Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Elizabeth Warren's macaca moment: Vast Left outs her as an Iran war-lover who doesn't know the intel, or doesn't care to know

Teh awesome. And especially awesome to see a foul-mouthed blogger of the left (and Corrente expat) outing Warren.

Interestingly, I thought the comments would be a tribal wankfest, but they aren't (at least the top 50 or so).

Oh, and please don't tell me "She had to say that." That's what the same crowd told us about Obama, and as it turned out, he believed everything he "had to" say.

NOTE Original post here. Go read.

NOTE For those who came in late, "macaca moment" is from the George Allen's failed 2006 Senate campaign. Allen boarded the #FAILboat with a racist slur. Warren, by contrast, with sloppily evidenced warmongering. Of course, in Versailles, that's not a #FAIL; c'est normal. It remains to be seen whether D voters take it seriously.

0
No votes yet

Comments

lizpolaris's picture
Submitted by lizpolaris on

Warren is an expert in domestic policy not foreign policy. Given that this story is about standard D patter on her website - as opposed to a major statement in a speech - I'd say she's just going with whatever is the flow on foreign affairs and doesn't pay much attention to it. Clearly, she should - and if she doesn't get up to speed and change her stance when questioned, then let's call out the dogs. Until then, she's still one of the best of the current crop of Ds.

Submitted by lambert on

For one thing, she's not some hick from a provincial backwater. She's from Harvard, and she's got every opportunity to familiarize herself with foreign policy matters simply by virtue of coffee- and dinner-table conversation in her milieu. (Of course, her milieu is probably in favor of war with Iran, but then that's the point, isn't it?)

For another, she's been called on this issue before, and currently. If she doesn't have her story straight by now, perhaps we should assume that this is her story.

Finally, I am not inclined either to "go with the flow" or support a candidate who does. I know very well what "the flow" is, and it is totally inimical to my values and interests. And how did going with a candidate on the basis of vague promises and personality work out for us all in 2008? Not so well, right?

Warren's just another revolving hero, a D scam. She should stay at Harvard and be a good professor, instead of allowing herself to be used.

lizpolaris's picture
Submitted by lizpolaris on

and not so great on foreign policy or a D candidate who is not a consumer advocate and also not so great on foreign policy? Massachusetts got the better of the two as their candidate.

So if she stays at Harvard you'd get an even worse D candidate running. That's what you want?

katiebird's picture
Submitted by katiebird on

"D" Advocates in the Senate and House have proved to be totally worthless. ... Except to themselves where their pretty speeches can be used to drum up donations from (the shrinking pool) working stiffs.

If she's going to be as effective as Al Franken, I'll pass. (HA! I just realized that probably exactly who she's emulating)

Turlock