Elizabeth Warren: emerging voice of America’s opposition

The weeks following the inauguration of the 45th American president have been far from easy for the Republican party. Instead of enjoying the afterglow of victory, the party has contended with the fallout from the ascension of an inexperienced, unpredictable, enraged and lawless leader; opinion polls so low they’re breaking records; the halting of a key executive order by several courts.

And yet. In spite of this apparent opportunity, and in spite of the rise of a powerful resistance movement that has seen record numbers of Americans take to the streets, the course of the post-Hillary, post-Obama Democratic party is far from clear. As different factions work to identify what went wrong and rescue what remains, much is still in doubt, in particular, who is in charge. No one yet has taken the helm.

But last week, in the midst of the contentious confirmation hearing for the attorney general, Jefferson Sessions, a steely display of nerve by Senator Elizabeth Warren offered a glimpse of one possible hopeful future.

In 1986, Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King, Jr, gave a statement to a Senate committee led by then-Senator Strom Thurmond, expressing her opposition to Sessions’s nomination for a federal judgeship. King was familiar with Sessions’s work in Alabama, her home, and in her statement she described his racism, writing that he had worked to disenfranchise black voters and that his promotion to the new role would “irreparably damage the work of my husband”.

In 1986, Thurmond failed to file the letter properly in congressional records, causing it to fade from the collective political memory. Sessions’s career continued to rise. But last Tuesday night, as Democrats battled to delay Sessions’s confirmation, Warren began to read King’s 1986 letter out loud, only to be silenced, first by the presiding Senate chair, Steve Daines, and then, when she continued on, by Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, who forced her to conclude her speech by citing an antiquated Senate rule that prevents one senator from “impugning” a colleague.

“She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted,” McConnell said of Warren and indeed she did; after being removed from the Senate floor, Warren went outside into a corridor and continued to read King’s statement in full, streaming it on Facebook Live. Sessions was confirmed on Wednesday, but a wave of support for Warren had already begun to rise up on the 45th president’s favourite communication channel: #LetLizSpeak was trending on Twitter.

It’s not a good time for men to silence a high-profile woman. Not when she’s reading the words of another widely respected woman. Not when the millions of women who took to the streets the day after the inauguration are arguably the best-organised political movement in this chaotic landscape. A movement that might just put its momentum behind a woman who is a bit left of Hillary, a little less socialist than Bernie, brilliant, articulate and indisputably tough. Will Elizabeth Warren persist all the way to the White House?

Original Quill wrote:I fear Warren will face the same reaction as Hillary...too old, too hackneyed, enough to bore the younger liberals to death, and cause them not to turn out to vote.  I admire Warren, but I admired Clinton too.  Older women are too unattractive and vulnerable to Republicans...go look at the thread in which IT touts young, blond bimbos as being the ideal for RW'rs.

I would really like to see Wendy Davis or Kamala Harris get a push.  They are young, energetic and progressive.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I fear Warren will face the same reaction as Hillary...too old, too hackneyed, enough to bore the younger liberals to death, and cause them not to turn out to vote.  I admire Warren, but I admired Clinton too.  Older women are too unattractive and vulnerable to Republicans...go look at the thread in which IT touts young, blond bimbos as being the ideal for RW'rs.

I would really like to see Wendy Davis or Kamala Harris get a push.  They are young, energetic and progressive.

I don't think that Hilary was unpopular due to age Quill.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:Thanks for catching that, Ben.  In my haste, I had the Trump and Clinton flipped around:

Trump is 16 months older than Hillary.

16 months, not 14.

Donald Trump:  June 14, 1946
Hillary Clinton:  October 26, 1947

Difference is 499 days, or 1 year, 4 months, 12 days.
https://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?m1=06&d1=14&y1=1946&m2=10&d2=26&y2=1947


I agree with Obama, and I'm sure every man that lays eyes on her does, too.
Obama got in trouble for saying that because it's against Liberal feminist rules to remark on a woman's physical beauty because, in their opinion, it objectifies women while not giving credit to her brain, or some crap.  What a load of dung.  The only people that believe that are the feminists.  I've never met a woman that doesn't enjoy a sincere and flattering compliment.  Whatever happened to complimenting someone without having to go through a laundry list of items to ensure you don't offend man-hating feminists?

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:Thanks for catching that, Ben.  In my haste, I had the Trump and Clinton flipped around:

Trump is 16 months older than Hillary.

16 months, not 14.

Donald Trump:  June 14, 1946
Hillary Clinton:  October 26, 1947

Difference is 499 days, or 1 year, 4 months, 12 days.
https://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?m1=06&d1=14&y1=1946&m2=10&d2=26&y2=1947


I agree with Obama, and I'm sure every man that lays eyes on her does, too.
Obama got in trouble for saying that because it's against Liberal feminist rules to remark on a woman's physical beauty because, in their opinion, it objectifies women while not giving credit to her brain, or some crap.  What a load of dung.  The only people that believe that are the feminists.  I've never met a woman that doesn't enjoy a sincere and flattering compliment.  Whatever happened to complimenting someone without having to go through a laundry list of items to ensure you don't offend man-hating feminists?

Ben wrote:
Huge difference between complimenting someone and objectifying them.

nicko wrote:Ben,  you said "if only she was white"    she is white isn't she?    looks white to me.

eddie wrote:Okay well I cannot out argue an American on American politics but all I can offer is that of the many Brits I spoke to about Clinton and Trump, it was never Clinton's age that seemed to bother anyone.

Eilzel wrote:I have a few American colleagues who all supported Sanders, disliked (but still supported) Hilary and who all had plenty of enthusiasm for Warren.

I have also never heard anyone crticise Clinton due to age, at least not people I know or on t'internet anyway. Warren would not be attacked over Benghazi or emails because they were not her mistakes.

Les wrote:Sexism will continue from the Republicans, and the Dems shouldn't be aiming to capture the votes of the more hardcore RW voters anyway. They need just a few of the more moderate voters who voted Trump this time to switch in key states. Without tha toxic association to Clinton, Warren can get those votes.

Eilzel wrote:So basically, with the animosity for Clinton done with, those Sanders voters who didn't turn out would be happy to vote Clinton. Might be enough next time round.

And even if we grant age was always 'in the background' it was by far marginal compared with gender and Clinton's past. It certainly cannot be claimed to have been a decisive role.

A younger candidate can in any case be open to accusations of inexperience.

Les wrote:A younger candidate can in any case be open to accusations of inexperience.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:@eddie

Hillary's age wasn't a concern for Americans, either.  Trump is only 16-months older than Hillary. [edited by LIT]

During Obama's first presidential election, the left made a huge deal over John McCain's age.
McCain’s Opponent Plays Age Discrimination Card
A message to all those mocking McCain's age: Oh, grow up!
New leftist ad: You won’t believe how old John McCain is
The Obama-McCain age gap that matters

OQ would wrongly have everyone believe that Hillary lost because of her age, or that someone made it an issue.  That's nonsense.  The only party to have used age-discrimination tactics (shamefully) are the Democrats, as demonstrated in my links, above.

veya_victaous wrote:I think the list of issues was long with Clinton and many of them legit, as with any career politician that has been involved in scandals since the 90's. Lets face it Monica was bought up..      Plus Hillary never seemed to have convincing conviction. I don't think what fox news said had any real baring, Like Les said the Dems shouldn't be concerned about trying to get this bigoted voters anyway,  she lost because she could not mobilize the liberal base. Actually I think the way Dems faithful blaming Fox news lies is only digging a deeper hole, it insults those that found her lacking by suggesting that 'you didn't vote for us so you must have been listening to them'.

the nail in the coffin for the dems in the past election was the internal party politics. the fact she was railroaded into the position by party power brokers, the fact better candidates had been persuaded not to run. It simply highlighted all that the Youth find distasteful about Political parties.. It is not a US phenomena either,  your system just limits the value of 3rd party votes. Here where it is more fair almost a third of people are voting 3rd party now. 2 party politics is good for the primate us versus them mentality. with the greater access to information that the youth of today have had for most/all their lives they simply do not fall as easily in to the mental shorthand that makes old buggers cry  'we're the best' and pretend that any opposition to their opinion is bad.

The problem that the US and Many western nations without compulsory voting face is the ever increasing disenfranchisement of young people.
Even Obama failed to deliver a lot of the change his election promised. Hillary was no where near as inspirational as Obama which is why she had already been rejected. and logically if Obama failed to deliver, she had no chance of doing it. people already showed that they had more faith in Obama delivering than Hillary(evidenced by his preselection) so Putting her forward was a step backwards for Liberal minded youth.

Like Paul Hogan said in an interview and it is quite true, "people that don't love you are not all haters, most just don't give a shit." the problem is the us and them mentality, as the voting number show, Most just didn't find either inspiring enough to go and vote for.

phil shiner wrote:I fear Warren will face the same reaction as Hillary...too old, too hackneyed, enough to bore the younger liberals to death, and cause them not to turn out to vote.  I admire Warren, but I admired Clinton too.  Older women are too unattractive and vulnerable to Republicans...go look at the thread in which IT touts young, blond bimbos as being the ideal for RW'rs.

I would really like to see Wendy Davis or Kamala Harris get a push.  They are young, energetic and progressive.

Veya wrote:Yeah I think that assertion is rather insulting to the intellect of people that didn't vote (the majority)

the fact she is a woman is ONLY relevant to Bigot voters that are generally rusted on Republicans anyway. the anti female vote was ALWAYS going to vote trump (or republican at least) I doubt it had much to do with the Potential Dem voters decision not to vote.

phil shiner][quote="eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I fear Warren will face the same reaction as Hillary...too old, too hackneyed, enough to bore the younger liberals to death, and cause them not to turn out to vote.  I admire Warren, but I admired Clinton too.  Older women are too unattractive and vulnerable to Republicans...go look at the thread in which IT touts young, blond bimbos as being the ideal for RW'rs.

I would really like to see Wendy Davis or Kamala Harris get a push.  They are young, energetic and progressive.

I don't think that Hilary was unpopular due to age Quill.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:@sassy

Check it out...



There's a difference between "feminists" and "man hating feminists".

Ben Reilly wrote:

nicko wrote:Ben,  you said "if only she was white"    she is white isn't she?    looks white to me.

Nope -- of mixed black and Indian (as in India) heritage.

phil shiner wrote:

eddie wrote:Okay well I cannot out argue an American on American politics but all I can offer is that of the many Brits I spoke to about Clinton and Trump, it was never Clinton's age that seemed to bother anyone.

That's the Republican campaign that RW'rs will do on a woman who doesn't have the ammunition to overcome lies.  It's not about having the credibility up front, it's about overcoming lies and the no-calls, as they say in sports.  

Benghazi?  Emails?  There was never any truth to the lies told about Hillary, and Republicans admitted it eventually.  However, if a woman isn't young and attractive enough to overcome the lies the Republicans win.  

Also, Hillary was in fine fettle, but look at the lies Trump hinted about as to her health, her eyesight, her mental stability and her longevity.  Remember the alleged fall getting into the vehicle?  Remember her cold?  They criticized everything.

Eilzel wrote:I have a few American colleagues who all supported Sanders, disliked (but still supported) Hilary and who all had plenty of enthusiasm for Warren.

I have also never heard anyone crticise Clinton due to age, at least not people I know or on t'internet anyway. Warren would not be attacked over Benghazi or emails because they were not her mistakes.

Sexism will continue from the Republicans, and the Dems shouldn't be aiming to capture the votes of the more hardcore RW voters anyway. They need just a few of the more moderate voters who voted Trump this time to switch in key states. Without tha toxic association to Clinton, Warren can get those votes.

Phil shiner wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I have a few American colleagues who all supported Sanders, disliked (but still supported) Hilary and who all had plenty of enthusiasm for Warren.

I have also never heard anyone crticise Clinton due to age, at least not people I know or on t'internet anyway. Warren would not be attacked over Benghazi or emails because they were not her mistakes.

The age thing was always in the background.  Do you not remember the Republican's attack on Hillary's health, her colds, her eyesight?  The implication was that she was fading in a natural way (age).  They couldn't attack her directly on age, obviously, because Trump is up there too.  But a woman's health is always brought up...remember when PMS was a big issue with RW'rs?  It never enters anyone's mind to question a man...men are good in bed until they die, so why not the presidency?

Les wrote:Sexism will continue from the Republicans, and the Dems shouldn't be aiming to capture the votes of the more hardcore RW voters anyway. They need just a few of the more moderate voters who voted Trump this time to switch in key states. Without tha toxic association to Clinton, Warren can get those votes.

This election is more studied than any in history.  It's not who Republicans voted for, but who was listening.  What political scientists have found is that the confluence of a third-party candidate (Bernie Sanders), and the Republican lies, permitted the animosities of the 3-P (Sanders) supporters to linger.  This caused them to refrain from voting.

You saw the evidence in how long the arguments were parroted by Sanders people, even after Republicans admitted the falsehoods were, indeed, not true.  So there was a lingering, but seething subterranean effect, that didn't result in support for the Republicans, but resulted in all the no-calls on the Democratic side.

And of course, look what we got...an unpopular, no-call president.

Any woman who is primaried on the Democratic side is going to be subject to the same tactics.  America doesn't want a nurturer as president.  This is not the Parliamentary system, where to top dog is voted in by specialists (MP's).  Americans want a masculine figure in the role of president.  I don't like it...you don't like it...but that's the way it is.

Eilzel wrote:So basically, with the animosity for Clinton done with, those Sanders voters who didn't turn out would be happy to vote Clinton. Might be enough next time round.

And even if we grant age was always 'in the background' it was by far marginal compared with gender and Clinton's past. It certainly cannot be claimed to have been a decisive role.

A younger candidate can in any case be open to accusations of inexperience.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:@eddie

Hillary's age wasn't a concern for Americans, either.  Trump is only 16-months older than Hillary. [edited by LIT]

During Obama's first presidential election, the left made a huge deal over John McCain's age.
McCain’s Opponent Plays Age Discrimination Card
A message to all those mocking McCain's age: Oh, grow up!
New leftist ad: You won’t believe how old John McCain is
The Obama-McCain age gap that matters

OQ would wrongly have everyone believe that Hillary lost because of her age, or that someone made it an issue.  That's nonsense.  The only party to have used age-discrimination tactics (shamefully) are the Democrats, as demonstrated in my links, above.

You really don't have a fucking clue do you,  dipshIT   !?!

You rave and rant about "the left" as if you actually know what a lefty is..

And then you call Hillary Clinton and Obama, and their supporters,  "the left".
When the Democrats under them are actually moderate centre-right  !

You really do need to get an education, you clueless little twat..

P.S.  your links prove nothing;  apart from how clueless you really are..

phil shiner wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:I think the list of issues was long with Clinton and many of them legit, as with any career politician that has been involved in scandals since the 90's. Lets face it Monica was bought up..      Plus Hillary never seemed to have convincing conviction. I don't think what fox news said had any real baring, Like Les said the Dems shouldn't be concerned about trying to get this bigoted voters anyway,  she lost because she could not mobilize the liberal base. Actually I think the way Dems faithful blaming Fox news lies is only digging a deeper hole, it insults those that found her lacking by suggesting that 'you didn't vote for us so you must have been listening to them'.

the nail in the coffin for the dems in the past election was the internal party politics. the fact she was railroaded into the position by party power brokers, the fact better candidates had been persuaded not to run. It simply highlighted all that the Youth find distasteful about Political parties.. It is not a US phenomena either,  your system just limits the value of 3rd party votes. Here where it is more fair almost a third of people are voting 3rd party now. 2 party politics is good for the primate us versus them mentality. with the greater access to information that the youth of today have had for most/all their lives they simply do not fall as easily in to the mental shorthand that makes old buggers cry  'we're the best' and pretend that any opposition to their opinion is bad.

The problem that the US and Many western nations without compulsory voting face is the ever increasing disenfranchisement of young people.
Even Obama failed to deliver a lot of the change his election promised. Hillary was no where near as inspirational as Obama which is why she had already been rejected. and logically if Obama failed to deliver, she had no chance of doing it. people already showed that they had more faith in Obama delivering than Hillary(evidenced by his preselection) so Putting her forward was a step backwards for Liberal minded youth.

Like Paul Hogan said in an interview and it is quite true, "people that don't love you are not all haters, most just don't give a shit." the problem is the us and them mentality, as the voting number show, Most just didn't find either inspiring enough to go and vote for.

Whatever happened to Clinton would happen to any female candidate.  She would be primaried by a male, and he would either win, or he would split the vote as Sanders did.  The lies that Republicans fabricated would just be the Maypole around which the voters would dance.  There's no proof to them...but it's not a proof question.  It's a rallying point.

I'm just saying that a younger female candidate would have a better chance in that game.  The American president is more of a movie star, than s/he is a legislator.  What happens to female actors (as opposed to males) when they age?  

Warren?  No way.

veya_victaous wrote:Yeah I think that assertion is rather insulting to the intellect of people that didn't vote (the majority)

the fact she is a woman is ONLY relevant to Bigot voters that are generally rusted on Republicans anyway. the anti female vote was ALWAYS going to vote trump (or republican at least) I doubt it had much to do with the Potential Dem voters decision not to vote.

Or are you saying democrats are sexist?
Remember she lost because LESS democrats voted for her than Obama, Trump got the same number of votes as Romney but since less people voted overall it was enough to win.. Likely the average Republican would have voted for any white male but Liberal voters are generally more savvy than that.

The reality is Dems lose elections by failing to mobilize 'the reasonable majority' the Republicans don't win them, if you look they get similar numbers in the last 3 elections but the 'optional voter' that only votes for candidates the believe in put the Dems over the line when they win as was the case with Obama. And I think the idea that being a woman is as much an impediment in politics as being black ridiculous. She was just never up to Obama standard and the 'optional voter' wanted someone better than Obama.

it is a shame that McCain was not the old white man running for the Republicans against Hillary, at least he was sane and reasonable.

veya_victaous wrote:And from What I hear Warren would probably win comfortably. she doesn't have the  log list of scandals that plagued Hillary.
The biggest Problem with the Dems Campaign is the fact I based too much on Hillary being a woman, like that was all she had to offer. that is aiming for the simpleton vote and that is generally republican

The Devil, You Know wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Yeah I think that assertion is rather insulting to the intellect of people that didn't vote (the majority)

the fact she is a woman is ONLY relevant to Bigot voters that are generally rusted on Republicans anyway. the anti female vote was ALWAYS going to vote trump (or republican at least) I doubt it had much to do with the Potential Dem voters decision not to vote.

Or are you saying democrats are sexist?
Remember she lost because LESS democrats voted for her than Obama, Trump got the same number of votes as Romney but since less people voted overall it was enough to win.. Likely the average Republican would have voted for any white male but Liberal voters are generally more savvy than that.

The reality is Dems lose elections by failing to mobilize 'the reasonable majority' the Republicans don't win them, if you look they get similar numbers in the last 3 elections but the 'optional voter' that only votes for candidates the believe in put the Dems over the line when they win as was the case with Obama. And I think the idea that being a woman is as much an impediment in politics as being black ridiculous. She was just never up to Obama standard and the 'optional voter' wanted someone better than Obama.

it is a shame that McCain was not the old white man running for the Republicans against Hillary, at least he was sane and reasonable.

small point but 54% of women who voted voted for trump.,

Deean wrote:yes america ignored hilliary in droves because she was an old boot. not because she was totally unsuited to the post of president. Well at least it was not because of the russians this time.

since the clintons came to public prominence, criminality has followed them round like a bad smell.

the woman is self serving and has been desperate to be president since bill was in power, for no other reason than she felt that it was her right. america quite rightly saw through that, and to everyone's surprise would rather have trump.  that is the most delicious of ironies and makes me smile every time I see a snowflakes tear.

54% of women voted for trump

Phil shiner wrote:

Deean wrote:yes america ignored hilliary in droves because she was an old boot. not because she was totally unsuited to the post of president. Well at least it was not because of the russians this time.

since the clintons came to public prominence, criminality has followed them round like a bad smell.

the woman is self serving and has been desperate to be president since bill was in power, for no other reason than she felt that it was her right. america quite rightly saw through that, and to everyone's surprise would rather have trump.  that is the most delicious of ironies and makes me smile every time I see a snowflakes tear.

54% of women voted for trump

@eddie: Do you see how easy it is to malign older women?  Absolutely no proof necessary.  Remember, I said the allegations are a “maypole”… no proof needed.  It’s a script, not a scientific statement.

I've emboldened the relevant passages.  Now let's interpret the script for all the code words:

Old boot = Worn out sex object.  
Unsuited = Should’ve been barefoot & pregnant, stay in the kitchen.  
Criminality = Manipulative old bat.  
Bad smell = Menopausal odor.
Self-serving = Lost youthful beauty...reduced to manipulative tactics.
Desperate = All old women are desperate (who hasn't heard that).  
Her right = Vindictive and bitter.  
Rather have Trump = “Men acquire the aura of command and wisdom with age, while women lose it.”
54% of women voted for trump = result.

Dean just illustrated the coded message for you.  Do you see how the portrait they painted worked.  A woman is looked up to in society for the first 10-years...FACT (not value).  After that, she's easy prey to be sliced and diced.

Warren is a beautiful, mature woman with an outstanding mind.  But you see for yourself what a con job Republicans will do with just the standard scripts about older women.  Politics is a vicious game, and the opposition will do a number on anyone who walks before the firing squad.

nicko wrote:Why are you so nasty Wolfie, don't you know your doing it?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
small point but 54% of women who voted voted for trump.,

The bigger question should be :

How come more than half of the potential female voters, couldn't be bothered to actually vote ?

Just another good reason why voting should be compulsory..

But then, anti-democracy people like you, DYKhead, don't want too many people voting, do you..

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:Why are you so nasty Wolfie, don't you know your doing it?

What is wrong with his point, nicko?  I think it's well-taken.