Hillary Clinton Praises 'Progressive Champion' Elizabeth Warren

[kpete]

Hillary Clinton continued to heap praise upon Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), calling her a "progressive champion" who "never lets us forget" that more needs to be done to rein in the excesses of Wall Street.

"It was always going to take a special kind of leader to pick up Ted Kennedy’s mantle as senior Senator from Massachusetts—champion of working families and scourge of special interests," Clinton wrote in TIME's annual list of the world's "100 Most Influential People," which included the Massachusetts Democrat.

"Elizabeth Warren never lets us forget that the work of taming Wall Street’s irresponsible risk taking and reforming our financial system is far from finished," she said. "And she never hesitates to hold powerful people’s feet to the fire: bankers, lobbyists, senior government officials and, yes, even presidential aspirants."


MORE:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/16/hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren-time_n_7077892.html



UPDATED TO ADD:

Hillary Clinton praises Elizabeth Warren in Time's most influential list
Massachusetts senator ‘never hesitates to hold powerful people’s feet to the fire’, writes Clinton, while Rand Paul lauds the Koch brothers

HERE:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/16/hillary-clinton-praises-elizabeth-warren-time

[mylye2222]

1. Blah blah!

While she uses populist rethoric only to appease true progressive possible wishes of challenging her.

[MineralMan]

6. Or she really admires Elizabeth Warren.

I wonder how you know which is which. Maybe your predetermined thinking is clouding your opinion.

I think you'll find that Elizabeth Warren will also be a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton's candidacy if and when she gets the Democratic nomination. In fact, I'm certain of that.

Perhaps you're not getting a clear picture due to your distance from the campaign.

[mylye2222]

7. Warren didnt seemed 100% ready for Hillary lately.

[MineralMan]

9. You're incorrect. You're projecting

your viewpoint on her. Warren is dedicated to some important issues, and Clinton recognizes her for it. Those issues are important, and it appears that Clinton is focusing on them as part of her campaign. This praise is an indication of that. Keep watching the campaign, and keep your ears and brain thinking about what is actually being said, rather than what you think she means.

You'll understand American politics better if you do that. Clinton did not praise Warren just to praise Warren. Truly. Nothing in presidential politics is transparent. There's always a subtext. This praise for Warren will soon be reflected in policy statements Clinton makes.

It's a long, long campaign. It will develop as it develops. It's difficult to make predictions based on limited information.

[erronis]

36. I just wish we had seen more action from HRC before the campaign started

As we've witnessed many times (and in recent history), campaign rhetoric does not necessarily match the true feelings of a candidate, or the actuality of their governance.

I can imagine that Hillary has a lot of understanding and even intellectual bonding with Sen. Warren and I'm glad of that. I'm sure she and everyone around her are reading as many tea leaves (whoops, let's make that chai leaves) for assistance.

I also understand that campaign staff/consultants are constantly looking at the most promising ways to present messages. It's difficult, of course, to stay "on message" but also to address what seems to be the motivating factors/inflection points that will sway voters - or more importantly, donors.

It's a career only a masochist or an insane idealist could wish for.

[freshwest]

14. EW has already endorsed HRC. They play different roles within the Democratic Party. EW is great at

what she is doing in her position in MA, they don't want her to leave, and she says she won't. She has also stated that we need to give Hillary a chance. Why people think these two have a conflict, I don't know.

They can't agree on everything, they are individuals. Some tried to push a meme that HRC and Obama didn't get along - not true. Some tried to push a meme that Warrne and Obama didn't get along - not true. And it's definitely not true that Warren and Hillary are enemies.

Why is it necessary to dissect every news report to attack HRC?

[morningfog]

15. Link to her endorsement of Hillary?

[AtomicKitten]

56. Elizabeth has not endorsed Hillary.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/02/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-endorsements/

Ready for Hillary claimed (see above link) she did based on a letter she signed from female Senate Democrats encouraging her to run. Elizabeth has made it abundantly clear that was not an endorsement.

Here Elizabeth says Hillary may or may not be the future of the Democratic Party:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/09/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-may-or-may-not-be-the-future-of-the-democratic-party/

[Helen Borg]

66. you are right.

[Thinkingabout]

72. A later date

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/27/elizabeth-warren-i-hope-hillary-clinton-runs-for-president/

[AtomicKitten]

74. Again, not an endorsement.

Elizabeth Warren is a gracious, nice person. You are confusing that with an endorsement. Ready for Hillary did too. Maybe it's epidemic among Clinton supporters. They desperately want Elizabeth to kiss Hillary's ring. Elizabeth when asked if she endorses Hillary said she's waiting to see what Hillary's running on. Easily accessible info

Speaking of which, I started to look up a link for you, but figured screw it. You won't accept anything that deviates from your narrative anyway so I'm not going to waste my time. It's 4/20 eve and I've got something better to do.

Conclusion: Elizabeth has not endorsed Hillary.

Believe what you want.

[MineralMan]

18. Yes, she has, which is why I know that she'll support

Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee. People who don't understand that don't appear to understand how presidential campaigns work.

[morningfog]

68. Link to Warren's endorsement of Hillary?

[Thinkingabout]

71. Here is one, there are more

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/27/elizabeth-warren-i-hope-hillary-clinton-runs-for-president/

[morningfog]

75. I think you are overstating it.

That being said, I don't doubt that Warren will officially endorse her at some point. Certainly if Hillary is the nominee. Possibly during the primary.

[Thinkingabout]

76. hey, you wanted a link.

It speaks for itself

[morningfog]

77. And it is not an endorsement.

[Thinkingabout]

79. Just threading the needle, huh.

[abakan]

35. Why people think these two have a conflict?

Because they are both women. There is this culture that loves nothing more than to pit one woman against another. If there is no conflict they will make one up and try to sell it to who ever will listen. Like children in a school yard screaming, GIRL FIGHT!
The mentality is adolescent and fits the Repubs to a tee.

[DesertDiamond]

37. I see your point, but I think it's because Warren is fighting Wall Street while Hillary has appeared

to be a little too cuddly with them.

[whathehell]

80. That is EXACTLY the reason. Anyone who doesn't see that hasn't been paying attention.

A "girlfight"? They're both grandmothers.

[freshwest]

38. Agreed. These Democrats have the same goals and work together. Good analyis on the origin. n/t

[pennylane100]

52. Respectfully, I have to disagree with you.

Two politicians have very different opinions about a trade agreement. I see this as a progressive versus moderate conflict. While I am firmly in Elizabeth's corner, I do not think their gender comes into play.

Hilary does seem unwilling to take on Wall Street, possibly because it bites the hand that feeds her. Elizabeth sees the harm these people can do to the country and hopefully she will stay the course and maybe pull Hilary toward the left as well. I just do not see how gender plays a role in this.

[abakan]

54. everyone is entitled to their opinion

I do not agree with yours.

[libdem4life]

64. I see this, too. Two Powerful Women...Oh noes. Even Caroline Kennedy was tagged with

the "D" word when she considered a run for I think it was Senate. (D stands for Dynasty) But not a one of her male relatives have been tagged, that I know of.

Clinton is not a "D". She is a Rodham who happened to marry a Clinton. Anyway, two does not a Dynasty Make.

And I see Hillary and Elizabeth working together. That's really the upshot of women...they work together much better than men do, for the most part. Tons of articles have been written about Women in the House and Senate.

[sabrina 1]

78. I think you'll find that the Left's populism is sweepting the country and that their support of

Warren is forcing candidates to accept that they cannot win without the Left. Warren was a huge supporter of OWS. They helped her win the Senate seat she now occupies.

The Third Way attacks on Warren BACKFIRED. Now they have to accept the reality that the Left is needed in order to win and if the Dem candidate does not embrace the Left, they cannot win. Thank YOU OWS and Warren who was a champion of that Movement.

Thank you OWS, even those heavily funded by Wall St, know they cannot win without the support of the Left. Much as they wish it were otherwise.

Warren will support the Dem, she is a member of the Dem Party. What she does not support is the Third Way politics that Clinton espouses. However if Warren and OWS and the Left can influence Clinton, that is a good thing. But is AFTER the election that we will see whether or not any of what is said now really matters.

Meantime the Left is focusing on Congress and the Senate. We are not listening to the words they say, we are looking at what they DO.

[VanillaRhapsody]

11. What???

Blah Blah is right...

[billhicks76]

51. Know Them By Their Actions...Not Their Words

[MineralMan]

2. She's right. E.W. is doing great things in the Senate.

I'd praise her, too.

[leftofcool]

3. Hillary is correct!

[democrank]

4. Elizabeth Warren deserves praise.

Hope Hillary Clinton listens to Elizabeth as part of her "listening" tour. If she does, she`ll learn something.

[mylye2222]

5. Of Course. Liz deserves praise.

She is a TRUE progressive who speaks from the heart.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. I assume that a former Republican like Warren sees Hillary as one of the women who pulled her

to the left to begin with. Warren was a 30 year Republican, voting for Nixon, Reagan, Bush. She was voting for George Bush when Bill beat George and Hilary went to work on health care, she was a Republican when Bernie Sanders was helping co-found the Progressive Caucus back in 1992.
So TRUE? Probably, but also fairly recently progressive. She spent the bulk of her life and her high earning business years far to the right of even moderate Democrats. The 1992 Republican Convention had Pat Buchanan as keynote, and that was Warren's Party.

Not everyone just now started paying attention.

[bahrbearian]

22. Hilary the Goldwater girl pulled Warren left , thats Rich.

[leftofcool]

26. Yea, when she was 16 and not old enough to vote.

[bahrbearian]

40. Sure

In 1965, Rodham enrolled at Wellesley College, where she majored in political science.[19] During her first year, she served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans;[20][21] with this Rockefeller Republican-oriented group,[22] she supported the elections of Mayor John Lindsay and Senator Edward Brooke.[2

[VanillaRhapsody]

45. What were the Republicans like in 1965?

And by the way....Elizabeth Warren WAS an ACTUAL Republican in adulthood!

[tazkcmo]

33. I hear/read this one a lot.

About 50 years ago Mrs. Clinton had a different opinion on a variety of subjects. My guess is that would apply to almost all of us and you can use any 50 year span. I know Sen. Warren's opinions have changed. People change.

I am not Clinton fan, either of them, but I base that on fairly recent events and not the opinions they held 50 years ago or when they were young, fresh, take on the world 16 year olds.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. Well someone or something did, Liz was a Reagan/Bush Republican until she was pushing 50.

So she sure as shit was to the right of Hillary for many long years. That's a given. So maybe she had a 'road to Damascus' moment, or read a moving account of the life of Eugene Debs, I do not know. Somehow, someway, Warren moved from the Republican right wing to where she is today. Hillary aside, Warren is way more progressive than she was when she was a Supply Sider.

Do you know her narrative? Start with the years of Reagan's inaction about AIDS, end with her pulling everyone else to the left, tie the two together for me. In the middle, explain how she 'earned' her millions. Thanks!

[Thinkingabout]

73. I think this is how EW went left she followed Hillary, Hillary was Democrat in

1968 and it took EW a few more years to become Democrat.

[AtomicKitten]

58. Still claiming you know how Elizabeth voted I see.

You don't know how she voted because Elizabeth has not said.

You've been called on this before but it doesn't seemed to have deterred you in the slightest.

[VanillaRhapsody]

12. She was already as Far Left as Liz Warren...

sorry to disappoint you "democrank"

[Fearless]

13. Baseless conjecture.

[freshwest]

19. HRC's farther left than EW per Ballotpedia. Warren is more Populist. I researched it:

Last edited Thu Apr 16, 2015, 01:17 PM - Edit history (1)

The only real lefty is Sanders, and Sanders and Clinton voted almost exactly the same. No daylight between them in the Senate.

Warren has not been there as long to get the record HRC and Sanders had but EW, HRC and Sanders are all on the same page. Here's a link on my reply to a question on Sanders' National Security positions which I contrasted with HRC & EW:

He has voted on the CR's that contained things he didn't like, typically Democratic. See here:

F-35 fighter planes OK at Burlington Airport.

Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps.

Voted NO on cutting $221M in benefits to Filipinos who served in WWII US Army.

Voted YES on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls.

Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad.

Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months.

Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report.

Voted NO on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant.

Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight.

Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists.

Voted NO on continuing military recruitment on college campuses.

Voted YES on supporting new position of Director of National Intelligence.

Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Voted NO on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Voted YES on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns.

Voted NO on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill.

Voted NO on deploying SDI.

End the use of anti-personnel mines.

Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record.***

Extend reserve retirement pay parity back to 9/11.

Repeal Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell, and reinstate discharged gays.

Non-proliferation includes disposing of nuclear materials.

Address abuses of electronic monitoring in the workplace.

Restore habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror.

These votes span a number of years. Obama agrees on most of them. But Barack is also the CinC, although if the world's demands on us in their wars calms down, he can just be what he wanted to be: POTUS.

Kucinich told us in a meeting, that BO's duties are far different than a member of Congress. DK also said Obama is a progressive and a liberal Democrat. But that his position as POTUS entailed doing a wider range of things in his job.

***Hillary has a 100% rating at SANE as well, which is one of the oldest and most well-known peace groups there is.

For details of the years of those votes and the pros and cons:

http://www.ontheissues.org/international/Bernie_Sanders_Homeland_Security.htm

A little more on his votes, and where he falls on the spectrum politically in that chart***:



Sanders is a Hard-Core Liberal per their chart, which is not strictly anti-war. Sanders is like FDR, who even like Orwell, weren't strictly anti-war. But not for war for profit or religion as the GOP is.

The link says Sanders votes as an average Democrat. That is why he should run as candidate for the Democratic Party.

***HRC's part on the chart is the same as Sanders, but Clinton is a Liberal Populist.

Many say that about Warren, whose chart shows she is less liberal than HRC, FWIW:



http://ballotpedia.org/Elizabeth_Warren

Note that on National Security, HRC's and Sanders' were virtually the same on may issues:

Voted NO on cutting $221M in benefits to Filipinos who served in WWII US Army. (Apr 2008)

Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)

Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)

Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)

Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)

Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)

Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)

Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)

Voted YES on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)

Voted YES on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders. (Mar 2005)

Federalize aviation security. (Nov 2001)

Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)

She said she supported what has been hailed this year by PBO. I am uncertain when she said this, but it perhaps it was Secretary of State. We must remember though, that Obama's job is quite different from anyone else's in government. HRC said on Iran:

I’m relieved that the intelligence community has reached this conclusion, but I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change. I have for two years advocated diplomatic engagement with Iran, and I think that’s what the president should do.

Not too hawkish there. Here's more:

VoteMatch Responses

Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's right
(+5 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 2:
Require hiring more women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 3:
Same-sex domestic partnership benefits
(+5 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 4:
Teacher-led prayer in public schools
(+2 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 9:
Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)**

Favors topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage
(-3 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Parents choose schools via vouchers
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 18:
Replace coal & oil with alternatives
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 19:
Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 11:
Make taxes more progressive
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 12:
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 16:
Stricter limits on political campaign funds
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 14:
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties
(+5 points on Social scale)



Sources:

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026396578#post44

**Is it the cause of some of the heat directed at her at DU?

That's just a few things from the compilation by NYC Liberal. Perhaps you can see how HRC and Bernie match up by googling more.

I don't see that much difference, both have negatives with some and both have positives in terms of electability. I won't give into what the GOP wants us to FEEL, since most I read is about feelings by a filter installed by a generation of GOP propaganda.

What I see are more similarities than media hyped differences. They are both, when all is said and done, typical of a liberal Democrat and great people personally, and they don't attack each other. I won't fall into the GOP media game.

[VanillaRhapsody]

44. Exactly....

They just don't ever get it!

[AtomicKitten]

59. Nonsense. Hillary is a neoliberal.

The data you've regurgitated is several years out of date and does not factor in anything since Clinton was in the Senate. She's a neoliberal hawk on foreign policy, helped write the TPP, and ordered what turned out to be a hugely flawed environmental impact report for Keystone from a company with an inappropriate conflict of interest (also donating heavily to the Clinton Foundation).

You will know them by their works.

[WillyT]

8. K & R !!!

[bigtree]

10. praised the woman in the Senate promoting/furthering the cause of corporate financial regulation?

...you don't say.

[Orsino]

17. Right on!

May Warren be an influence as well as a reminder.

[riqster]

20. Good on her!

[boston bean]

21. Love it! Thanks Hillary.. My Senator is a good one!

[L0oniX]

23. Talk is cheap. Will Hillary walk the (latest) talk?

[saintsebastian]

29. Talk Isn't Always Cheap

For instance, Goldman Sachs once paid $200,000 to hear former Secretary Clinton do a little talking.

[L0oniX]

30. +1 "Goldman Sachs once paid $200,000 to hear former Secretary Clinton do a little talking"

[dreamnightwind]

48. Either that or her feet will be in the fire

[PowerToThePeople]

24. but will she vote for Warren for POTUS in '16?

[jwirr]

25. Hillary don't forget Glass-Steagell.

[jalan48]

27. I think Elizabeth is the best-now send money!

[MADem]

28. What will be the reaction, I wonder, when Warren campaigns for HRC?

[leftofcool]

31. She will be thrown under the bus.

[Iliyah]

43. Warren was hypnotized from HRC minions

[AtomicKitten]

60. ... or when Hillary campaigns for Elizabeth

Oh who am I kidding, Hiillary will undoubtedly take her ball and go home.

[MADem]

69. Warren has said she's not running. What part of NO doesn't mean NO to a liberal or

progressive?

[AtomicKitten]

70. Right, and pols change (or make up) their minds all the time

She's obviously thinking about running with all her appearances (TV. radio. etc.) speeches, and OP Eds.

I know the thought of an Elizabeth Warren candidacy makes you cranky as illustrated by your faux concern for her and insistence that she's not going to run, but as much as Clinton supporters (e.g. Chuck Schumer and Howard Dean) think it would be swell to skip the primary, a coronation will go over like a lead balloon for those not enamored with a Clinton candidacy. Kinda puts Hillary between a rock and hard place really.

[MADem]

81. Not after they've said NO over fifty times. But how quick you went to the personal!!

I'm "cranky" because I don't share your opinion? Isn't THAT a loaded word!

If I wanted to be an asshole I'd get personal with you, too! But I'll eschew that "cheap shot" path...I don't think that kind of thing elevates the discourse, here.

I think anyone who wants to run SHOULD run. Warren has said she doesn't want to run, and since she's said it dozens and dozens of times, and I think, too, that she is a woman of her word, I do believe her--I think she knows what she wants, and running for the presidency isn't in her wheelhouse.

Tell you what--you get back to me if she changes her mind. I doubt you'll be getting back to me.

[samsingh]

32. very good move

[carolinayellowdog]

34. while "centrist" hatemongering bullies HERE attack progressives as party traitors...

it looks like a rapprochement may be in the works behind the scenes. What a DISASTER for DU dividers!

[ChisolmTrailDem]

39. "Sen. Warren, are you or will you be running for vice-president?" nt

[mak3cats]

41. A WTF???? paragraph in the Guardian article

Elsewhere in the list, the Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul celebrates the hardline conservative billionaire political donors Charles and David Koch – saying that they have “consistently lobbied against special-interest politics”.

[herding cats]

42. Check it out, it's puke worthy.

http://time.com/3822767/charles-koch-david-koch-2015-time-100/

[dreamnightwind]

49. It totally sucks that our party enables a creep like Paul

Rand Paul currently has the political turf on important issues like the surveillance state, the U.S.'s role as global corporate militia, ending the war on drugs, etc.

Our party's subservience to special interests has prevented them from representing us on these issues, leaving a pretender like Paul to champion them.

I've met many young people who have fallen for it in a big way, and there is no way I can defend Democrats on those issues, which are also very important to me.

[joshcryer]

50. The great thing about Rand Paul.

Rand Paul is so fucking crazy batshit asshole corporate dickhead that no one here will fawn over him like they did for Ron Paul in 2012.

[customerserviceguy]

47. Talk is cheap

There are only two surprises over the next year and a half, and the smallest one is which Rethug will emerge as surviving clown from the jalopy. The biggest one is who Hillary will pick to be the next VP, and thus, the person who has a chance to carry on what may or may not be a progressive agenda.

[Rosco T.]

53. Still Say... Clinton/Warren.... nm

[AtomicKitten]

61. not a chance

[delrem]

55. If only Hillary Clinton were Elizabeth Warren. If only.

[treestar]

57. Heads explode!!

[JonLP24]

62. So which statement would be more reflective of actual policies Clinton would pursue as POUS

Here we go again.

According to a piece in Politico Magazine former Secretary of State and likely 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had some harsh words related to progressives in her $400,000 speeches for Goldman Sachs and friends. Clinton decided to use her speaking opportunity before the super rich to attack those criticizing Wall Street and its numerous criminal practices.

Ordinarily these masters of the universe might have groaned at the idea of a politician taking the microphone...

But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish.

Foolish, as in you don't get paid $400,000 for saying it? Why criticize Goldman Sachs when you can get paid $400,000 for talking to them the way they like?

Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy—it needs to stop.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/22/1264660/-Hillary-Clinton-Tells-Wall-Street-She-Believes-Anti-Wall-Street-Rhetoric-Foolish#

IMO, she is saying what her big money donors want to hear & she is saying want the populist wing of the party likes to hear but either one or the other but often times someone will argue the statement doesn't count because it was made back in January of last year give or take.

[99Forever]

63. When HRC takes action to follow Sen. Warren's lead, I'll be impressed.

Till then, hollow words don't fool me.

[Thinkingabout]

65. Records show Warren may be following Hillary's lead, are you impressed now

[cloudbase]

67. It's a page from LBJ's playbook.

Get 'em inside the tent pissing out, instead of outside the tent pissing in.