It's the front-page feature this morning:
"Elizabeth Warren says she’s not seeking presidency" by Noah Bierman | Globe Staff, December 05, 2013
Maybe someone should petition her.
Recently, a prominent Massachusetts Democrat spotted Senator Elizabeth Warren at an airport and saw an opportunity.
Have you read The New Republic, Philip W. Johnston asked Warren playfully, showing her the cover of the magazine he had just purchased. It was devoted to whether Warren would run for president.
Warren wasn’t having any of it. She answered with an exaggerated eye roll that cut short any further talk of the 2016 presidential race.
“She doesn’t want to talk about it in any serious way,” said Johnston, a supporter.
On Wednesday, Warren became so sick of media speculation that she might run as a populist alternative to Hillary Rodham Clinton that she made her most definitive statement to date in an attempt to put the issue to rest, promising to remain in the Senate.
Globe gave you a front-page eulogy, girl!
“I pledge to serve out my term,” which ends at the beginning of 2019, she said, when pressed during a news conference in downtown Boston with mayor-elect Martin J. Walsh.
In a fiery appearance before reporters, Warren acknowledged that the interest in her potential as a presidential candidate could help her advance her agenda in the Senate. But she insisted she would not fuel more speculation.
That's the Liz Warren I know, taking large swings at big banks as if she was on some sort of impassioned crusade. I'm not surprised by the language, and despite the corporate liberalism I'll bet the Globe is $ad Brown did not beat her.
“I am not running for president,” Warren said. “I am working as hard as I can to be the best possible senator that I can be and to fight for the things that I promised during my campaign to fight for.”
For weeks, speculation about a Warren run for president has buzzed in Washington and beyond — and for weeks those around Warren have tried to tamp it down. They insist that the matter had been settled with prior statements that she had no plans to run for president.
She has done nothing, for example, to curry favor in early primary states or to build her foreign policy credentials by traveling abroad. And she has signed a letter urging Clinton to run.
God help us all if Hillary wins.
It’s the subject that must not be broached in Warrenland. Several confidants and party activists say that Warren greets even passing references to the notion of a White House run with a derisive laugh or a cutting scowl.
You would think she is reading and blogging about the Boston Globe like me!
But, said one activist, the questions continue....
Because otherwise we might have to talk about something substantive and not dwell on empty speculation. Can't have a news media focusing on substantive things.
Even Warren’s denial on Wednesday is unlikely to squelch the interest, especially if there is any hint that Clinton is wavering or stumbling. Democrats say there would be intense pressure on Warren to run if Clinton declines....
To do what, get as many votes as Ron Paul considering the intere$ts that wouldn't want to $ee her get anywhere near that chair -- and it will be without CIA-backing.
The affection for Warren among liberal groups is likely to persist regardless.
One liberal group, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, is selling onesies for Christmas, so parents can advertise that their wriggling newborns hail from the “Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party.”
Hardly out of the womb and already being politically propagandized. Wow.
The same group lashed out this week at members of a centrist Democratic group who suggested in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that Warren’s ascendancy would be bad for the party.
Warren has won the hearts of liberals across the country with a full-throated embrace of government as an instrument to combat income inequality against a system that is “rigged” for the rich and powerful. She has embraced an expansion of Social Security, fought against the power of big banks, put public pressure on government regulators to crack down on financial institutions, and spoken in favor of raising the minimum wage.
Which is why she won't come within a whiff of the Oval Office.
Her speeches, including a passionate keynote address at the AFL-CIO conference in September, have helped make her the face of liberal populism that has partially reshaped the Democratic Party.
During last year’s campaign, she collected $42 million in donations, more than any other Senate candidate, much of it from small online donors.
I know one, and what it proves is her grass roots appeal. Big money ain't backing her.
How well all that would translate to a national presidential campaign is unclear. While she could be a serious factor in a Democratic primary, her message likely would be received more skeptically on the broader national stage than in the liberal bastions of the Northeast.
There are potential risks as well as rewards with the recent frenzy of publicity about her non-candidacy — which has included front page articles in the Washington Post and New York Times in addition to the cover story in liberal magazine The New Republic and endless speculation on liberal blogs.
This is not a liberal blog because those terms no longer mean anything. This is a blog about truth no matter where it leads.
The attention gives Warren outsized stature for a freshman senator, further raising her influence on the populist anti-Wall Street issues that have been her life’s work.
Warren, 64, could continue to build her network and further expand her fund-raising base for a potential 2020 presidential campaign, when she would be 71 years old. Warren’s followers are zealous members of the party’s grass roots, who swarm to her at public appearances and turn videos of her speeches into viral phenomena.
Oh, now you lefties are zealots! Tells you what the whoreporate pre$$ really thinks of you.
At least they didn't call you insurgents like they do Tea Party.
But overt interest in presidential politics risks alienating more senior senators and could lead others to question Warren’s motives when she advocates for policy.
Why? Do they lead to questions regarding others motives? What is so special about Liz Warren that her motives must be que$tioned?
“It’s good for your brand but not good for getting things done,” said a party insider.
In addition, she would risk upsetting the voters who put her in office only a year ago if she appears distracted by a higher calling.
Yeah, but I wouldn't be that upset and think I'd be over it real quick.
That is one of the reasons her inner circle has been careful to avoid any appearance that she is stoking the speculation.
It's not coming from there so why worry about appearances framed and formulated by others?
Even talking about her lack of enthusiasm for the job is so sensitive that many people interviewed for this article would not speak on the record. Other notables, including her finance chairman Paul Egerman, would not talk at all when a reporter called asking generically to speak about Warren.
I guess that is why the Globe takes occasional digs at her.
Governor Deval Patrick, who has also had to squelch some speculation about his own presidential ambitions, offered a terse statement through a spokeswoman when asked if he has talked about it with Warren....
Some say the attention on Warren has more to do with what she symbolizes than her actual candidacy, real or fictional.
Honestly, I'm tired of imagery, illusion, fiction, and all the other goodies that come with my new$paper.
Fantasizing about a Warren presidential bid offers a vehicle for the segment of Democrats who embrace a more robust discussion of income inequality, for instance, giving voice to dissatisfaction within the party over the presumption that Clinton will be the 2016 nominee.
“I think that’s a media construct, along with hopes and dreams of a lot of people who have faith in her for a big American populist movement,” said Joyce Linehan, a Democratic activist who helped launch Warren’s career by hosting her first coffee event in her Dorchester living room in August 2011. “But I don’t think it’s on her mind.”
Most party activists and fund-raisers expect Clinton will run and consolidate establishment support from around the country, including in Massachusetts, based in part on her and her husband’s longstanding relationships in the state.
“There just seems to be a sense that Hillary is inevitable and I think most of us are comfortable with Hillary,” said Johnston, a former state party chair who is also a member of Warren’s finance committee.
Start praying now, folks.
--more--"
JWho was talking her up anyway?
"Warren has presidential stock, Frank says" by Noah Bierman | Globe Staff, November 19, 2013
WASHINGTON – Barney Frank, the former congressman who was among the first to publicly promote Elizabeth Warren as a Senate candidate, said Tuesday that she would be a strong contender for president if Hillary Rodham Clinton chooses not to run.
I'm sure she thanks you for the pre$$ attention, Barn.
“If Hillary doesn’t run, she’s going to be very much in the mix,” Frank, who retired in January, said in a phone interview, explaining that he has not spoken to Warren about her intentions.
“Absent Hillary, it’s a pretty open field,” he continued. “Joe Biden has a lot of support, but he’s not in the kind of lock-it-up position.”
Oh, yeah, the forgotten VP who will be an also-ran.
Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat in her first year in the Senate, has denied interest in the presidency. But speculation has swirled in recent weeks amid a slew of articles making the case that her popularity among liberals and vast fund-raising network would make her a strong candidate who could at least appeal to the Democratic base.
While others have dismissed the speculation, Frank, known for his candor, sounded as if he takes it seriously.
He recalled again the moment he mentioned Warren as a potential Senate candidate. It was in a 2011 conversation with President Obama, while the two men were at an event together. Warren at the time was facing strong Republican opposition to her potential appointment as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which she helped create.
When Frank mentioned that Warren might make a strong candidate, Obama asked whether Warren wanted to be a senator.
“I think she wants your job,” Frank told Obama. But she has to start somewhere, he added.
Frank said he would be surprised if she has not thought about running for president.
“Think about somebody who’s been playing shortstop in Double-A ball for a few years,” he said. “Do you think he would say, ‘By the way, I don’t want to go to the majors?’ ”
Frank and Warren have a tight relationship. Before Warren ran for Senate, she worked closely with him in crafting the financial overhaul known as Dodd-Frank.
Related: Coalition presses regulators to gut financial law’s key reform
In other word, the landmark legislation that was supposed to fix things was never implemented.
But more recently, Warren has said the legislation failed to rein in the “too-big-to-fail” problem that led to both the financial crisis and the bank bailouts that accompanied it. Frank pushed back against that critique.
“She’s confusing too big and too big to fail,” Frank said. “We have resolved too big to fail. If they [financial institutions] fail, they are put out of business.”
So they aren't really that tight, huh?
Notwithstanding their disagreement, Frank said Warren’s only liability would be her limited experience in the Senate.
But she would have time to develop greater expertise in foreign policy or other disciplines where she has spent less time, he said.
“She starts out a little older,” Frank said of Warren, who is 64. “She was an older freshman, but she’s vigorous and energetic and she’s a lot younger than Joe Biden.”
I guess Barney is no friend of Biden!
--more--"
Related: Elizabeth Warren: The contender
She IS RUNNING!
And she is going to lock up another constituency in her march to the White House:
"Warren seeks aid for state’s fishermen; Senator says catch limits have led to ‘a disaster’" Associated Press, November 05, 2013
Senator Elizabeth Warren is joining other Massachusetts elected officials in pressing for more relief for the state’s fishing industry, which she said has been harmed by catch limits imposed by the federal government.
‘‘It’s not a disaster because the fishermen did anything wrong,’’ Warren said. “It’s a disaster because they followed exactly what the government asked them to do.’’
And you wonder why I am the way I am?
Warren also said she is not comfortable with the science the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has relied on to set catch limits.
No one is with anything they say.
Warren made her comments following a hearing at the State House on Monday. She was joined by fellow Senator Edward J. Markey, other elected officials, and industry representatives.
New England fishermen said the industry faces collapse because of the limits, which reduce the cod catch to just a fraction of its historical totals....
Last week the federal Small Business Administration announced it would provide disaster loans to fishermen, and Warren said she is hopeful the aid can survive budget negotiations in Washington....
--more--"
NEXT DAY UPDATE: Pandering to seniors over Social Security
For some reason the Globe has not or did not carry the printed article on its website version.
Another Massachusetts woman who will not be seeking higher office in Washington:
"Republican party wants special investigation of Coakley; Campaign funds’ use in dispute" by Frank Phillips | Globe Staff, November 04, 2013
The Massachusetts Republican Party is asking Governor Deval Patrick to appoint a special investigator to look at Attorney General Martha Coakley’s use of her federal political account for questionable expenditures, along with accounting problems associated with that fund.
Kirsten Hughes, the party chairwoman, also said the party is filing complaints with state and federal campaign finance regulators, asking them to review postelection operations for the Martha Coakley for Senate Committee, the now nearly defunct federal account the attorney general used in her failed 2010 Senate campaign. Coakley is now running for governor.
“These are serious problems,’’ Hughes said, referring to a Boston Globe report that cited $6,000 in expenditures, much of which appeared to be in violation of state campaign finance law. In addition, the story outlined the chaotic condition of the committee’s accounts and its failure to respond to federal campaign finance regulators’ warnings of the problem.
Hughes said that Patrick is the appropriate person to appoint an independent investigator since Coakley, in her role of state attorney general, oversees enforcement of campaign finance laws and thus cannot oversee an inquiry.
But not her own.
“She prosecutes people for campaign finance violations and makes a name for herself while she seems to be doing the same thing as those she goes after,’’ Hughes said. “She clearly can’t investigate herself.’’
Certainly makes Coakley appear to be a hypocrite if nothing else.
The governor told State House News Service that he would not appoint an independent investigator.
“We have an agency that is responsible for that,” he said. “If they have issues, they can take it over there.”
Rather dismissive, isn't it?
--more--"
Related: The Lite and Dark Side of the Massachusetts Governor's Race
Marty won't be winning the nomination anyway.
Also see:
Martha Coakley drew FEC inquiry
Martha Coakley to push mental health care
She should be worried about her own. What wa$ she thinking?
Martha Coakley sues Framingham career training school
AG asks federal court to toss Evan Dobelle’s lawsuit
Related: Slow Saturday Special: Dobelle is Done
But the austerity-strapped taxpayers of Massachusetts will still be asked to cough up $95,000 a year (Globe never mentioned that?) in pension costs.
Maybe Patrick can find another $20 million to help defray it, 'eh?
