Some girls are bigger than others

As Kay noted below, Professor Goddess Senator Elizabeth Warren’s address at Netroots Painfully Sincere-stock went over boffo, like gangbusters, sky rockets in flight, afternoon delight. This of course was to be expected because, for progressives, her words are like meth in a candy dish at a Very Palin Christmas.

Of particular note was what some might call crazy talk that she made about trade deals:

“These trade deals,” she said, “are done in secret so big corporations can do their dirty work behind closed doors, so they can have their insider access while worker’s rights and environmental regulations are gutted. You know, I’ve actually had people who support these trade deals come up to me and say that they have to be done in secret because, if they weren’t, the people would be opposed. To me, if people would be opposed, then we shouldn’t do the trade deals.”

Multinational blasphemy!

Needless to say, she hit all the right notes at #NN14 and the “Run, Elizabeth, run,” murmur has been upgraded to a dull roar in the distance, helped in no small part by a few on the right for reasons that should be readily apparent. I love Elizabeth Warren with a love that surpasseth all understanding, but my vote belongs to Hillary because, while I may be a fool for love, I’m an even bigger fool for winning.  I am well that The Inevitable Hillary Clinton flamed out in 2008; the victim of the one-two punch of running into dazzling urbanite Barack Obama, and not running away screaming from that living embodiment of wrong known as Mark Penn.

There doesn’t appear to be another Obama lined up this year and, if Hillary learned anything after 2008, she’ll invite Penn to a ‘strategy meeting’ in Fort Marcy Park … and then come home alone, if you know what I mean.

As for Warren, I have better plans for her in my Fantasy Administration League.

While the Presidency certainly has it’s perks (drones, lawbreaking, golf!), the real seat of power with the ability to change the course of This Great American Experiment is one of nine on the Supreme Court.  With more than a few Justices refraining from buying green bananas (Ginsburg 81, Scalia 78, Kennedy 77, and Breyer 75),  two to four seats  could open up during Clinton II: Rise of The Hillarybeast.

Think of Warren as the anti-venom for John Roberts’ snake-oil legal shimmying in the service of the corporations upon whom he has bestowed person-hood.

This isn’t to say that Warren would breeze her way onto the Tap-Tap No Erasies Highest Court of the Land via a simple Senate vote when you’ve got GOP senators who would vote against a cancer cure for their own mothers if they thought Democrats might gain some slight  advantage. But the very public meltdown over such a nice calm well-spoken even-keeled lady who has the ability to take complex arguments and slough off the crap, would make for great political theater with the GOP getting all the bad reviews.

So there you have it, kibitz and argue amongst yourselves in the comments — Jeebus knows that would be a change of pace around here.

And speaking of shimmying, since you guys made SUCH A BIG DEAL about it the other day:


Happy now?

215 replies
  1. 1
    Baud says:

    I’m supporting Bayh/Liberman 2016! myself. Because that’s just the way I troll.

  2. 2
    Janet says:

    yes, I’m happy to see Shakira shimmy again. Oh, and your fancy words are nice too, Mr TBogg. How long before we get more dog action?

  3. 3
    Jewish Steel says:

    Happy in every way. This post ticked all my boxes and scratched all my spots. TMI? TFB.

  4. 4
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Yes, I am happy now.

    Well, mostly.

    Needs bassets.


  5. 5
    Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN) says:

    Okay, world. I admit it. You beat me. You won. I just need to know who I’m supposed to surrender to.

  6. 6
    Davis X. Machina says:

    You’ve lowered the tone of the entire place.

    No, wait, you can’t.

  7. 7
    Suzanne says:


    I leave the country and TBogg shows up.

    I did not think I had been good enough for this.


  8. 8
    Betty Cracker says:

    I want to win too, but first I want a hard-fought primary that has the base as riled up as a sack full of meth-addled ferrets. Sort of like 2008. If none of the anti-Hillarys can knock her out, I will gladly vote for HRC. Warren ain’t running.

  9. 9
    Iowa Old Lady says:

    @Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN): Mama said there’d be days like this.

  10. 10
    gogol's wife says:

    This may get my husband to start “reading” Balloon Juice.

  11. 11
    WereBear says:

    This is what will write your name among the stars, Tbogg-sir!

    Shimmying asses.

  12. 12
    NotMax says:

    Problem the first: labeling them girls. They’re women.

    It may be that the title is a song or pop culture reference. If so, one I don’t recognize, so took it at face value.

  13. 13
    srv says:

    We discovered this week that Bill offered a hotel room key to a second woman at wake I attended with him.

    Surely Liz can find a bimbo eruptor for the Hitlary/Penn II killshot.

  14. 14
    Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN) says:

    @Iowa Old Lady:

    Mama said there’d be days decades like this.

  15. 15
    David Koch says:

    It hard to look at that performance and say she’s not running.

  16. 16
    WereBear says:

    @Betty Cracker: Yeah! Like!

    Work for it.

  17. 17
    gogol's wife says:


    It’s a song by something called The Smiths.

  18. 18
    Amir Khalid says:

    I find that .gif … strangely hypnotic.

    As I was mentioning one thread down, we haven’t heard from Bob in Portland all day. Maybe, as another commenter said, he’s still waiting for HQ to send him the new MH17 talking points. It could be a long wait, as they’ll have to explain this.

  19. 19
    BD of MN says:

    @NotMax: It’s from back when Morrissey could stand to be in the same room as Johnny Marr… I don’t think there’s a music vid…

    edit: If I hadn’t gone to check youtube I would have beaten gogol’s wife to the punch…

  20. 20
    Baud says:

    @David Koch:

    I don’t know. Just because she shakes her ass well doesn’t necessarily mean she wants to be president.

  21. 21
    Citizen_X says:

    Happy now?

    John who?

  22. 22
    Trollhattan says:

    Welp, since the celebration has commenced then it must be Friday night, even measured in left coast time (checks around over cube wall for da boss).

    Nice to see our future Latina Front Pagah’s preview GIF, also, too.

  23. 23
  24. 24
    Elizabelle says:

    Please explain to me why Elizabeth Warren would not connect with voters out on the hustings, while Hillary would?

    Because I think it’s the other way around. I would be SO much more enthusiastic about Warren-Clinton. And I am not as liberal as most of the rest of you.

    Cruising through the NYT reader comments on their story about the new libtard messiah, E Warren: lots of putdowns about being a one-issue person (not) and having no foreign policy experience (which, as we know, made GW Bush utterly unelectable).

    How do Warren’s issues — the game being rigged, the two-income trap, real economic security for families and individuals with fair pay and quality healthcare — NOT connect with the average voter?

    And maybe even your disaffected white working class Reagan Democrat, if they give a fair listen? Warren speaks simply and eloquently.

    I don’t like the “all eggs in Hillary’s basket because she’s electable and no other Democrat is” approach. I think the actual danger lies THERE.

    Hillary flames out, where do you go then?

  25. 25
    A Humble Lurker says:

    I am well are that The Inevitable Hillary Clinton flamed out in 2008; the victim of the one-two punch of running into dazzling urbanite Barack Obama, and not running away screaming from that living embodiment of wrong known as Mark Penn.

    Just quoting for truth. I’m not as optimistic that Clinton’s learned her lessons from ’08 and the Republicans are quite likely going to be even crazier by 2016 than they are now. And while there doesn’t appear to be another Obama lined up, there didn’t appear to be an Obama lined up last time either. Hilary and Giuliani, remember? Not to mention, all this ‘it has to be her or a Republican’ talk does not reflect well on her. That’s a mighty low bar, methinks.

    What I’m trying to say is I’m not putting all my eggs in Hilary’s basket. Not for a while, anyway.

  26. 26
    Fred Fnord says:

    I’m sorry, but… you think CLINTON would nominate WARREN to the Supreme Court?


    I’m no reflexive Clinton-hater — I won’t even have to hold my nose in order to vote for her — but this kind of thinking is just masturbatory fantasies. Clinton will not nominate someone to the SC who is very far to the right of her on economic matters at all, she will be very careful about that. But she will be much more careful about not nominating anyone who is even a smidgen to the left of her.

  27. 27
    gogol's wife says:

    @Amir Khalid:

    Stomach-turning. But I liked this: “In Washington, Obama called for a full, impartial investigation and said the tragedy should cause people to ‘snap their heads together’ and stop playing games in Ukraine. In veiled criticism of the lack of European support for US-led economic sanctions against Russia, Obama said the loss of so many European lives should serve as a ‘wake-up call’ for Europe.”

  28. 28
    Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN) says:


    Problem the first: labeling them girls. They’re women.

    They’re both. The word “girls” has taken on a second meaning. In the context of the title, its male counterpart is not “boys,” and it’s not distinct from “women” by the subjects’ age; rather, it’s the the counterpart of “guys” and it’s distinct from “women” by the casualness of it.

    I spend a lot of time listening to female athletes, hyper-competitive people who are not at all inclined to diminish themselves. The word they use to describe themselves is “girls.” It’s gotten to the point where making an issue of people referring to them in the manner that they have chosen for themselves is far more condescending than the insistence on a narrow definition of the word “girls.”

    Choose not to use it in that manner yourself if you like; I don’t use it that way very often myself and still get a bit uncomfortable with it, but that’s on me. As a subject for arguing, just drop it.

  29. 29
    SatanicPanic says:

    @Baud: That’s a bit too far left for me. I’m supporting Zell Miller/Ben Nelson

  30. 30
    Roger Moore says:

    @Amir Khalid:

    As I was mentioning one thread down, we haven’t heard from Bob in Portland all day. Maybe, as another commenter said, he’s still waiting for HQ to send him the new MH17 talking points.

    When the new talking points are available, I’m sure Bob in Baghdad will be back to share them with us, whether we want them or not. I’m guessing they’ll be completely inconsistent with yesterday’s talking points, but that pointing this out will have no effect.

  31. 31
    R. Johnston says:

    Sadly, Elizabeth Warren is 15-20 years too old for a Supreme Court Appointment and would only be older by the time a position opened–45 to 50 is about the target age range for appointments, maybe a few years older for an exceptional candidate like Warren, but definitely not 65+. However, Warren would make a kick-ass Attorney General.

  32. 32
    srv says:

    @Amir Khalid: Pottery Barn Rule.

    Obama & Merkel broke the existing regime, they owns it.

  33. 33
    Trollhattan says:

    @Roger Moore:
    His firmware update done broke the server when the USB cable shorted.


  34. 34
    Mike E says:

    @David Koch: These hips don’t lie!

  35. 35
    Linda Featheringill says:

    Yaaay TBogg!

    Welcome to our humble blog.

  36. 36
    kc says:

    It’s fun to have tbogg here, so I can comment on his posts without registering.

    I kind of wish Patterico would show up and “out” him, just for old times’ sake.

  37. 37
    srv says:

    @Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN): Actually, they’re just guys.

    Blame Rita Moreno.

  38. 38
    Elizabelle says:

    Here’s the NYTimes article, and check out the reader comments.

    Mind you, most are quite favorable towards Warren.

    But the naysayers throw out the “not electable, no experience” argument and I am not sure about either.

    “…Progressives like Mrs. Clinton (and think she can win). But they love Ms. Warren (even if they are not sure she can).

    … “Run, Liz, run!” the crowd chanted as the senator took the stage for her morning talk. Ms. Warren tried to shush them, waving her arms and admonishing them like the teacher she once was: “Sit down, people. Come on, let’s get started.” Then she opened the sort of blistering populist assault on corporations, Republicans, banks, lobbyists and trade deals that has become her trademark.

    “They cheated American families, crashed the economy, got bailed out, and now the biggest banks are even bigger than they were when they got too big to fail in 2008!” Ms. Warren thundered, in one of her many applause lines. “A kid gets caught with a few ounces of pot and goes to jail, but a big bank launders drug money and no one gets arrested. The game is rigged!”

    She went on: “Billionaires pay taxes at lower rates than their secretaries. How does this happen? It happens because they all have lobbyists. Lobbyist and Republican friends in Congress. Lobbyists and Republicans to protect every loophole and every privilege. The game is rigged, and it isn’t right!”

    … Speaking before Ms. Warren’s talk, Alyssa Aguilera, 27, a community organizer in New York, said, “I think Hillary has a better chance of beating a Republican, but I think Elizabeth Warren is a better progressive.” After hearing Ms. Warren, Ms. Aguilera said, “I’m ready for Warren!”

    Hillary is going to spend months upon months explaining “dead broke” on leaving the White House, which does not mean to her what it does to her fellow citizens.

    (ETA: and her daughter raked in $600,000 plus with a cushy almost no-show network news gig, and allegedly $75,000 a speech. The Clintons’ daughter. How well will that play?)

    Warren may choose not to run, but I think she would connect on the campaign trail, that she’d use that teacher training in debates with her addled GOP opponent, and I think she could win.

    Consider the Republican that is going to emerge as nominee after tangling with “the base” for months. What planet will that creature hail from?

    Who thought Barack Obama could win in 2006?

  39. 39
    COB says:

    BJ is a great website, but I always thought it could use more Shakira and more bassets. Thanks for taking the lead on that TBogg.

  40. 40
    piratedan says:

    just happy to have another elected official out there talking about who has the money, how they have it and why they are apparently unhappy that they don’t have all of it!

  41. 41
    Trollhattan says:

    Jerry messes with some ammosexual heads.

    Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a gun control measure eliminating an exemption for certain semiautomatic pistols from California’s unsafe handgun law, Brown’s office announced Friday.

    Assembly Bill 1964, by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, is designed to limit the exemption for single-shot pistols from the state’s unsafe handgun roster, excluding semiautomatic pistols altered to not fire in semiautomatic mode.

    Gun control advocates argued the exemption allowed gun dealers to sell temporarily altered single-shot pistols to people who could convert them back into semiautomatic weapons that do not comply with state safety requirements.

    The California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, which opposed the bill, said it will “further narrow California’s already onerous and overly burdensome ‘not unsafe’ handgun roster and eliminate more firearms from the non-peace officer marketplace,” according to a legislative analysis.

    Read more here:

    I feel bad for the “non-peace officer marketplace.” (They’ll keep torturing the language until it’s completely dead.)

  42. 42
    Crazy Neighbor Lady says:

    Just a minor nit to pick – that move is not a shimmy. It’s a vertical figure 8, also known as a Maya. Fairly difficult, but beautiful belly dance move once mastered. Really glad to see TBogg here. He and John have been favorites of mine for years. And Professor Senator Elizabeth Warren is, indeed, a goddess.

  43. 43
    Joe Buck says:

    Fred Fnord has it right. Hillary would never name Elizabeth Warren to the Supreme Court, and she will staff her administration with Wall Street revolving-door folks. She’s to Obama’s right on foreign policy; she’s pratically a neocon.

  44. 44
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Roger Moore: Yesterday’s talking points are, of course, inoperative.

    He was going on and on and forever about the Gulf of Tonkin, WMDs, and the sinking of the Maine.

    Meanwhile, the brave anti-fascists are busy trying to clean up all the incriminating evidence in the sunflower fields.

  45. 45
    David Koch says:

    Dozens lined up to get signed copies of her new book, “A Fighting Chance.” (Some said they had no interest in Mrs. Clinton’s recent memoir, “Hard Choices.” “Who wrote that?” one man asked.)

    Yeah, man! If Hillary wants our vote she should ask for it! Just like Biden and Warren did, man! And if Whoary isn’t will’n to come here in person and ask me for my vote, then I’m not voting for her, man!




  46. 46
    Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN) says:


    Actually, they’re just guys.

    Yeah, that was the alternative I pushed for. I tried my best to keep “girls” from becoming the casual form of address in favor of making “guys” the proper term for both genders. I tried hard.

    But when you’ve had an All-American defenseman* who could kick your ass look at you funny when you refer to her team as “the guys” and pointedly respond by talking about “the girls,” it means you lost that fight. It’s over.

    *And, yes, “defenseman” is still the proper term when discussing women’s ice hockey. Don’t ask me how these decisions get made.

  47. 47
    Roger Moore says:


    They’ll keep torturing using enhanced interrogation techniques on the language until it’s completely dead.


  48. 48
    different-church-lady says:

    Well, you settled into trolling the BJ commentariat in rather an efficient manner.

    There is yet another reason you’ll be voting for Clinton instead of Warren: Warren isn’t running.

  49. 49
    Pogonip says:

    That’s not a shimmy, at least not as belly dancers use the word. To us, a shimmy is a fast jiggling motion; shimmying the hips is easily done by wiggling your thighs back and forth. As you build strength, the shimmying hips can be moved from left to right and back again; this is a traveling shimmy.

    I can’t remember who said it, but the best description of the basic shimmy I’ve ever heard was that it looks like ” a plate of jello on top of a vibrator.”. That’s not what the performer in your video is doing.

  50. 50
    SixStringFanatic says:

    Actually, I think Elizabeth Warren would be really good in the Senate, where she is now. As a SCOTUS justice, she probably wouldn’t feel right making most of the appearances that she makes now and as AG, she would have, at most, 8 years to get anything done. In the Senate, she can serve for as long as she wants, provided she gets re-elected (and good luck running a Repub against her in Massachusetts), she can campaign for other Democrats, as part of the legislative process she can have a greater effect on a wider range of subjects and she gets to be involved in those Senate hearings where she directs very informative and quite discomforting questions at rich assholes and their lobbyists. I like her right where she is and am holding out hope that she will get a larger role in Senate leadership in future years.
    None of that fits on a bumper sticker or sets hearts aflutter so I’m probably wrong.

  51. 51
    NotMax says:

    @Tom (TBogg) Boggioni

    Thanks, but am more confoozed (pace Abner Yokum) than before now that am aware it’s about a female impersonator*.

    Regardless, have heard the tune and the reference is filed away in its proper pigeonhole. Apparently am the only geezer here who never stumbled across that song before.

    *Albeit a gifted one, who had the misfortune to die just as the big crossover breakout role to general audience recognition was about to commence (playing Peg Bundy’s mother on Married With Children).

    Back on topic, does not HRC’s being 69 come Inauguration Day 2017 not give even just a moment’s reticence?

  52. 52
    Curtis24 says:

    I like Warren on the Senate Banking committee (preferably as chair) far more than I’d like her as President.

  53. 53
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @different-church-lady: This is one of the major differences between Democrats and Rethugs.

    Democrats won’t vote for someone who isn’t running.

    Rethugs will vote for the shitty grade Z movie star even though he’s dead.

  54. 54
    Mike J says:

    I don’t want anybody older than Malia Obama nominated for the Supreme Court.

  55. 55
    RSR says:

    Wait, TBOgg mastered posting gifs on his second (third?) day? Kudos, Kang and Kodos.

  56. 56
    2liberal says:

    shakira shaking it is good, however IMHO the GIF should have been below the fold, with a trigger warning.

    Good to hear from you again.

  57. 57
    Joe Buck says:

    By the way, good job with the hippie-punching. Even if you support Hillary, don’t you “serious” Democrats get that these kinds of insults just demoralize the base?

    Meanwhile, Prof. Warren is touring the purple and even red states helping to elect Democrats in 2014, and she seems to be going over very well. She’s certainly acting like she’s at least considering a run, and I hope that she does.

  58. 58

    @Joe Buck: I do too and also hope that she can break the Massachusetts curse. I don’t want her to join Dukakis, Kerry and Romney.

  59. 59
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    “If it looks like Kremlin shit, smells like Kremlin shit, and tastes like Kremlin shit too — then it’s Kremlin shit.”

    I believe we’ve got BiP summed up in a nutshell here.

  60. 60
    James E. Powell says:


    I don’t like the “all eggs in Hillary’s basket because she’s electable and no other Democrat is” approach. I think the actual danger lies THERE.

    Totally agree. I don’t think Warren’s the One, but could be convinced. I don’t have another candidate.

    Does Sherrod Brown have “unelectable” cooties of which we are not aware?

  61. 61
    Emma says:

    Am I the only one who thinks that Elizabeth Warren could position herself to be the next great Senator? Enough seniority and some good bills passed and she could be an incredible power in the Senate.

  62. 62
    Litlebritdifrnt says:

    I am well are that The Inevitable Hillary Clinton flamed out in 2008; the victim of the one-two punch of running into dazzling urbanite Barack Obama, and not running away screaming from that living embodiment of wrong known as Mark Penn.

    That is the one thing that made me think that Hillary wasn’t ready for prime time, she chose her staff so poorly. Obama surrounded himself with possibly the most brilliant political staff in history, Hillary surrounded herself with a buffoonish staff that couldn’t even figure out how the primary system worked. What truly amazed me was that she was still in debt to Penn years after the campaign, how the idiot had the absolute gall to bill her millions for the worst advice in campaign history truly boggles the mind and the fact that she felt obliged to pay it boggles it twice. If I were her I would have told him that he was on a contingency basis, he got paid for each primary he won for her. As it turned out he would have ended up owing her money.

  63. 63
  64. 64
    bemused says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    Ain’t that the truth! They give a whole new meaning to no standards.

  65. 65
    NotMax says:

    @Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)

    Not arguing, just querying (and learned something by doing so). As it happens, know several females involved in roller derby and they collectively refer to themselves as gals, not girls. Not that the latter is verboten, just that haven’t come across it in that context much, personally.


    And then there’s sister Kate.

  66. 66
    Baud says:

    Warren’s true calling is Balloon Juice front pager.

  67. 67
    David Koch says:

    @Joe Buck: seriously, are your fee-fees that tender? the base is so dainty they wilt over just words? Here, lemme getcha some pearls to clutch and a fainting couch. so much for the vaunted blogosphere being tough, courageous, virtual street fighters.

  68. 68
    scav says:

    @Mike J: It’s a trade-off. Nominate them them too young and if they grow out of one phase into a twisted other — especially when exposed to a twisted, privileged bubble — well then you’re stuck with them for a long long long time. I’d prefer a little hard-life polishing in the rough and tumble before setting them into the ring for a lifetime.

  69. 69
    kc says:


    Am I the only one who thinks that Elizabeth Warren could position herself to be the next great Senator?

    Nope, you’re definitely not.

    Though the Senate itself is such a worthless body I’m not sure how much good anyone could do there.

  70. 70
    James E. Powell says:

    @Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN):

    I’m from Cleveland O, so maybe it’s just region (or class), but more often than not I’ve heard people, male or female, refer to any group of people of any sex or sexual orientation as “guys” – What do you guys want on the pizza? – What are you guys doing this weekend? – You guys need to settle down! – and other similar statements.

  71. 71
    Bobby Thomson says:

    Praise be to Shakira’s ass.

  72. 72
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Amir Khalid: He’s over at BooMan’s joint. The Frogpond is more congenial — less push-back, and a couple of fans.

    Higgs Bosons Mate was over there as well this noontime…

  73. 73
    David Koch says:


    There is yet another reason you’ll be voting for Clinton instead of Warren: Warren isn’t running.

    Honestly, there’s a 50-50 chance she runs, even with Clinton running. And if for some unforeseen reason Clinton doesn’t run, then there’s a 100% chance of her running.

    I know she insists she’s not running, but those are just words. Also too, they all say that. RFK, LBJ, Clinton, Obama all insisted they weren’t running up to the moment they ran.

  74. 74
    David Koch says:

    @Baud: not sure about that. there’s no evidence of her owning a lovable obese cat.

  75. 75
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @David Koch: I’ve been working on the remake. Everyone’s 35 years older, the robbery is to pay for hip replacement surgery, and Al Pacino leads the crowds in chants of “Sciatica! Sciatica!”

  76. 76
    Litlebritdifrnt says:

    I have a dream that RBG retires about six weeks prior to the end of Barack’s presidency and he nominates Michelle to replace her. The absolute bug fuck lunacy that would ensue would be worth millions in popcorn shares. It of course would be a bonus if Hillary became POTUS and then nominated Warren when Fat Tony shuffles off this mortal coil. (Although statistically Thomas is more likely to go first)

  77. 77
    2liberal says:

    @David Koch:

    I know she insists she’s not running, but those are just words. Also too, they all say that. RFK, LBJ, Clinton, Obama all insisted they weren’t running up to the moment they ran.

    You’re leaving out the much longer list of people who insisted they weren’t running, who in fact did not run.

  78. 78
    Donut says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    Yeah, this, pretty much.

    I am supportive of, but not yet a full-fledged supporter of, Clinton.

    Next year I hope someone else who, like Obama, has a heart that beats clearly and loudly from the left, will make a real go of it. We need to have a Democrstic conversation about what we really value, and we need someone to speak up for average Democrats. Obama outclassed Clinton on that front, and sure, he won the nomination in 2008 for a bunch of reasons, but one of the biggest ones is that he excited, really fucking excited, the largest interest groups that make up our party. The Democratic side needs to air out some stuff in public with Clinton about how we plan to deal with the shit that just wont get done by Jan. 2017.

    But really, I can’t say I’ll be disappointed voting for Clinton. Kinda relishing it, actually, the more I think about it.

  79. 79
    smith says:

    @James E. Powell: I’ve often wondered the same thing about Sherrod Brown — he’s decidedly progressive, and has managed to get elected and reelected from a swing state. Maybe Kay could enlighten us…

  80. 80
    WereBear says:

    @Emma: You’re not the only one. Which is why she is wasted in other roles; she’s doing exactly what she should be doing.

    There’s not a lot of people who can get a crowd fired up. Leave out the ones who are preaching hate and embracing sociopathy as a virtue, and there’s even fewer.

  81. 81

    I wouldn’t underestimate Warren’s chances of winning. She hits a lot of high notes in places where Democrats often struggle.

  82. 82
    Cervantes says:

    As for Warren, I have better plans for her in my Fantasy Administration League.

    As a Supreme Court Justice, Warren would not be part of of the Administration, of course. Not officially, anyway!

    There is also the argument that she’s too old to be appointed, but I’m not sure about that. For me, even if we could get only ten years out of her on the bench, daiyenu. Unless, of course, the Republicans succeed in disenfranchising us all and take the White House again — in which case … oops.

  83. 83
    David Koch says:

    I’m surprised that Elizabeth Warren didn’t use such a high profile appearance to reveal her positions on whether she would pardon Snowden and Manning, halt NSA’s telephone metadata, and whether she would disband the CIA, defund Israel, and turn the Dronez into ploughshares.

    Shame that she missed such a great opportunity to reveal her views on such cutting issues.

  84. 84
    rda909 says:

    Senator Warren is by far the best choice for the next President, with Martin O’Malley a close second. Hillary will never win a national election. She’s freakishly robotic and insincere, and if democrats such as you, and the media owners such as Rupert Murdoch who hold fundraisers for her, succeed in anointing her to the nom, then you will be responsible for electing a Republican as our next president. It’s that simple.

  85. 85
    SatanicPanic says:

    @David Koch: No different than Bush!

  86. 86
    Cervantes says:

    @Joe Buck: Life is challenging. Do not allow yourself to be so easily demoralized.

    Thanks for your comment.

  87. 87
    Keith G says:

    It’s great to be non-aligned at this point.

    I look forward to seeing which person has the willingness, ability, and desire to champion left of center causes as the Democratic nominee. I will gladly vote for that person.


    @Joe Buck:

    By the way, good job with the hippie-punching. Even if you support Hillary, don’t you “serious” Democrats get that these kinds of insults just demoralize the base?

    I have never bought the, “These comment hurt….” arguments. This party and this nation have survived and thrived with worse. Just because you find them irritating does not mean that they harm or dissuade the millions who make up our party.

  88. 88
    Pogonip says:

    @Davis X. Machina: I’m glad to hear he didn’t commit suicide.

    Whoever mentioned Sister Kate (I can’t find it now): I hadn’t seen that in ages!

    If you like belly dance videos, I recommend Veena and Neena, who believe themselves to be the world’s only belly-dancing identical twins. They’re good dancers and you get two for the price of one. Also, Habeeba out of Columbus, Ohio, who must be pushing 70 and is not only still teaching but still performing with her troupe.

  89. 89
    David Koch says:

    Some girls are bigger than others

    I’m tired of sexists like TBogg making sexist wise cracks about Hillary’s weight.

  90. 90
    SatanicPanic says:

    The thing for me is, “who am I gonna back? who will I put my weight behind?” OK. It’s 2014 and even if were 2016, I have the ability to donate, maybe this time I’ll phone bank… my opinion doesn’t mean a whole lot. I don’t feel like I have a ton of influence in who gets nominated (especially since I’m in CA, which IIRC is late in the nominating process), so really, I guess I’ll take whoever everyone else picks.

  91. 91
    BGinCHI says:

    @rda909: Is you for reals??

    Who, pray tell, with a (R) after their name, can beat her?

    I’m breathlessly awaiting your response.

  92. 92
    burnspbesq says:

    This bullshit about trade deals again? C’mon, Senator, you know how this works.

    It’s a TREATY. it requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate for ratification. If you think it’s bad for the American people, all you have to do to kill it is convince 33 of your fellow Senators. If you can’t do that, well, try harder next time.

  93. 93
    rda909 says:

    @rda909: And WTF? I thought the Hillarybot who wrote this stopped blogging. Came out of retirement to put this nonsense into the world?

  94. 94
    Roger Moore says:

    @James E. Powell:
    I think using “guys” to refer to a group of random people only works when it’s either men, mixed, or at least not self-consciously all women. When it’s a group of women who define their group in terms of being women- like a women’s sports team- they often want an explicitly feminine alternative to guys.

  95. 95
    BGinCHI says:

    @burnspbesq: Yeah yeah yeah, but can Sturridge play as a lone striker?

    This is what keeps me up at night.

  96. 96
    A Humble Lurker says:


    If you think it’s bad for the American people, all you have to do to kill it is convince 33 of your fellow Senators.

    A shit load of voters calling said Senators bitching about it would be more effective and convincing than one fellow Senator.

  97. 97
    Roger Moore says:


    Senator Warren is by far the best choice for the next President, with Martin O’Malley a close second.

    If Warren is by far the best choice, whoever is in second can only be a distant second, not a close second./pedant

  98. 98
    rikyrah says:

    Ariz. Mother Who Left Kids in Car During Job Interview Gets Court Deal

    Shanesha Taylor, the mother of two who left her children in the car while interviewing for a job will have to complete parenting and substance-abuse classes, in addition to other prerequisites.

    By: Breanna Edwards
    Posted: July 18 2014 3:41 PM

    Remember Shanesha Taylor, the Arizona mother who was arrested and had her children taken away from her because she left them in the car earlier this year while she tried to interview for a job?

    Well, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery has confirmed that an agreement has been reached with Taylor’s lawyers, saying that the two counts of child abuse will be dropped if Taylor meets certain terms and conditions, the Arizona Republic reports.

    According to the news site, Taylor will have to “complete parenting and substance-abuse classes,” as well as begin separate “education and child-care trusts” for her three kids. The education trusts must hold no less than $10,000.

    When asked if she accepted the terms, Taylor told Judge Joseph Welty, “Yes, your honor.”

    “Based on all the facts and circumstances in this matter, we believe this agreement represents a just resolution that appropriately holds the defendant accountable for her actions while also recognizing the best interests of her family,” Montgomery said in a statement, according to the Republic. “The stipulations of this agreement also ensure that pledges of support from members of the public will have a meaningful and positive impact,” he added.

  99. 99
    Kay says:

    @David Koch:

    Warren is valuable campaigning alongside other Democrats.

    Gary Peters introduced her in Detroit (and gave his own very populist speech) and she also did a fundraiser for him after her speech.

  100. 100
    David Koch says:

    Mrs. Clinton declined an invitation to speak, organizers said.

    But while Mrs. Clinton was absent, Ready for Hillary was hard at work here, trying to expand its ever-growing email list. The group paid $10,000 to be a sponsor of the conference, conducted a panel discussion and planned a party for attendees. And the group showcased its blue and white star-spangled bus.

    “In lieu of having a candidate — for now — we have a bus,” said Tracy Sefl, the group’s spokeswoman.

    Uh-oh. Looks like Hillary hired Romney’s failed brain trust.

  101. 101
    rikyrah says:

    Florida Barbershop Promotes Literacy by Giving Books to Its Young Customers

    A barbershop owner is using books to combat poor graduation rates and violence among young black men in his community.

    By: Taryn Finley
    Posted: July 17 2014 10:35 AM

    Your local barbershop probably consists of televisions broadcasting ESPN, animated banter on almost any subject and music to match the vibe of the shop. The only literature you would expect to find is a magazine. A Palm Beach County, Fla., barbershop is altering this traditional view of barbershops by taking away the TVs and radios and adding a library of books.

    Reggie Ross, the owner of Royal Touch Barbershop, is promoting literacy by asking his young customers to read one of the books he provides while they wait to get their hair cut. Ross extends the option for children to continue reading the book during their haircut. He even asks them to read aloud to him and sparks discussions with them about the book.

    According to a South Florida Times reporter, Juan Diasgranados, Ross began this initiative to dispel the negative stereotype that black men don’t read. He began bringing books from his home into the shop and has expanded his shop’s library ever since.

  102. 102
    Doc Sportello says:

    God, that’s good writing. Only a half-notch below “Jenna and Not Jenna.”

  103. 103
    jc says:

    I’m a fan of substance, hence I’m a fan of Eliz. Warren. Sometimes when HRC speaks, as she did to Jon Stewart re: the Cold War, I end up wondering quite what she meant. Warren is crystal clear and I’m in full agreement with her.

  104. 104
    gogol's wife says:


    There’s an excellent parody of her in this month’s Vanity Fair in that regard.

  105. 105
    sempronia says:

    Too bad Uncle Joe is even older than Hillary. Even so, I’d be very happy to support Biden/Warren 2016!

  106. 106
    Cassidy says:

    @rikyrah: Well maybe she’d have some money to put into that trust if she hadn’t been screwed out of a job for the crime of being black.

  107. 107
    chelsea530 says:

    Love you more, TBogg, if that’s possible.

  108. 108
    SiubhanDuinne says:


    First I’ve heard about substance abuse being an issue in this situation. Did I miss something, or…. ?

  109. 109
    rda909 says:

    @BGinCHI: All of them, Charlie. With the media’s covering for him every step of the way, Rmoney got around 47% of the vote despite many massive FAILs on the campaign trail, and against one of the most successful Presidents of all time. They will provide the cover again for any Republican who gets the nomination, and with Hillary being a terrible, just gawd awful campaigner, it’ll be a disaster. Hillary is a non-starter. Why do think Rupert Murdoch has held multiple fundraising events for her? He certainly never has for President Obama or Senator Warren.

  110. 110
    jl says:

    IMHO, they have to be done in secret because most traditional trade barriers are very low by historical standards. Nothing need be done in secret if the deal benefits all, or benefits enough people well enough that that they can pay some decent sum to the losers who must adjust.

    But, a lot of the current trade deals are about restraint of trade (expanded patent and copyright protections), or schemes to restrain supply (say, world supply of MDs), or to make US TBTF bank acquisitions of foreign capital very cheap, or impose insanely generous corporate investment and ‘I didn’t make as much money as I expected’ insurance. These deals really have little to do with free trade in the old fashioned sense. These deals are more about grabbing more of the pie (that may actually be made smaller by the deal) than making it bigger and sharing a little of the increase. So, secrecy all the way from negotiations to passage (fast track) become more important.

    Also, a certain breed of policy economist who can’t do much more than mouth buzz words can scream about “free trade!!”

  111. 111
    SamR says:

    You had me at dazzling urbanite.

  112. 112
    Kay says:

    @David Koch:

    We made fun of the Romney bus (well, I did and I insisted others also make fun of it) but Romney had four empty buses and that was a presidential campaign and the only reason he did it was he had to pretend Michigan was in play.

    I still think this it’s mean to make fun of this bus (which is really more like a giant camper). None of them are going to announce they’re running prior to the midterms. There’s nothing unique about Clinton waiting.

    If she runs and they keep the empty bus strategy then we can make fun of it :)

  113. 113
    Cassidy says:

    @rda909: I wouldn’t go that far. Hillary will triangulate and fuck up her way into the White House. Fortunately, she’ll be running against a jam packed clown car of right wing dildos who have nowhere near the amount of discipline required to not open their mouths and tell people what they’re really thinking.

  114. 114
    rda909 says:

    @rda909: er, uh, “Katie” that is.

  115. 115
    Keith G says:

    @David Koch:

    I know she insists she’s not running, but those are just words. Also too, they all say that. RFK, LBJ, Clinton, Obama all insisted they weren’t running up to the moment they ran.

    The enterprise of running to be elected President of the United States is among the most difficult and complex tasks that a person can undertake. Those who have been successful have made a career out of it for several years (if not longer) before the actual run, Besides an overflowing ego, the determined candidates-to-be can be identified by the cadre of advisors, strategists, and most importantly, funders whom they reach out to and seem to “collect” many years in advance – even if they hadn’t verbalized their decision to run in a particular year.

    Good god I like Sen. Warren and her message. I have not seen her display any of the eagerness for the task, nor any of the reaching out and collecting talent needed to advise the preliminary moves.

    Running is not a casual choice. Presently, it is just too hard and costs way too much money. While the acclaim of the liberal partisans (of which I am one) could carry the Senator for a while, I do not see her putting together the enterprise that she would need to successfully finish the job. Until I do, and it should be happening now-ish, I don’t think she is enthused about running.

  116. 116
    jl says:

    @Kay: If HRC is really the shoe in, then we have to hope for the best. The best looks none to good right now. Al least she didn’t waste money on 4 buses, and I think reasonable to assume more fun will be had on that one bus. (Edit: who knows, Big Dawg might throw a few vegan parties)

    But, I don’t think anyone has a guarantee, and hope for a good constructive competitive primary like in 2008. I guess that is my hope.

  117. 117
    kc says:


    Hillary is going to spend months upon months explaining “dead broke” on leaving the White House, which does not mean to her what it does to her fellow citizens.

    It was a dumb thing for her to say. It’d be even dumber to spend months upon months talking about it.

  118. 118
    Mike in dc says:

    I don’t think Warren is all that unelectable, frankly. She’s more electable than some of the previous nominees.

  119. 119
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @rda909: This may surprise you, but there is a world beyond Firedoglake.

  120. 120
    Elizabelle says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    but first I want a hard-fought primary that has the base as riled up as a sack full of meth-addled ferrets.

    I do like Miss Cracker’s writin’ and imagery.

  121. 121
    Joe Bauers says:

    “…if Hillary learned anything after 2008…”

    I think we’re done here.

  122. 122
    Shana says:

    @Cassidy: That part took me aback a little too. Once I read to the end of the article though I got the sense that the money came from folks who may have donated after this hit the interwebs.

  123. 123
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @Keith G:

    Running is not a casual choice. Presently, it is just too hard and costs way too much money. While the acclaim of the liberal partisans (of which I am one) could carry the Senator for a while, I do not see her putting together the enterprise that she would need to successfully finish the job. Until I do, and it should be happening now-ish, I don’t think she is enthused about running.

    Yep. Anyone who isn’t running right now isn’t running next year, either.

  124. 124
    Alexandra says:

    Elizabeth Warren has publicly pledged to serve out her term in the Senate.

  125. 125
    Keith G says:

    @kc: When I watched the Stewart interview I was hoping she would just look back at John, shrug her shoulders and say, “Yup that was stupid. I wanted to make an important point, but my mind went the wrong way with the wrong analogy. Crap happens.”

    The ability to be loose and use self-deprecating humor can be a real plus. Everyone makes mistakes and most of us value those who can admit it. HRC needs to take that to heart.

  126. 126
    Kay says:


    Ready For Hillary are building a list. I think they have some other “fast response” thing going on, “correct the record” or something, but the point of the bus is visibility and list-building. She’ll need that because Obama had those huge rallies to build his list. They were collecting emails and cell phone numbers at those giant Obama rallies.

  127. 127
    Kay says:


    FWIW, I don’t think she’s running. I think she was campaigning for Democrats in the midterms and Peters (MI) specifically.

    I think her appearance there has some value for Congressional Democrats because the overwhelming theme of NN this time was “bottom-up” organizing (so not DC). In that way her speech was a departure from the rest of the convention.

  128. 128
    gocart mozart says:

    I assumed it was from the Stones “Some Girls” but I was wrong, It’s the Smiths.

    From the ice-age to the dole-age
    There is but one concern
    I have just discovered :

    Some girls are bigger than others
    Some girls are bigger than others
    Some girl’s mothers are bigger than
    Other girl’s mothers

  129. 129
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Kay: I’m also reminded of palin’s bus tour around America. Which was just that. The bus touring for appearances without Palin in it most f the time. At the very least, Hilary should make hers a monster bus, with flaming jets and take it to auto shows.

  130. 130
    gocart mozart says:

    @Mike in dc:

    I don’t think Warren is all that unelectable, frankly. She’s more electable than some of the previous nominees.

    I agree, her alleged leftism is the kind of leftism/economic populism that even many conservative can agree with: The system is rigged against the little guy. The rest of her positions are standard issue democratic.

  131. 131
    James E. Powell says:


    I can’t share your confidence. I will never recover from watching the nation go for a corrupt, anti-intellectual who had no known achievements instead of one of the smartest and most decent people to run for president in my lifetime. I know Gore actually won the popular vote and probably won the state of Florida. But GWB was worse than Romney, far worse, and it was so obvious. All it took was a corrupt corporate/press media. Please note that nearly everyone who waged the War on Gore is still on the air. Like the architects of the invasion/occupation of Iraq, they have never admitted they were wrong and they are eager to do it all again. Also too, they hate Hillary Clinton and would have more fun destroying her than they did Al Gore.

  132. 132
    Tom Q says:

    @Betty Cracker: Betty, I know you’re sincere in thinking this, but I must tell you how wrong I think you are about it.

    There’s no disadvantage to a hard-fought battle for the nomination for the party that doesn’t hold the White House (though I don’t think there’s any evidence it helps, either — though I know that was common opinion in ’08). But the entire history of presidential elections since the foundation of the two-party system in 1860 is that a fight within the incumbent party is disastrous for that party’s chances of electing another president. It’s worse, naturally, for an incumbent (see: 1912, 1968, 1976), but generally damaging to even an open seat (as in 1920 and 1952). Alan Lichtman’s Keys to the Presidency system in fact makes it not only a negative key, but one of the two (along with recession during the campaign period) that has invariably proved fatal to a party’s holding the White House.

    On the other hand, parties easily able to settle on successors — Grant in 1868, Taft in ’08, Hoover in ’28, Bush I in ’88 — have a strong record of winning another election (add Gore 2000 to that list, since we know he actually won). For me, one of great things Hillary offers (though unlike many I think she offers alot more as well) is the prospect of a quickly-settled nomination, eliminating that distraction from the list of things that could hobble a campaign.

  133. 133
    rikyrah says:


    Did I miss something, or…. ?

    I don’t think you missed anything. IMO, they planned on railroading this woman until the spotlight came on them, and then they realized, especially within the same week, the story came out about the White Meth head mother who went around the same jurisdiction with her child on top of the car, and no charges were filed. They wanted a way to seem like they were still ‘ tough on crime’, because the truth is that there should be no charges against this woman.

  134. 134
    Alexandra says:


    She’s not running, she’s made it perfectly clear countless times before.

    Not only did she pledge to serve out her term at a press conference last year, she also signed a letter urging Hillary Clinton to run. If that’s not as close to an endorsement as you can have before a primary, then I’m not sure what else it will take to convince some people that they haven’t been paying attention.

  135. 135
    Kay says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    This is me, I have no proof of this, but I honestly think Romney sent those empty buses around Michigan so people would think he was in Michigan. It just seemed so completely Romney to me- to not have a real county by county presence but to create the appearance of one.

    That whole campaign was about them supposedly fooling people but really fooling themselves. Romney didn’t have a single person here in 2012. John McCain had a person here in 2008. A younger, bald tattooed man who spent an afternoon at a community college glowering at me when we were supposed to be informing voters in a nonpartisan and civic-minded manner.

  136. 136
    jl says:

    @Tom Q:

    So, historically speaking, we have to hope HRC has learned how to campaign better. Let’s hope a similar loon show runs on the GOP side as in last two cycles, so it won’t be like she is running against an Obama.

  137. 137
    rikyrah says:


    Am I the only one who thinks that Elizabeth Warren could position herself to be the next great Senator? Enough seniority and some good bills passed and she could be an incredible power in the Senate.

    You are not the only one. I don’t think she’ll run for President, but if she did, I’d support her in a heartbeat.

  138. 138
    Keith G says:

    @Tom Q: I don’t disagree with your data. I am wondering what your thoughts are on a bit of CW which espouses that if HRC runs and clears out the Dem field by March 2016, that leaves her as the sole target for a lot of negative messaging coming from a lot of independent expenditure groups. That’s 7 months (let’s say) of attacks all aimed just at her.

    Meanwhile she will have to think of ways to keep support energized, focused, and mobilized until the convention. And she will lose out on the experience of tuning up her campaign staff and her process.

  139. 139
    SiubhanDuinne says:


    She was given a terrible Hobson’s Choice. She’s forced to agree to substance abuse classes, which on its face implies that she has a substance abuse problem, although there were AFAIK no such allegations. But if she doesn’t sign on to those classes, she gets socked with a couple of counts of child abuse. Sheesh.

    Sometimes I hate this country.

    I am glad that the money raised on her behalf (including a modest donation from me, and I think from several other Juicers) will be put in trust for her kids. That part of the sentence strikes me as sensible and enlightened.

  140. 140
    Kay says:


    I think a liberal bloc in the senate would be really valuable. The only thing that makes Warren slightly less valuable is that she’s a Massachusetts Senator, and one would expect a liberal in that slot. I’m glad she won in Massachusetts but winning Massachusetts by 8 points is just not as impressive as winning a less-blue state, for the Democrat. Of course, the same was true for Clinton in NY.

  141. 141
    Villago Delenda Est says:


    That’s ridiculous even for you.


    (pun not intended, but hey, it works!)

  142. 142
    Mass Independent says:

    Any thinking voter who watches the interview of Hillary Clinton by the Guardian, concerning Edward Snowden, could not possibly vote for this person. I certainly won’t. I’ve learned my lesson with my one vote for Obama and multiple votes for John Kerry. These people care nothing for our privacy, true security or Constitutional rights. I will not be voting Democrat ever again if they keep putting up people like Clinton, Obama and Kerry as candidates:

  143. 143
    SiubhanDuinne says:


    I honestly think Romney sent those empty buses around Michigan so people would think he was in Michigan. It just seemed so completely Romney to me- to not have a real county by county presence but to create the appearance of one.

    Willard Mitt “Potemkin” Romney

  144. 144
    Baud says:


    . I’m glad she won in Massachusetts but winning Massachusetts by 8 points is just not as impressive as winning a less-blue state, for the Democrat.

    Especially in a presidential election year in which Obama won the state by much more.

  145. 145

    There doesn’t appear to be another Obama lined up this year

    1) I’m sure Hillary can sell out the Democratic voters as efficiently as Bill and Barack did.

    2) You do know there are elections in 2014, right, TBogg? Did you know the DNC corporatists are going to blow them, just like usual? No doubt, you and the rest of the leghumpers will blame the hippies, firebaggers, emoproggies, Glenn Greenwald, Ralph Nader, etc. when that happens.

    But none of them are responsible for the fact that Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s gooper pal in FL-27 won’t face any serious opposition, yet again. And that’s just a bit of the DWS-Steve Israel lameness.

    Keep licking boots, someday you’ll get a different result.

  146. 146
    Bobbyk says:

    If Warren runs for President she wins-hands down. So it doesn’t matter if she beats out HRC as the Democratic nominee.

  147. 147
    ⚽️ Martin says:

    THAT is why you should be watching Maddow.

  148. 148
    JPL says:

    @rikyrah: I saw that on She has been keeping a low profile and attending parenting classes, so I’m pleased that the charges will be dropped. I wish her well.

  149. 149
    KG says:

    @efgoldman: never underestimate the ability of an overconfident politician to lose an election they should otherwise win.

    I’d prefer that the Dems not nominate Hillary, and I’d prefer the Republicans not nominate Jeb. Otherwise, at this point I don’t care who runs. But that’s also because I’m an independent these days

  150. 150
    Trentrunner says:

    I’ll probably say this 6,248 times before November 2016 but:

    Jesus tapdancing Christ, Hillary Clinton is a shitty politician.

    Watch the clip with Jon Stewart where she “answers” the question about the meaning of the American example to the younglings today.

    “Dead broke.”

    Bristling with Terri Gross–the “Terri” is short for “terrifying gotcha journalist” to Clinton–when Terri tries to get Hillary to clarify her evolution on gay marriage.

    And that’s just the last month, people.

    Hillary has a spine, she’s a survivor, she’s experienced, she’s tough, but fuck, that woman is a shitty, shitty politician.

  151. 151
    Trentrunner says:

    @KG: Well, the important thing is that you found a way to feel superior to both parties.

  152. 152
    David Koch says:

    My favorite part of Warren’s speech at NN was when the audience started chanting “Rudy… Rudy… Rudy…. Rudy…. Rudy….Rudy….

  153. 153
    Kay says:

    And here’s Peters promoting his appearance with Warren:

  154. 154
    Tom Q says:

    @Keith G: Well, one of the prime theories behind Lichtman’s Keys system is that campaigns don’t play the dominant role people (and the press) believe — that most presidential elections are up or down votes on certain basics regarding the preceding four years. The elections I’ve watched since reading his book have all played out as the system predicted, regardless of how much conventional wisdom decreed they were being affected by temporal developments (just for most recent example: the system always predicted a clear Obama win in 2012, and regarded the “oh my god, he lost the first debate” hysteria as ephemera likely to pass — which it did). So, though I (and Lichtman) think showing true charisma on the campaign trail can improve a candidate’s status, failing that (and there’s no one in either party displaying much of that right now), there’s no evidence good or bad campaigning makes much impact on the basics that decide an election.

  155. 155
    David Koch says:

    @Baud: Shhhhh. don’t harsh anyone’s buzz/fantasy and blow their minds by informing them that their golden calf only won by 7 pts, riding the coat tails of History’s Worse Monster who won the same state by 21.

  156. 156
    Johnny Yuma says:

    Hillary Clinton took counsel of her presidential ambition, placing it over country when she endorsed the 2003 Bush/Cheney Iraq War (i.e., the Big Lie War).

    By my lights, she proved herself unfit for the office by doing so.

  157. 157
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @⚽️ Martin: Well, she was factually wrong on at least part of the lead-in. The VKontakte account associated with Strelkov is public, has been long-standing and has frequently been used for official announcements. She presented it as some unverified Internet rumor, but it is clearly documentable. I was worried where she was going, but was finally relieved when she got to the punch line.

  158. 158
    ruemara says:

    @SiubhanDuinne: Blackness=substance abuser. Because it couldn’t be society’s fault

    Wow, Tbogg’s usual trolls have shown up too!

  159. 159
    gogol's wife says:

    @James E. Powell:

    Sad but true.

  160. 160
    David Koch says:

    I’m rather surprised the blogosphere isn’t Ready For Shakira.

    I know I’d back Shakira.

  161. 161
    El Caganer says:

    It certainly looks like O’Malley’s running. Anybody know why he’s not at NN?

  162. 162
    JPL says:

    @ruemara: Yesterday, I was curious what was going on with her and searched the web. That’s where I saw the story about the allegations but they were proven false. She appears to be handling it the best she can by, saying nothing.

  163. 163
    smintheus says:

    Dems need to nominate someone much younger than Warren to the Supreme Court.

  164. 164
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    @rikyrah: Thanks for the update. Here’s hoping others give her a chance as well.


  165. 165
    currants says:


    That part of the sentence strikes me as sensible and enlightened.

    Yes, as long as she has some way to support herself and her kids in the meantime. The whole thing is just awful.

  166. 166
    Pogonip says:

    @2liberal: What does she trigger? The uncontrollable urge to start shaking your booty?

  167. 167
    A Humble Lurker says:

    *holds up card with 0.2 on it*

  168. 168
    smintheus says:

    @Tom Q: It’s a primary, not a coronation. We need a range of candidates to choose from. Otherwise we’re liable to be stuck with a candidate, just as Republicans have been recently, who is both a poor or inept politician and one who doesn’t really represent what the party’s base wants.

  169. 169
    Gravenstone says:

    @A Humble Lurker: Damned grade inflation…

  170. 170
    ⚽️ Martin says:

    @Gin & Tonic: True, but the content that was posted there wasn’t definitive, and with the content taken down is difficult to now verify. And given her presentation, isn’t necessary to prove anything.

  171. 171
    WaterGirl says:


    First I’ve heard about substance abuse being an issue in this situation. Did I miss something, or…. ?

    Um, yeah, you did miss something. Didn’t you notice her skin color? Of course she must be taking drugs. (blood boiling)

    I’m guessing the 10k fund for each of the kids is because folks raised 100k for her on-line.

  172. 172
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @⚽️ Martin: I just thought it was uncharacteristically sloppy. Things like posting on public fora can be verified, even after they’re removed. And a lot of people are doing some very impressive work with geo-locating sites that are shown in stills or seconds-long videos. It’s made me think hard about the nature of asymmetrical warfare in a country that is well-connected and open – everyone carries a camera/videorecorder (i.e. smartphone), there is connectivity pretty much everywhere, most drivers have dashcams, and between GPS’s, Google Maps, Streetview and Yandex and plenty of IT-smart people who are deeply motivated, facts “on the ground” are revealed quickly. The one photo that was circulating yesterday of a Buk system parked near a supermarket was definitively (verifiably) geo-located in less than 24 hours. So Rachel can joke about “do you know every hedgerow in Ukraine”, but the answer is pretty close to “yes” in this day and age. I’d have thought someone on her staff would recognize that.

  173. 173
    KG says:

    @Trentrunner: nah, it just means I live in california where we have jungle primaries now and the only time party registration might matter is in the presidential primary. And since we’re almost always last, it barely matters there

  174. 174
    magurakurin says:


    Warren may choose not to run

    You know why Warren isn’t electable? Because she isn’t going to fucking run. She MAY choose not to run? For fuck’s sake she has said, emphatically, countless times, She. Isn’t. Running.

    She isn’t running for president. Pretty simple concept. Can you get your mind around? Everything else is idle bullshit.

  175. 175
    Tom Q says:

    @smintheus: I’m just giving you the history. Ignore it if you want.

  176. 176
    LT says:


    You could have just gone with “I’ve got nothing. Talk amongst yourselves.” Easier on the fingers.

    Because I love…

  177. 177
    danielx says:

    And speaking of shimmying, since you guys made SUCH A BIG DEAL about it the other day:

    Yes! Mine eyes have seen the glory of Shakira’s, hmmm…work of art.

    Well played, Jeebus.

    And if Warren gets the base fired up, good on her, since the base hasn’t had a hell of a lot to cheer about lately.

    “… You know, I’ve actually had people who support these trade deals come up to me and say that they have to be done in secret because, if they weren’t, the people would be opposed. To me, if people would be opposed, then we shouldn’t do the trade deals.”

    Clearly this woman has no understanding at all of the way Washington is supposed to work. Why, next thing you know she’ll say it would be a good idea to have a national debate over just how much freedom we’re supposed to trade for how much security against various threats foreign and domestic.

    That would never do.

  178. 178
    Thymezone says:

    Would someone mind putting up a list of all the treaties in American History which were not negotiated “in secret?” Take your time, there’s no hurry.

  179. 179
    smintheus says:

    @Tom Q: What you’ve omitted is the essential fact that only rarely has either party in modern times held onto the presidency for more than two terms. The public tends to tire of the party in power. That’s the real issue Democrats face, not how quickly they settle on their nominee.

    Obviously a nomination battle that tears the party apart is going to hurt its chances significantly, but not all prolonged primary campaigns lead to internecine war.

  180. 180
    David Koch says:

    @danielx: what freedom have you lost?

  181. 181
    KS in MA says:

    @R. Johnston: Brilliant!

  182. 182
    patroclus says:

    It’s a nice story, but the “trade deals” aren’t really done in secret – both the approval to engage in negotiations and the final product are all voted on and debated in Congress, and are available publically. And they usually involve the reduction of tariffs or other trade barriers – like the three deals that the Obama administration negotiated and got passed in the last year or so.. I would think a Senator would know all this, and if she opposed a particular deal, would make sure that its provisions were quite public because the texts are certainly available to her and her staff. Moreover, if she wants to criticize the deals, she would seem more credible if she mentions something specific that was wrong with them rather than wrongly imnplying that they are done secretly.

    In reality, I think it’s just that Warren wants more stuff in them like labor rights and environmental standards. That’s a good idea and I want unicorns and a pony too, but other countries aren’t all that eager to negotiate those things away to the U.S. OTR. She would do better to explain in detail what sorts of trade deals she would favor and which she opposes and specifically why. She’s not hitting the right notes for me.

  183. 183
    marindenver says:

    @Betty Cracker: No but consider her as a SCOTUS candidate. How awesome would that be? (Maybe I’m not the first to suggest this – too many comments to read through them all.)

  184. 184
    catclub says:

    @smintheus: Julian Castro young.

    Also, Joe Biden in 2016.

  185. 185
    danielx says:

    @David Koch:

    Well, the Fourth Amendment is pretty much a dead letter, so is habeas corpus. I don’t live within a hundred miles of the southwestern border so I’m unlikely to pass through any checkpoints, but if I did I’d be subject to being stopped, queried, and generally hassled. Hell, it happened tp Patrick Leahy 125 miles from the border. I don’t know what other freedoms I’m missing because nobody will tell me – nobody who’s supposed to be protecting me, that is.

  186. 186
    Tom Q says:

    @smintheus: Except I don’t accept that as an “essential fact”.

    Republicans held the presidency four straight terms 1860-1876 (OK, in real terms till 1884, but they actually lost in 1876), four more straight terms from 1896 through 1912, and three from 1920-1932. Democrats held the presidency for five straight terms from 1932-52. Republicans again held for three 1980-1992, and Dems should have done the same 1992-2004 (at least), had not five Supreme Court justices decided otherwise. The fact that choosing a successor candidate during those stretches was accomplished easily was a prime factor in the continuation of party power,

    This notion that Americans by nature want to change parties after two terms is another myth parroted endlessly by a media whose idea of research is asking their friends who swim in the same waters.

    In the 150 years of the two-party system, every change in presidential party power has occurred in conjunction with either a recession or an intra-party fight over the nominee. Deciding it’s a good idea to have a knockdown, drag-out fight instead of nominating Hillary is close to looking a gift horse down in the mouth.

  187. 187
    David Koch says:

    Senate passes resolution supporting Israel’s invasion of Gaza.

    It passed unanimously.

    but Senator Warren is a fighter.

  188. 188
    Cassidy says:

    @Johnny Yuma: Yer concern is noted.

  189. 189
    2liberal says:


    What does she trigger? The uncontrollable urge to start shaking your booty?

    i would think that some people would consider this GIF to be sexist and the trigger warning would be for them. ever hear of a “pie fight”?

  190. 190
    Dean says:

    Utter bullshit. How miserable we are. We’ll never enlist folks who actually give a shit if we’re approaching analysis in terms of this sort of high school strategizing. Good luck, you guys. I checked out long ago. Everybody has a fucking theory about how/when/why one or the other party wins. Nobody just fucking votes for his/her preferred candidate.

    Good luck. We’re fucked.

  191. 191
    pseudonymous in nc says:

    The Democrats actually need senators who are not Mary Landrieu to stick around long enough to gain seniority.Treating the Senate as a prep room for the presidency isn’t ideal.

  192. 192
    Little Boots says:

    @pseudonymous in nc:

    agree, the idea that the U.S. Senate is some terrible dead end is just stupid and sad.

  193. 193
    Thlayli says:


  194. 194
    Tripod says:

    So we’ve already blown through “inevitability” and moved to “how dare you plebes look down the mouth of the gift horse that is St. Hillary??”.

    Bring on the Sunshine Express.

  195. 195
    low-tech cyclist says:

    “she coitnly can shimmie.”
    -e.e. cummings

  196. 196
    SnarkyShark says:

    @Roger Moore:

    I invite you to watch what the Ukranians do everyday that somehow gets overlooked.

    Do any of those people look like combatants to you? Bob has as much reality on his side as anybody. The fact that you idiots still suck up the party line speaks a lot about your sheep asses. Don’t you get it? If the official sanctioned media reports something its probably a lie or propaganda or both. Look at whats NOT being reported.


  197. 197
    joe says:

    Obama didn’t beat Hillary the last time out because of liberals or Mark Penn but because he scooped up the African American Democratic base. Both Hill and Bill have a historic relationship with that base and unless another African American candidate comes along, I don’t see them abandoning Hillary this time. They are the party’s most loyal voters and exactly what connection does Warren have to them? The Hillary haters this time remind me of the current incarnation of Dick Cheney. Obama was the liberal messiah, Hillary is a neo-con, she’s the lady Reagan. Stop being wrong about everything and maybe somebody will listen to you. Obama wasn’t what you sold him as. Neither is Warren and by the way, she ain’t running. Voted for Hillary the last time around and ready to do it again.

  198. 198
    labradog says:

    @srv: Wanking that hard will give you crow’s feet. And shitferbrains.

  199. 199
    Ken says:

    This is why senator warren should never run
    1. She wins in 2016
    2. Democrats, lazy democrats, won’t be bothered to get off our lazy asses and vote in 2018
    3. Like our beloved Obama, she basically gets nothing done for the remaining 6 years of her presidency.

    I wouldn’t really care if this happened to Hillary b/c we only need her to fill vacant judge seats, but it would kill me to see a talent like wArren basically languishing at 1600.

  200. 200
    Anthony McCarthy says:

    I had a message in my e-mail that the Eschatots were all worked up over TBogg ruining their fantasies about drafting the great Elizabeth Warren (posted part of her talk on my blog with the title “This”) so she could lose the presidential election, even as the great Elizabeth Warren says, responsibly and rationally, that she isn’t a candidate for president in 2016. What part of “the woman is smarter than all of you put together and more responsible so she isn’t going to run” don’t they get? Now, on the Supreme Court, replacing one of the fascio-five in my wildest dreams, she would do more good than as either a failed presidential candidate in 2016 or, perhaps, a Senator.

    You’ve officially got cooties over there, Tbogg, Me too. Welcome to that particular club. It’s preferable to wasting time whining there. You get the Esha-cooties from a lack of make-believe.

  201. 201
    PJ says:

    I don’t understand the desire to anoint a chosen one 28 months before the actual election. Could, perhaps, we actually go through the electoral process of having candidates present their policies and personalities to the people, and then let the voters decide?

    For what it’s worth, Hillary has shown herself to be a poor candidate, and a center-right politician, one who, until the release of her book this year, was unapologetic about her role in voting for the Iraq war. I would vote in a primary for Warren, Biden, O’Malley, or a piece of pocket lint over Clinton.

  202. 202
    Adams says:

    @Fred Fnord: Bingo. You win, Tbogg loses.

  203. 203
    smintheus says:

    @Tom Q: You’re cherry picking exceptions Tom. The dominance of the Republican party in the late 19th/early 20th century is not in dispute, but it has little to do with today’s political conditions, and in any case it was not about how quickly successors were selected. Likewise, the long dominance of the Dems because of the Great Depression is exceptional.

    If you look at your original list of cases where a rapid nomination of a successor supposedly was critical in retaining the White House, it’s not a very convincing list. Most of those victories were not very convincing, and several were due to exceptional circumstances. For starters, Gore ended up ‘losing’ in 2000 because he was such a weak candidate with a garbled message about where he stood wrt Clinton’s record. That’s precisely the kind of candidate you get with an internal coronation. And in ’88 Bush was in terrible shape after he secured the nomination; he only won because of an extraordinary scorched-earth campaign that, even more extraordinarily, the dim-witted Dukakis refused to respond to. And Grant was a war hero in 1868; his election was a foregone conclusion no matter which party nominated him. As for 1908, the Democrats nominated a two-time loser to run against Taft, which surely had something to do with their continued inability to win the WH. No party before or since has been so dominated by one politician who can’t win that it gave him a try for a 3rd time.

    You’re left with Hoover as your clearest evidence that coronating a successor lets the party in power retain the WH. It’s not all that impressive a historical record. And what about all the counter examples when a successor was nominated quickly and still lost?

  204. 204
    Anthony McCarthy says:


    Yeah, I used to think that way too, until I realized who is less bad matters because the general population isn’t going to elect Mo Udall, Barry Commoner, Tom Harkin, Jesse Jackson….. just because they’re a lot better than who has a chance of being the less bad choice. If Democrats had accepted that reality the fascio-five wouldn’t be on the court, proving that five of them can overturn anything that the best Congress or President could produce, lying about what has been produced (Hobby Lobby was so long ago?) or making law from the bench.

    TBogg’s idea is entirely better than any of the fantasies about Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, for that matter, running as an ideal candidate who would not win or who could put another Bush II in office. Don’t get me wrong, I despise Barack Obama but even he was a better choice than the only other electable alternative that was made available by The Voters in the primaries and caucuses. The Voters choose who has the chance of being the less bad choice, not “the left”.

  205. 205
    Tom Q says:

    @smintheus: How am I cherry-picking when I provide a theory that explains, in very simple, Occam’s razor terms the outcome of every presidential election since the foundation of the two-party system? Whereas you go through convoluted gyrations to explain away multiple examples, often with the same bullshit conventional wisdom analysis provided by our media? Perfect case in point: Lichtman’s Keys system — which is more elaborate, but significantly based on the same metrics I’m advocating — predicted Bush I’s ’88 election in late Spring of that year and didn’t waver even when ephemeral polls gave Dukakis a big lead. The state of the country in 1988 was so favorable to incumbent party retention (peace and prosperity, GOP intra-party harmony) that believing voters were going to vote “time for a change” was ridiculous, whatever Gallup said in July. To think that election turned on whether Dukakis said the right thing about the pledge of allegiance is the sort of typically shallow thinking done by our political press (for whom every day of a campaign is CRUCIAL!). It was an election decided on overwhelming basics.

    My original comment here was not to say people should vote Hillary simply because it would avoid the intra-party mishegas that hobbles campaigns (though that is a serious side benefit), but simply to disagree with the contention of Betty and others that a rough-and-tumble party primary would be positive for revving up voters. There’s just no example in US two-party-system elections to indicate that’s true for an incumbent party, and rather alot of evidence to the contrary. I thought people ought to be apprised of that fact whether they choose to let that affect their actions or not.

  206. 206
    Johnny Yuma says:

    @Tom Q: “There’s just no example in US two-party-system elections to indicate that’s true for an incumbent party, and rather alot of evidence to the contrary”.

    A case could be made that the Ford-Reagan primary race of ’76 served just that purpose by helping rally a rank-and-file whose post-Watergate morale was in the toilet. It helped return a much needed sense of pride to that party (so to speak), that in turn led to a turnout that took the general election down to the wire. Leastwise, it’s always been my belief that Carter should have buried Ford, and buried him big time. It helped set the table for their 1980 resurgence, to boot.

  207. 207
    smintheus says:

    @Johnny Yuma: You’re right, that was a ridiculously close election in ’76; the Democrats should have won in a walk.

    Likewise, I could point to Nixon’s coronation in 1960. Peace and prosperity as far as the eye could see, and a hotly contested Dem primary to boot; Republicans by this theory should have won easily.

    Tom’s theory is highly reductive (“very simple”), and for that reason alone not very credible. It cherry picks some facts, ignores those that don’t bolster the theory. And it glosses over a range of particular factors that influence elections. It was far from clear that Bush would win, for example, and his ‘out of the loop’ claim wrt Iran-Contra was an ineffectual way to walk the line between linking and distancing himself from the Reagan administration. Bush won, his own advisers agreed, because Dukakis was disastrously inept.

    In modern times, we’ve had 3 such coronations: Nixon ’60; Bush ’88; and Gore ’00. Two of those guys lost (in both cases to less than popular opponents who were widely viewed as rich dilettante lightweights). And the third won only after a demonizing campaign so ugly that its architect later apologized for it. Not much of a factual basis for such a sweeping and reductive theory, Tom.

    Yeah, maybe if all the votes had been counted properly Nixon and Gore would have squeaked through. By your theory, those elections should not have been close at all.

  208. 208
    Captain C says:

    @Amir Khalid:

    It could be a long wait, as they’ll have to explain this.

    Easy, actually. The evil American Empire, and all of their agency-less minions, can’t be trusted with anything. Therefore, the brave freedom fighters of West Putinstan have to make sure the evidence is untouched untampered with protected from the only people who would ever lie. Anything that seems like evidence-tampering is actually their forensic team at work, whose methods are so good and subtle that anyone not completely anti-American won’t ever understand.

  209. 209
    Tom Q says:

    @smintheus: You might want to look a bit more closely at the economic conditions of 1960. The economy in fact went into a minor recession smack in the midst of the campaign period — something Nixon saw was coming and begged Eisenhower to do something, stimulus-wise, to avert.

    Nowhere do I (or Lichtman) suggest we can predict margin of victory, which can often be attributable to a party’s relative position with voters in the period in general. The ’76 election was held amid 4 other elections (’72, ’80 ’84 and ’88) where the GOP won 400 or more EVs, so saying that Carter “should” have won in a landslide makes little sense. (Much as the one legitimate GOP victory in this period, Bush’s ’04 re-election, was by the tiniest of electoral margins, where Dem wins in ’92, ’96, ’08 and ’12 were far broader) In fact, when Ford replaced Nixon, much of the personal stain of Watergate was removed, and, though the recession had been deep throughout ’73-’75, the election year economy was at boom level. I’d actually feared, in early ’76 when Reagan’s challenge seemed to be falling flat, that Ford might squeak by. The later primaries, Reagan’s near-win at the convention, put an end to that. (As far it revving up the base for the NEXT election — that’s playing bank-shot predictions. More germane to Reagan’s win in 1980 was the fact that Carter became the first incumbent president post-Civil War to suffer BOTH fatal Keys, recession and intra-party challenge — not to mention the ongoing hostage crisis)

    It’s clear you believe the “all sorts of little things can swing an election” theory. I used to believe that as well, till Lichtman’s book persuaded me otherwise. I read the book in 1992, and it has correctly predicted every election since, well ahead of consensus. (Taking the point that Gore DID win, of which you don’t seem persuaded) Take a look at it with an open mind; it makes a strong case.

    As far as “Bush won, his own advisers agreed, because Dukakis was disastrously inept.” — what do you think they’re going to say? “Our superior campaign had nothing to do with it”? Their paychecks depend on candidates believing strategy means more than basics.

  210. 210
    Johnny Yuma says:

    @Cassidy: It’s a day later, and I’m running this thread to see if my oft repeated (ad nauseum?) statement about H.C. and that war registered with anyone. And here you are. It’s telling few railed, and that your remark is only mildly snide.

    Any democrat worth their salt despises a coronation for any presidential candidate, except in the case of supporting an incumbent Executive. Even then…

    The divide between myself and those 2003 congressional democrats that supported Bush’s War is continental in scale. It probably has most to do with the fact I came of age during the Vietnam War, and early on drew certain conclusions concerning war. I will never forgive a single congressional democrat who endorsed the big lie Iraq War. None are fit for office as democrats, in my opinion, but that’s another story, and one superfluous to my larger point about Hillary.

  211. 211
    David Koch says:


    Obama didn’t beat Hillary the last time out because of liberals or Mark Penn but because he scooped up the African American Democratic base.

    This is stoopid. Iowa has no blacks.

  212. 212
    Gretchen says:

    @rikyrah: And where is Taylor supposed to get $10,000 for the education fund, since she doesn’t have a job? And where does she leave her kids when she goes to the parenting classes, since she obviously doesn’t have a babysitter. Someone who is so desperate for a job that she leaves her kids in the car during the interview obviously has some problems this judge is clueless about.

  213. 213
    Cervantes says:

    @Johnny Yuma:

    I’m running this thread to see if my oft repeated (ad nauseum?) statement about H.C. and that war registered with anyone.

    I saw that, and I know what you mean.

    I still have not seen an acceptable explanation or apology from her.

  214. 214
    Cervantes says:

    @Gretchen: You may not be aware that a fair amount of money — more than $100K — was raised to help Ms. Taylor.

  215. 215

    Nothing scares TBogg more than economic populism. He is a corporate Democrat. He’s on our side when it comes to abortion and gay rights, but it’s Pax Americana for foreign policy and Pax Corporate Power for domestic policy. Too bad he doesn’t return to the Republican Party and moderate it….

Comments are closed.