Skip to content

Elizabeth Warren Can Win the Presidency; Here’s How:

Elizabeth Warren Can Win the Presidency; Heres How:

By The PROGRESSIVE View – Eric Zuesse

Many of my Democratic friends say that though Hillary Clinton caters to Wall Street, and though her list of top campaign contributors is almost entirely Wall Street, they back Clintons all-but-declared Presidential candidacy, because shes female and Democrat and has lots of experience (though no achievements) and is at the top in all of the polls.

But those things dont necessarily make for a good President. And her lack of achievements and her catering to, and being backed by, the bailed-out megabanks, indicate that shed probably be yet another bad President, maybe even worse than Obama. Republicans might want a President whos even worse than she would be (for example, they loathe feminists, and anything that opposes any form of bigotry, unless it happens to be bigotry against white Christian males), but Democrats do not. Democrats are just passive, but supportive of liberalism. In their accepting Hillary as the next President (despite all of her warning-flags), those Democrats accept continuation of our status-quo, which is rotten-to-the-core with corruption. They should be ashamed of themselves: they violate the best traditions of the Democratic Party.

If Democrats will represent the status-quo, and Republicans continue to represent even worse, then what will this country (and the world) be coming to after 2016? It will be moving even farther to the right — farther into corruption and concentrated wealth.

This is not acceptable; its also not necessary.

Both Parties have been taken over by the aristocracy. Bill Clinton deregulated Wall Street so that unregulated derivatives-trading and megabanks could defraud outside investors and deceive homebuyers and so bring the economy to collapse under George W. Bush; and Barack Obama has the record of zero prosecutions of those banksters, even though the recent investigation by the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice says that he and his Attorney General blatantly lied when they said that any crimes by megabank executives would be prosecuted.

So, can Senator Elizabeth Warren, the foe of Wall Street and friend to Main Street, be elected, by Democrats, in Democratic Party primaries, to become the Democratic nominee for President in 2016, despite her having virtually no Wall Street money backing her? And, if so, then would she be able to beat the Republican? The answer to both is likely yes, and here is how:

Oddly, Barack Obamas run for the Presidency in 2007-08 shows the way for Warren, even though she is very different from him in her political values (not meaning their rhetorics, but their actual records).

Like Obama, Warren came into national politics with a devoted following of admirers who were willing to ring doorbells and volunteer on their behalf. This broad-based support also showed up in the sources of their campaign-funds: both politicians rose with an extraordinarily large percentage of their campaign funds coming from small donors.

If you will look at, the Top Contributors (the top 10 donors, via PACs, direct contributions by employees, etc.) to Barack Obama in the 2008 election cycle, (and this can be found at, youll see that they were, in order: University of California, Goldman Sachs, Harvard University, Microsoft, Google, Citigroup, JPMorgan/Chase, Time Warner, Sidley Austin (law firm), and Stanford University. The top ten for his opponent John McCain were: Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, U.S. Government (employees), AT&T, Wachovia, UBS, and Credit Suisse.

3 of Obamas top 10 were Wall Street firms, but 7 of McCains were. Moreover, among the top 20, for each candidate, were, additionally, to Obama, UBS and Morgan Stanley; and, to McCain, Bank of America, Bear Stearns, and Lehman; so Obamas top 20 included only 5 megabanks, whereas McCains included 10 megabanks. (However, though thats so, Wall Street donated more to Obama than to McCain, because virtually every economic sector did: Almost all businesses prefer to invest in a winner, and only fools didnt know that Obama dwarfed McCain as a political campaigner, and that Bushs eight years had also greatly damaged the Republican brand, so that Obama would almost certainly win that contest. This is the reason why McCains #1 contributor, Merrill Lynch, donated $373,595 to his campaign, whereas Obamas #20 contributor, the law firm Latham & Watkins, donated $493,835 to Obamas campaign. Or, in other words, Obamas #20 donated a third more to his campaign than McCains #1 did to McCains. For once, even big business was contributing far more to a Democrat than to a Republican.)

However, unlike Bush and other Republicans, Obama didnt continue Bushs bailout of Wall Street on account of the money they had contributed to his campaign; he did it because he favored Gods People over the public. Like Bush, but in a different way, he identified himself as one of Gods People, and he personally identified more with (and respected the opinions of) other elite individuals than he did with the not-so-blessed mass of American people. America has been dying from the elitism disease of its values, and Obama (like Bush) has represented this disease a disease which every aristocracy cultivates, nourishes, and supports, in order to sustain itself and the myth of its own superiority.

Obama as a child was always at the periphery of the aristocracy, and he was surrounded by their children at the elite Punahou School. Throughout his life, he really believed that the reason why he was getting ahead, having great success, was because he was superior to people who weren’t. This meant that he believed that the reason the masses werent successful, was because they werent as brilliant as he was — he accepted the aristocratic myth that the cream rises to the top, the scum does not rise to the top in our society. Thus, to him the people at the top are societys cream, not its scum. The masses are the scum: this is the aristocratic myth, and he is a true-believer in it. Thats why, in a secret meeting with the banksters, on 27 March 2009, he promised hed protect the Banksters he said, My Administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks ; he actually compared the masses to the KKKers who had chased Blacks with pitchforks and then lynched them. The many statements by banksters claiming that theyre being persecuted by Democrats, can be traced right back to Obama himself, in private with them, who said that they were the victims, and the public were their victimizers:


(from page 234 of Ron Suskind’s 2011 book, Confidence Men):


The CEOs went into their traditional stance. “It’s almost impossible to set caps [to their bonuses]; it’s never worked, and you lose your best people,” said one. “We’re competing for talent on an international market,” said another. Obama cut them off.

“Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that,” he said. “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

It was an attention grabber, no doubt, especially that carefully chosen last word.

But then Obama’s flat tone turned to one of support, even sympathy. “You guys have an acute public relations problem that’s turning into a political problem,” he said. “And I want to help. But you need to show that you get that this is a crisis and that everyone has to make some sacrifices.” According to one of the participants, he then said, “I’m not out there to go after you. I’m protecting you. But if I’m going to shield you from public and congressional anger, you have to give me something to work with on these issues of compensation.”

No suggestions were forthcoming from the bankers on what they might offer, and the president didn’t seem to be championing any specific proposals. He had none: neither Geithner nor Summers believed compensation controls had any merit.

After a moment, the tension in the room seemed to lift: the bankers realized he was talking about voluntary limits on compensation until the storm of public anger passed. It would be for show.


He said, Im protecting you. And he has fulfilled that promise to them, even though he lied to the public when he said (twice) that any crimes they had committed would be investigated by his Administration and prosecuted.

Elizabeth Warren terrifies them, but this doesnt mean that she cannot win without their backing. Obama would have won without their backing; he was the biggest political talent since Ronald Reagan.

Unlike Obama, Warren actually did rise up from a hardscrabble existence. Her father was a janitor, who died when she was 12. Her mother found work at Sears, and young Elizabeth became a waitress at her aunt’s restaurant. She excelled in high school, married her high-school sweetheart, had children, got a college degree in speech pathology and audiology, then a Rutgers law degree, then won tenure at University of Pennsylvania Law School, and was quickly hired away by Harvard Law School. In 1995, her research for the National Bankruptcy Conference caused her to switch from her parents’ Republican Party to the Democratic Party, and she also decided that she must go beyond the Ivory Tower to enter politics so as to reform bankruptcy law, the field in which she had become America’s top expert. She was so highly regarded at Harvard that she was the third-highest-paid faculty member there. They didn’t want to lose her to politics, or anything else. But the Democratic leader of the U.S. Senate was disgusted with the Government’s continued protection of the banksters whose crimes had ditched the economy; so, “After the financial collapse of 2008, Warren was called by Senate majority leader Harry Reid to lead a panel overseeing the TARP bailout. That led to the creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.” Reid wanted her to run the CFPB, but Obama’s man Timothy Geithner hated her, and so did all Republicans, and Obama supported her only verbally; he happily yielded to them and didn’t appoint her to run the agency that she had created. Reid then urged her to run against Scott Brown for the U.S. Senate seat from Massachusetts. Reid has been her guardian angel. He brought her into politics.

If Hillary becomes the nominee, the Republican is likely to win. Hillary’s 2008 run against Obama was massively incompetent; the only part that wasn’t was her skillfulness at evading to answer questions during the debates. As a strategist, she’s a moron; as a personnel director or hirer of talent, she cannot recognize it because she has so little of it herself.

Clinton would be a terrible candidate. Her polled support now is a mile wide and an inch deep; it’s extremely fragile, and during the rough and tumble of a campaign against (I expect) Rand Paul, she could easily crumble. Rand Paul would then come on as the outsider; Hillary as the insider. Rand Paul would come across as honest; Hillary as dishonest.

By contrast, Elizabeth Warren could come on like Obama did in 2008 but without the slickness, and overtake Hillary and go on to win the Presidency. She wouldn’t win as much financial backing as Hillary who has already become Wall Street’s darling, and who is aiming to score big also from the oil patch. But, like with Obama, she could score big online and with college-grads who have most of the money; she’s the dark horse who could really salvage this country.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of Theyre Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRISTS VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.


View the original article at Washingtons Blog

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Posted in Analysis & Review, Business, Finance & Economics, Politics, Public Figures.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

0 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

Some HTML is OK

or, reply to this post via trackback.

Support #altnews & keep Dark Politricks alive

Remember I told you over 5 years ago that they would be trying to shut down sites and YouTube channels that are not promoting the "Official" view. Well it's all happening now big time. Peoples Channels get no money from YouTube any more and Google is being fishy with their AdSense giving money for some clicks but not others. The time is here, it's not "Obama's Internet Cut Off Switch" it's "Trumps Sell Everyones Internet Dirty Laundry Garage Sale". This site must be on some list at GCHQ/NSA as my AdSense revenue which I rely on has gone down by a third. Either people are not helping out by visiting sponsors sanymore or I am being blackballed like many YouTube sites.

It's not just Google/YouTube defunding altenative chanels (mine was shut), but Facebook is also removing content, shutting pages, profiles and groups and removing funds from #altnews that way as well. I was recently kicked off FB and had a page "unpublished" with no reason given. If you don't know already all Facebooks Private Messages and Secret Groups are still analysed and checked for words related to drugs, sex, war etc against their own TOS. Personally I know there are undercover Irish police moving from group to group cloning peoples accounts and getting people booted. Worse than that I know some people in prison now for the content they had on their "secret private group". Use Telegrams secret chat mode to chat on, or if you prefer Wickr. If you really need to, buy a dumb phone with nothing for the NSA/GCHQ to hack into. Ensure it has no GPS tracking on it and that the battery can be removed. These are usually built for old people to get used to technology storing only a set of numbers to call. However they have no games, applications to install or other ways people can exploit the computer tracking device you carry round with you most of the day - your smart phone. If you are paranoid ensure that you can remove the battery when travelling around and do so to prevent GPS tracking or phone mast triangulation. Even with your phone in Flight mode or turned off, it can be turned on remotely and any features like front or back cameras, microphones and keylogging software can be installed to trace you.

So if your not supporting this site already which brings you news from the Left to the Right (really the same war mongering rubbish) then I could REALLY do with some..

Even if it's just £5 or tick the monthly subscription box and throw a few pound my way each month, it will be much appreciated. Read on to find out why.


Any support to keep this site would be appreciated. You could set up a monthly subscription for £2 like some people do or you could pay a one off donation as a gift.
I am not asking you to pay me for other people's articles, this is a clearing house as well as place to put my own views out into the world. I am asking for help to write more articles like my recent false flag gas attack to get WWIII started in Syria, and Trump away from Putin. Hopefully a few missiles won't mean a WikiLeaks release of that infamous video Trump apparently made in a Russian bedroom with Prostitutes. Also please note that this article was written just an hour after the papers came out, and I always come back and update them.

If you want to read JUST my own articles then use the top menu I have written hundreds of articles for this site and I host numerous amounts of material that has seen me the victim of hacks, DOS plus I have been kicked off multiple hosting companies, free blogging sites, and I have even had threats to cease and desist from the US armed forces. Therefore I have to pay for my own server which is NOT cheap. The more people who read these article on this site the more it costs me so some support would be much appreciated.

I have backups of removed reports shown, then taken down after pressure, that show collusion between nations and the media. I have the full redacted 28/29 pages from the 9.11 commission on the site which seems to have been forgotten about as we help Saudi Arabia bomb Yemeni kids hiding in the rubble with white phosphorus, an illegal weaapon. One that the Israeli's even used when they bombed the UN compound in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead. We complain about Syrian troops (US Controlled ISIS) using chemical weapons to kill "beautiful babies". I suppose all those babies we kill in Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Syria are just not beautiful enough for Trumps beautiful baby ratio. Plus we kill about 100 times as many as ISIS or the Syrian army have managed by a factor of about 1000 to 1.

I also have a backup of the FOX News series that looked into Israeli connections to 9.11. Obviously FOX removed that as soon as AIPAC, ADL and the rest of the Hasbra brigade protested.

I also have a copy of the the original Liberal Democrats Freedom Bill which was quickly and quietly removed from their site once they enacted and replaced with some watered down rubbish instead once they got into power. No change to police tactics, protesting or our unfair extradition treaty with the USA but we did get a stop to being clamped on private land instead of the mny great ideas in the original.

So ANY support to keep this site running would be much appreciated! I don't have much money after leaving my job and it is a choice between shutting the server or selling the domain or paying a lot of money just so I can show this material.

Material like the FSB Bombings that put Putin in power or the Google no 1 spot when you search for protecting yourself from UK Police with "how to give a no comment interview". If you see any adverts that interest you then please visit them as it helps me without you even needing to give me any money. A few clicks per visit is all it takes to help keep the servers running and tag any tweets with alternative news from the mainstream with the #altnews hashtag I created to keep it alive!

However if you don't want to use the very obvious and cost free ways (to you) to help the site and keep me writing for it then please consider making a small donation. Especially if you have a few quid sitting in your PayPal account doing nothing useful. Why not do a monthly subscription for less money instead. Will you really notice £5 a month?