The Widdershins

Archive for the ‘Elizabeth Warren’ Category

Good Monday, all! Now that Super Tuesday and this weekend’s primaries and caucuses are over, it seems pretty clear, even to the disappointed dummies on MSNBC, that Hillary’s delegate lead would be “challenging” for Senator Sanders to overcome. And since we aren’t the Republicans, who very well might end up with a brokered convention or some other mess, once Hillary wins Florida and New York, that should be the final hurrah for this year’s brogressive unicorn.

Now it seems like we can stop worrying about Bernie Sanders pulling an Obama from 2008, and start a fun game called, “Who Will Be Hillary’s VP?” It would be irresponsible NOT to speculate!

We have many different guesses already. From the lesser-known but intriguing (Tom Perez, the current Labor Secretary) to the 2008 option (Could she Feel the Bern too?) to the ZOMG She Wouldn’t Dare option (Elizabeth Warren – an all-female ticket!! Gyn-tastic), minds are whirling and lips are flapping all over the Beltway.

Here are some of my thoughts on these, and the list of 19 at PredictIt:

  1. Could be: Any prominent Democratic Latino male. Whether it’s Perez, Julian Castro, the current HUD secretary, or someone else we don’t know about yet, a Latino male brings a lot to the ticket. If Cruz or Rubio end up being the Republican nominee, an alternate to vote for would be an excellent thing for Democrats to offer.  This is not to say that I think Republicans are all that attractive to Latinos – but they’re likely to continue to put a huge amount of effort into gaining some ground in that community, since Repubs are not likely to win any other non-white voter groups.
  2. Could be: A prominent Democrat from a key swing state, like Ohio or Virginia. Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, brogressive darling, and former Democratic governor of Virginia Tim Kaine, are being floated around. I favor Sherrod Brown, just because Hillary is perceived as centrist, and that’s Kaine’s political orientation as well. A centrist white guy doesn’t do a lot for her in the general election, but Sherrod Brown’s liberal creds would be very appealing to the Sanders holdouts. Only thing here is that he’s 63…in 8 years he’ll be 71. As we know, Hillary is always thinking about the future of the Party. A younger man would be a smarter pick.
  3. Nagahapin: Bernie Sanders. Really? A 74-year-old Socialist? I don’t care how many people suggest this, it’s an incredibly dumb idea. See above.
  4. Nagahapin Part Deux: Elizabeth Warren. I see her in a Cabinet position IF the Democrats retake the Senate and we don’t need her there any more. Otherwise, another white woman who is actually LESS liberal than Hillary, who is a one-issue candidate, who is only two years younger, and who is from a state that Our Girl will win hands-down…sorry, what was the point of this again?

What do you all think? This is an open thread.


Good Monday, all! What an awesome week it was for us Original PUMAs as we all celebrated the return of Our Girl to the Presidential race! Her first moves out of the gate have been brilliantly unexpected: that low-key video boldly declaring her support for marriage equality! that trek to Iowa in a Scooby bus, stopping at a Chipotle along the way!

Some things she’s doing, however, are not so unexpected. For example – she is making nice-nice with the self-titled “liberal wing” of the Party. (As many of us here know, they are not actually the liberal wing – they are the Obama wing who have CDS. If they were real liberals, they would have been as wary of Obama as we were.)

During the opening week of her second presidential campaign, Clinton showed she had retooled her positions to line up with the views of progressive Democrats. On Monday, she called for a constitutional amendment that would limit “unaccountable money” in politics. Days later, she said through her campaign that she supports same-sex marriage being recognized as a constitutional right in a pending Supreme Court case. After that, her campaign said she now supports state policies awarding licenses to people in the country illegally.

Such do-overs are part of an effort by Clinton to rectify past missteps and assure the liberal wing of her party that in 2016, she will be change they’ve been waiting for.

While Clinton enters the race in a dominant position, she faces skepticism from some Democrats who question her commitment to tackling income inequality.

“Equal opportunity and upward mobility have been very central to her political ideals from the start,” said Robert Reich, who was President Bill Clinton’s labor secretary and has known Hillary Clinton since college. “I just don’t know how courageous she will be in fighting for them.”

Yes, we all know how wimpy and cautious Hillary is, especially when fighting for things she believes in. It was so cowardly of her to stand up and declare in 1995 that “women’s rights are human rights.” And oh, how she backs off when threatened by the right-wing noise machine! Why, for 20 years she’s been changing her positions and adjusting her language so they’ll stop attacking her! Sorry, I like Robert Reich and all, but where the f*ck does he get off?!

I know you won’t be surprised to learn that Reich is not alone in his reservations.

Clinton is not in the clear with liberals yet.

Liberal organizations say they plan to continue their push to draft [Senator Elizabeth] Warren, and Democrats in early voting states say Clinton has work to do if she wants to be assured of winning the nomination.

Oh my gawd. Seriously?! What is the point of focusing on Elizabeth Warren and pushing her to run? What qualifies her to be President…what proof is there that she would be a better and more liberal President than Hillary? Oh right, I forgot…she is a one-term Senator with very little political experience who talks a good game. The “progressives” love people with that profile. Only thing is, I like her a lot – she rings true, unlike their last favorite. This is good, because as talented as she is, she seems to understand that this is not the year to challenge Hillary. The idiots with CDS, on the other hand? They just don’t get it. (Funny how the site looks just like the standard Obama template, isn’t it?)

In any case, Hillary is all over that one too.

Hillary Clinton used Times Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People list to pay tribute to Elizabeth Warren, a lawmaker some liberals hope will challenge the former secretary of state for the 2016 Democratic nomination.

In the short piece, Clinton touts Warren as a champion for the middle class and nods to the duos interesting relationship when she writes that Warren “never hesitates to hold powerful people’s feet to the fire: bankers, lobbyists, senior government officials and, yes, even presidential aspirants.”

The story goes on to say that, sad to say for those who wish for an epic catfight between the two powerful women, Hillary and Elizabeth are friendly. Imagine that!

Unfortunately, not all powerful women support Hillary…or other women. Check out this female CEO, Cheryl Rios, who thinks women shouldn’t be President.

In her Facebook post, Rios wrote of the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

“If this happens — I am moving to Canada. There is NO need for her as she is not the right person to run our country — but more importantly a female shouldn’t be president. Let the haters begin . . . but with the hormones we have there is no way we should be able to start a war. Yes I run my own business and I love it and I am great at it BUT that is not the same as being the president, that should be left to a man, a good, strong, honorable man.”

What hormones?! Hillary is in her 60’s…both menses and menopause are very much a thing of the past. Ah well, science obviously isn’t this wackadoodle’s strong point. And the whole “I’m moving to Canada” threat? Those conservabots all say they’re going to do it…but d*mmit, they never do.

This is an open thread. [Note: Video is NSFW…and is satire. Canada is a perfectly lovely country. :-)]

Good afternoon, Widdershins! In case some of you aren’t aware, our Uppity is back and in fine, fine form. Take a gander here.

Speaking of Uppity, our Fredster posted this over at her place. Worth the five minutes it takes to read, but here’s the highlight for me:

Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party’s nominee, and she will win the 2016 election.

When you analyze the objective conditions of the Republican Party today and most likely over the next two years and compare them to Clinton’s strengths, it’s hard not to make such a prediction with confidence.

And here are said strengths:

Clinton has a built-in advantage — her gender. It now looks that she will use the glass-ceiling theme to connect with millions of people who think that the disparities in opportunity, income and talent-based achievement between men and women is not only unfair, but damaging to all women, two-income families and the economy in general.

Some percentage of Americans, likely a large one, would like to cast a historic vote. When polling points to Americans wanting “change,” what bigger change than a woman as president?

Clinton is white. Yes, President Obama was elected twice, with millions of votes over the 50 percent victory threshhold. But looking at the election data that show a precipitous drop in his support among white voters, relative to past Democratic candidates, one can infer some racial bias in a sliver of the electorate. Clinton will be able to attract those voters simply because she is not an African-American man.

In terms of the Latino vote, even though many Republicans are counting on him, Sen. Marco Rubio’s (Fla.) craven flip-flopping is not likely to endear him to many Hispanics outside of Miami. Conversely, Clinton is hugely popular among Hispanics, as is her husband. She’s been a steadfast supporter of immigrant rights and was Latino voters’ favorite during the 2008 primaries. She will sweep the Hispanic vote.

As I used to say in 2008…Duh f*cking duh. If you have any political savvy whatsoever, drawing these conclusions is difficult to avoid, if not impossible. The previously-ironclad Republican strategy of gathering the middle-to-upper-class white male vote, according to exit polls, was successful in 2012…and, yet, The Glove still lost. Stuck in the fake 50’s in their heads, the Republicans refuse to understand that the time of the WMASP is ending, and that June Cleaver will never greet them at the door sporting pearls, pumps, a martini and an apron again. We women belong in the House…the White House!

Read the rest of this entry »

Dressed for Spring - L Diane Johnson

It’s spring and time for those #%&#$ allergies!

Good Wednesday to you Widdershins!  Yes, it’s moi here to do a post!

With chat probably recovering from her granddaughter’s wedding and with Prolix most probably still having some computer issues, I thought I would try to help out by sharing a couple of things that I saw on the internet lately.  Now I’m still having some medical things going on myself and one of them, sort of precludes me from prolonged sitting, if you get my drift.  Nevertheless, let’s take a look at a couple of things that I spied with my little eyes.

Oy vey!  Who gnu? (Such a nice boy!)

So if you are single, heterosexual and looking for that someone special there’s been the social app for your phone, Tinder.  Tinder uses facebook profiles to match up people with similar interests, common friends and such.

Tinder allows the users to anonymously like or reject potential matches using a simple swiping gesture. If two users are interested in each other, it is a “match” and Tinder introduces the two users and allows them to chat. Subscription-exclusive features allow users to undo “swipes” and search the network globally.

Well David Yarus, a twenty-something millennial entrepreneur who happens to be Jewish saw Tinder for the first time and he thought “Eureka!”.  He knew how to take that app and make it something better and directed more toward the young Jewish community of millennials.  And so with that idea he created the app JSwipe.  He describes the typical JSwipe user:

Mr. Yarus describes typical JSwipe users as “millennial Jews around the world whose grandparents and mothers are saying, ‘When are you going to marry someone Jewish?’ ”

He counts himself among the target audience. Though Mr. Yarus grew up in an observant Jewish household in Miami Beach and attends a synagogue in the tradition of the Carlebach spiritual movement in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, he calls himself “post-affiliation.” (“I don’t do labels,he said.)

The Times article describes it this way:

Started last April (during Passover), the app is a faddish take on the age-old desire to marry within the tribe. Instead of attributes like favorite movies, users indicate their degree of Jewishness (among them: Just Jewish, Orthodox and Willing to Convert).Jewish wedding

The app is very similar to Tinder in that you right-swipe to show some interest in a possible match or left-swipe to kind of go “Meh”.  But it does it with a twist:

Swipe right and a Star of David with a happy face appears; swipe left and it wears a frown. When a couple match, animated figures appear doing the hora.

So if your bubbe in Boca is after you about when you are going to find that nice (Jewish) boy or girl, tell her you’ll take a swipe at it.  😉


* * * * * * *


Okay, enough is enough “progressives” and
members of the “Warren Wing”

Or to paraphrase Charles Pierce in Esquire:

Please Leave Elizabeth Warren Alone
In which we appeal for calm and for the Senator Professor to stay where she is.

Actually, Charles Pierce and at Shakesville, both have a problem with this.  In case you are not aware, the Boston Globe came out with three different articles in which they argue that Elizabeth Warren should or needs to run for President.

Anna Galland of wrote:

Warren should run. Our country will be better off if she does. She would be a strong candidate — one who injects valuable ideas into the conversation and ensures the kind of debate our country needs. And she could win. [Note:  no she couldn’t]

Put simply, this moment was made for Elizabeth Warren.

…To be clear: Senator Warren has said she’s not running for president, and we take her for her word. But we also believe she’s open to persuasion.  (bolding and italics mine-Fred)

As Melissa said (putting herself into the shoes of the Globe folks and their thinking?)

Our country needs her. (It’s her duty to run.) Clinton must be stopped. (And Warren is the only one who can do it.) Her party needs her. (But not so much she shouldn’t risk a long career in public service to do this thing we want her to do RIGHT NOW.)

Charles Pierce puts forth even more arguments against the idea of a Warren run. (including the fact that the woman has said NO so many times!)

Pierce quotes part of the Globe editorial:

But Barack Obama overcame Clinton’s advantages in 2008, and Warren or another candidate still could in 2016. Even if they don’t..

And slaps that idea down immediately saying:

OK, stop right there. The only reason for anyone to put themselves through the torture course we call a presidential campaign is if they judge themselves to have a realistic chance of winning. “Even if they don’t…” is not a factor. Nobody has a responsibility to undertake this exercise merely to “frame the debate,” or to “toughen up the nominee,” or to give bored political journalists an opportunity to pad the expense report. Any estimate of a politician’s chance that includes this phrase is a sucker’s play.

The Globe article goes on to say that Warren “has made closing the economic gaps in America her main political priority, in a career that has included standing up for homeowners facing illegal foreclosures and calling for more bankruptcy protections. If she runs, it’ll ensure that those issues take their rightful place at the center of the national political debate.”, to which Pierce corrrectly responds that she can do that and more while she stays in the Senate.

Pierce goes on to say that he’s seen no data that indicates Warren would be a stronger opponent to Hillary in the primaries than Jim Webb or Martin O’Malley.  Pierce closes his piece with what I think is the most important part of his arguments:

I think she’s being set up for a fall here. If she doesn’t run, it will be said of her that she doesn’t truly have the courage of her convictions in the areas most important to her, and on the issues that are closest to her heart. If she runs and she loses, then it will be said that those issues are not the kind that motivate voters, and they will slide into a morass of weaselspeak, never to be heard clearly again. Leave the woman alone, please. She has no obligation to give you all a cat-fight because you think that’s what democracy demands.  (Bolding mine)

dont know batshit crazy

I’ll close with this oh-so-lovely youtube clip.  Although it’s about Brit-Brit, we’ll say it’s for Elizabeth Warren.  I apologize to each and every one of you ahead of time for this!

Okay this is a totally open thread.  Please take it in whatever direction you chose to go.

Keep Up

Atrocities Documented:

What the F*ck Just Happened?!

Victories Won:

Your Victories Against Drumpf!

Wanna Be A Widdershin?

Send us a sample post at:

widdershinssubmissions at gmail dot com

Our Frontpagers


I’m ready. Are you?

Blog Archive

December 2018
« Nov    

Kellyanne Conway’s new job

Take the kids to work? NO!

That moment when *your* pussy gets grabbed

You go gurl! h/t Adam Joseph

“The” Book

Nice picture of our gal

Time till the Grifter in Chief is Gone

Hopefully soonerJanuary 21st, 2021
2.1 years to go.

Mueller Time!

Wise Words from Paul Ryan


Only the *best* politicans bought by the NRA

Marching for their lives

Perfect Picture

Rudy: oh shit the pee tape IS real!

Need Reminders?

Never too early to shop for Christmas

“Look this way”

Manafort’s Jail Photo

Indeed who?

Trump spam

IOW Dumb = Happy?

Simply Put