warren’s rhetoric, however, will not result in anything more than minor cosmetic change. The political system in the United States, including a benighted far left component, is owned by the financial class Ms. Warren promises to rein in. This is more than amply demonstrated by statistics on campaign donors. The same Wall Street financiers and banks fund both sides of what is in essence one monolithic political party in Washington.
Liberals consistently ignore the fact Warren is part of the political class that does the bidding of the elite.
“Although an effort has been made to keep Elizabeth Warren’s contributor list squeaky clean, the second largest contributor to her Senate campaign sets off alarm bells – the highly Democrat partisan and George Soros funded MoveOn.org,” I wrote in July.
In addition, Warren shares Clinton’s neocon stance on foreign policy and national security:
The New Republic, an establishment Democrat centerpiece, is selling Elizabeth Warren as Hillary Clinton’s worst nightmare. Liberals praise to the heavens Warren’s anti-Wall Street and populist cred while ignoring her stance on war and dogged maintenance of the national security state.
“We need to continue our aggressive efforts against Al Qaeda, and we need to continue to support the efforts of our intelligence, law enforcement, homeland security, and military professionals,” Warren states on the foreign policy section of her Senate campaign web page.
She touts the neocon line on Iran, insisting it represents a mortal danger to the United States and continues, despite facts to the contrary, a pursuit of nuclear weapons.
“The same progressives who refused to vet Barack Obama’s views on foreign policy when he ran for president in 2008, and who now feel betrayed that he is not the liberal savior they imagined him to be, are repeating their mistake with Warren,” warns liberal Max Blumenthal. “With AIPAC leading the push for war at the height of an election campaign, there is no better time to demand accountability from candidates like Warren. Who does she serve? The liberal grassroots forces that made her into a populist hero or the lobby seeking to drag the US into a dubious, potentially catastrophic war? It is far better for progressives to grill her on her foreign policy positions before the campaign is over than after the next war begins.”
Clinton did not solicit “policy ideas” from Warren. Instead, the private meeting was about strategy and how to fold Warren’s political cred into Clinton’s presidential campaign.
If Clinton is going to defeat whatever Republican is designated to be president in 2016, she will need to fool the liberal base of the party the same way it was fooled with Obama.
Obama, unlike Clinton, was an unknown and thus the scam was easier to pull off. Clinton’s track record as a “hawk,” i.e., warmongering neocon fellow traveler and CFR functionary, will have to be softened by the populist firebrand Elizabeth Warren if Democrats will remain in control of the White House.
This, of course, is more or less irrelevant. Particularly in regard to foreign policy and national security, there is little difference between the establishment parties. If elected on the allure of gender and Warren’s rhetoric, a Clinton-Warren White House will be indistinguishable from the Obama White House which was in turn no different than the Bush White House.