How Many People Turned Out for Warrenpalooza?

January 19, 2015

From our newly launched Tale of Two Lizzies desk

As the hardworking staff duly noted, the Run Warren Run crowd ran ads in New Hampshire papers the other day promoting a rally to urge U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Sort of No) to enter the 2016 presidential bakeoff.

And how many Lizziacs showed up?

Hard to tell from the Boston dailies.

James Pindell’s Boston Globe Metro piece:

In N.H., activists back run by Warren

Democrats push populist message

MANCHESTER, N.H. – They gripped signs and took T-shirts with the words “Run Warren Run,” but the 50 Democratic activists who attended the New Hampshire kick-off of an organization hoping to persuade senter0001-002Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren to run for president came for different reasons.

Some had already publicly committed to Hillary Clinton, should she run again for president, but want Clinton to adopt a more populist message. Others said they like it when Warren speaks out on issues like income inequality but want to learn more about her personally before backing her as a presidential candidate. A handful were interested in a potential presidential bid from Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont but wonder whether he is the best person to push a progressive message.

 

So . . . whatever.

But crosstown at the Boston Herald, the crowd was much larger.

From Lindsay Kalter’s report:

Hope was a recurring theme at the launch rally yesterday, hosted by Democracy for America and MoveOn.org, which have promised to invest $1.25 million in Iowa and New Hampshire to convince Warren to run for president. About 250,000 people have signed a petition asking Warren to run, even though she has repeatedly said she isn’t jumping into the race.

About 125 people attended, organizers said, many donning free red, white and blue T-shirts decorated with the “Run Warren Run” logo. Sixteen locals signed up to host house parties to spread the word and convince more people to join the cause.

 

To recap:

A crowd roughly the size of a) The Kardashians, or b) Mitt Romney’s grandchildren showed up for Lizorama.

Sounds more like Shun Warren Shun to us.


Herald Hit on Hillary ‘Warrens’ a More Honest Look

December 20, 2014

The Boston Herald jumps all over some Kennedy-on-Clinton action today, giving Page One over to Joe K 3.0.

 

Screen Shot 2014-12-20 at 12.44.45 PM

 

Inside, reporter Matt Stout elaborates:

Kennedy: ‘Companies clearly create jobs’

U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III said yesterday that “companies clearly create jobs,” putting distance between himself and potential presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, whose controversial comments on the Screen Shot 2014-12-20 at 12.29.35 PMsubject are expected to be fodder for Republicans this upcoming election cycle.

One of the Bay State’s rising political stars, Kennedy said in a Herald interview yesterday that Congress needs to embrace policies geared toward economic equality as it prepares to return next month under Republican control. But he said helping businesses, big and small, to “flourish” needs to remain part of that, as Democrats — increasingly galvanized by the populist bullhorn wielded by U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren — try to beat back criticism that they’re anti-business.

 

We-think-she’s-nuts graf:

Republicans once galvanized by President Obama’s “You didn’t build that” comment in 2012 were re-energized in late October when Clinton sent shock waves through the Twittersphere when she told Democrats in Boston, “Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.”

 

(Columnist Joe Battenfeld piles on with this piece, in which he speculates that Joe K 3.0 “may help derail Clinton’s White House path by endorsing her potential 2016 opponent, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, much the same way the late U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy backed Barack Obama in 2008.”)

The problem with this Hill-steria on the Herald’s part is that it conveniently overlooks this:

 

 

Yeah – that was Elizabeth Warren two years ago, not two months ago like Clinton. So you could say Warren was the Granny of that particular sentiment.

But the Herald wouldn’t say that. Doesn’t fit their storyline, does it?


A Tale of Two Lizzies

December 16, 2014

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Present Tense) has routinely refused to rule out a 2016 presidential run, saying only “I am not running for president.” Here’s a typical exchange, from yesterday’s interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep, who brought up all the people urging Warren to run.

Would you tell these independent groups, “Give it up!” You’re just never going to run.
I told them, “I’m not running for president.”
You’re putting that in the present tense, though. Are you never going to run?
I am not running for president.
You’re not putting a “never” on that.
I am not running for president. You want me to put an exclamation point at the end?

 

Fabulously non-responsive, no?

But in today’s edition the Boston Globe’s Noah Bierman came up with a clever way to shift Warren to the future tense.

Warren has answered the question more definitively before. Last year, the Globe asked her at a news conference in Boston whether she would make a a more ironclad pledge to serve out her Senate term, which 72cf5cc5506b43c0a9b4fac1d2a7af7e-72cf5cc5506b43c0a9b4fac1d2a7af7e-0ends in January 2019.

“I pledge to serve out my term,” she said at the time.

On Monday, Warren’s spokeswoman, Lacey Rose, was asked by the Globe in an e-mail whether the senator stood by that pledge.

“Yep, nothing has changed,” Rose replied.

 

Of course, everything is different in the Boston Herald. Top of Page One:

 

Screen Shot 2014-12-16 at 10.14.16 AM

 

Inside, there’s Hillary Chabot’s piece (with Matthew Stout) about Warren’s local political posse.

Bay State heavyweights eye Warren bandwagon

121514massportnl08

U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III — whose late uncle Edward M. Kennedy famously snubbed Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential contest — kept the door open yesterday to another game-changing Kennedy endorsement should U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren enter the 2016 race.

“He has no doubt she will continue to be a tremendously effective leader wherever her career takes her,” Kennedy spokeswoman Emily Brown said yesterday when asked of the congressman’s thoughts about Warren as president.

The comment comes after U.S. Rep. Michael E. Capuano (D-Somerville) offered his support to Warren if she jumps into the presidential contest, despite the likelihood that former Secretary of State Clinton will enter the field.

 

Joe Battenfeld adds a column about Warren’s likely prospects and this Tale of the Tape:

 

Screen Shot 2014-12-16 at 10.15.03 AM

 

As usual with the local dailies, we have another split decision.


NYT Elizabeth Warren Full-Page Book Ad: Paging Howie Carr . . . Paging Mr. Howie Carr

April 23, 2014

Okay, so this full-page ad ran in Tuesday’s New York Times:

 

Screen Shot 2014-04-23 at 12.29.29 AM

 

And okay, the liberal mainstream media might have given Warren a total pass on the Indian thing, as this piece by Tim Stanley in The Telegraph contends.

Elizabeth Warren’s ‘Native American’ claims: if she was a Republican, the media would call her a racist

 

Screen-shot-2012-06-14-at-17.32.22

 

Imagine if a Republican candidate claimed, confidently, that she was part Native American. Imagine if she had actually used that identity to have herself listed as a minority at Harvard, qualifying her for special treatment and celebration as proof of how diverse and progressive her department is. Imagine if, many years later, it turned out that her claims to Native heritage were dubious and, when pressed for proof, she offered her “high cheekbones.” Oh, and she once contributed a recipe to a Native American cookbook called “Pow Wow Chow” (that may even have been plagiarised).

Chances are, that Republican candidate would be hounded night and day by the press, branded a racist and probably be winding down her political career. Right now, she’d be sitting by the phone, praying for a call from the producers of Celebrity Apprentice (gotta pay the mortgage on that wigwam somehow).

The incredible thing is that all this has happened to a Democratic senatorial candidate called Elizabeth Warren. And not only has she been given a pass by her party, which normally treats race with the respect it deserves, but also by the mainstream media . . .

 

So Boston Herald Pow Wow Chowdahead Howie Carr:

Are you on this or what?

 


Howie Carr Jumps the Snark (Elizabeth Warren DNA Edition)

April 18, 2014

The hardreading staff knows we should just ignore this knucklehead, but the Boston Herald’s baldiest thumbsucker scales entirely new heights of Carrtoonishness in today’s column.

Take my DNA challenge!

Prove you’re an Indian, Liz

041714dna001There is only one way to settle once and for all the question of whether the fake Indian is or is not a real Indian.

She needs to take a DNA test.

I dare you, Sen. Warren. It only costs about $200. If you insist, I’ll pay for it. In fact, I’ll take one myself. It’s easy. Just swab the inside of your mouth. Check my photo on the left, I’ll show you how to do it.

 

Seen enough? Us too.

So, to recap:

First there were truthers. Then there were birthers. Now we have . . . lizzards – sorry, Lizzers.

Yeesh.

 

Campaign Outsider Equal Time Addendum™

Here’s Matt Viser on Warren in today’s Boston Globe:

In book, Warren explains guarded nature with the media

 

warren-big-2044

 

WASHINGTON — It is an odd contradiction. Senator Elizabeth Warren has shaped an image of herself as woman of the people, fighting for common middle-class families, unimpressed by her own power.

But since her 2012 election the Massachusetts Democrat has typically walled herself off from the media, refusing to answer questions in Senate hallways, frequently declining interviews, and adopting some of the same guarded, cautious communication strategies as the corporate CEOs she often pillories. Several weeks ago, a Warren aide physically blocked and reprimanded a Globe reporter seeking to ask Warren a question about the Boston Marathon bombings.

 

Double yeesh.

 


Brownout at the Boston Globe, But Rivers Flows

September 30, 2013

The Boston Herald, which constantly asks itself What can we do for Brown?, scores a hat trick for former Sen. Barn Jacket in today’s edition.

Start with this page-twofer:

 

Picture 1

 

Then Hillary Chabot puts on the pom-poms.

081819brown06Message to Brown: Give N.H. a shot

Be careful what you wish for, Jeanne Shaheen.

The New Hampshire senator and her fellow Democrats have spent the past few days crying wolf about Bay State Republican Scott Brown’s rumored run against Shaheen, blasting out fundraising emails ahead of Brown’s appearance tonight in Hampstead, N.H.

Brown’s former foe, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), chimed in on Friday, and yesterday even failed presidential candidate Howard Dean jumped in, crowing, “New Hampshire deserves a voice, not a Karl Rove pawn.”

 

Dean the Scream mocking you, Scott? That’s bad. So, Chabot says,  “prove ’em wrong.”

Crosstown at the Boston Globe, Brown’s an afterthought sitting at the bottom of Page 3.

 

Picture 3

 

But it’s a whole nother story at the local dailies when it comes to Eugene Rivers. Rather than let him hijack the front page the way the Herald did last week, the Globe actually covers the prattlin’ preacher. From Adrian Walker’s Metro column:

He says vote, but doesn’t

The Rev. Eugene F. Rivers 3d struck such a forceful pose and tone on the cover of the Boston Herald Thursday, in a lament for what he viewed as the black community’s wasted opportunity in last week’s preliminary mayoral election.

In an op-ed column, the cofounder of the Boston TenPoint Coalition castigated black voters for a litany of sins, many of them related to the supposedly unsophisticated failure to coalesce around a single candidate of color.

To Rivers — an energetic advocate for former state representative Charlotte Golar Richie — his community’s failure led to the apparently heartbreaking result that two white Irish men are facing off in the final election for mayor of Boston.

Rivers was especially troubled by the fools who didn’t even bother to vote.

 

The punchline, of course, is that Rivers himself did not vote. Hasn’t for more than 10 years.

So who’s foolin’ who?

 


Ed Markey Is the Emptiest Suit on Capitol Hill

September 6, 2013

From our Late to the (Democratic) Party desk 

Massachusetts amateur – sorry, junior – Sen. Ed Markey’s “present” to the GOP got front-page treatment in both Boston dailies Thursday.

Start with the Boston Globe.

Print edition headline (with one very weird photo):

Members on left, right uniting in wariness

2013-09-03T192245Z_1964575055_GM1E994099301_RTRMADP_3_SYRIA-CRISIS-CONGRESS

WASHINGTON — A Senate committee voted on Wednesday to give President Obama the authority to use military force in Syria, providing momentum to the White House plan to punish President Bashir Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons.

But in twist that signaled the issue still faces an uncertain outcome, Senator Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, voted “present,” choosing not to register his position on the highest-profile issue to come before him since he was sworn in nearly two months ago. He was the only senator to cast a noncommital vote.

 

Crosstown at the Boston Herald, Markey’s “noncommital vote” (and senior Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s squishiness on Syria) got a decidedly rougher reception.

 

Screen Shot 2013-09-06 at 1.10.50 AM

 

Wethinks the Herald got it right on this one.