Hillary in Bosnia: lone gunman?

[MADem]

133. No, it isn't really--the nation is far less genteel than the commonwealth when it comes to beating

attack politics--and Warren barely survived the Pow Wow/tomahawk onslaught from Scott Brown. They perceive her as an inexperienced lamb to the slaughter. She hasn't been vetted at the national level, anything can be a scandal (Oooooh, ex-husband!!1!1! Ooooh, youthful marriage!!!1!1!) and there are more wagging tongues than there are brains on the GOP side to spread lies and disinformation.

And she is probably the smartest senator in the US Senate for many reasons--one of which is that she knows her interests and limitations.

Here--this scenario has her losing to Ted Cruz: http://www.salon.com/2013/10/25/ted_cruz_will_be_president_if_democrats_listen_to_elizabeth_warren_warns_republican/

In this terrifyingly real scenario, the U.S. tips back into recession, Republicans win huge in 2014 and Democrats respond by getting more aggressively populist on economic and financial issues. These Democrats revolt against Hillary Clinton, and Obama’s moderation, and embrace, instead, Elizabeth Warren. Warren, slightly oddly, decides to run against Clinton, and the bruising primary fight divides and weakens the party.

Cruz, meanwhile, capitalizes on the shutdown and his general reputation for being a huge dick all the time and handily wins the nomination. Then he moves to the center, sort of!

Ted Cruz, however, could offer the vice presidency to Chris Christie — and the Democrats’ post-2014 leftward veer frightened Republican donors enough that they pressed Christie to accept. Unlike Romney in 2012, Cruz’s conservative allegiance could not be questioned, freeing him to write the vaguest platform and conduct the most issue-free campaign of any Republican since George H.W. Bush in 1988. Cruz delivered half his convention speech in Spanish and used the other half to rededicate the party to “the compassion of conservatism,” a subtle variant of an old phrase that delighted convention delegates.

Want more? http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/15/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-democrats-2016

Elizabeth Warren won't save the Democrats in 2016
Warren's populist message could defeat Hillary in the primaries. But her proposed policies won't win over the general electorate

...Many voters will have a problem with Warren's proposed clampdown on the consumer credit industry. To the extent that they even understand what she's proposing, it's going to sound like she wants to cut off their access to credit cards, auto loans and mortgages. As irresponsible as the consumer credit industry has been, voters will legitimately want to know how Warren proposes to supply them with a car to get to work when they don't have the money to pay for one and groceries when a meager paycheck has been spent.

Which brings us to the real issue that American workers care about – about which neither Warren nor her Republican opponent will have anything credible to say: how do we create high-paying jobs for American workers?

The real solution is unfortunately beyond the imagination of almost any Democrat or Republican. The real solution is a massive mobilization of labor and capital to redevelop the US economy – something that the US and every industrialized country has done before.

If you look around at some of the RW hate sites, I'll bet you could find plenty of anticipatory glee--I am not motivated to look over in those open sewers.

But it doesn't matter--she's not fundraising, she's not making the rounds, and she's not running. See:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/elizabeth-warren-financial-backer-tells-donors-no-chance-on?bftw=