Elizabeth Warren Endorses Clinton, Attacks Trump, As Democrats Unite Behind Clinton

Senator Elizabeth Warren is the latest Democrat to unite behind the party's presumptive nominee. A marked contrast to the chaos that reigns on the Republican side of the aisle.

Elizabeth Warren

After spending the entire race for the Democratic nomination for President on the sidelines, and incurring speculation that she was secretly aiding and rooting for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren joined President Obama yesterday in endorsing Hillary Clinton while simultaneously opening up a barrage on Donald Trump that is likely a preview of the role she’ll play in the campaign going forward:

WASHINGTON — Now that Senator Bernie Sanders is all but out of the race, Democrats can unite to take aim at Donald J. Trump. Their new sledgehammer is Senator Elizabeth Warren.

In her day job, Ms. Warren cuts an imperious swath through the Capitol, striding down hallways, her jewel-toned jacket swaying behind her, refusing to speak to or even make eye contact with reporters. Small talk with elevator operators and other staff? Not her style. And the Democrat from Massachusetts is rarely front and center pushing major legislation.

But beyond Mr. Sanders, no one captivates the aggrieved, angry left the way Ms. Warren does.

“What she is doing right now, focusing on the outrageousness of Donald Trump is really important,” said Senator Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin. “In the universal sense I am always saying, ‘Go, Elizabeth, go!'”

Ms. Warren officially endorsed Hillary Clinton on Thursday. “I’m ready to jump in this fight and make sure that Hillary Clinton is the next president of the United States and be sure that Donald Trump gets nowhere near the White House,” Ms. Warren told The Boston Globe.

Never short on confidence, when asked on Thursday by Rachel Maddow, the MSNBC television host, if she believes that she herself could be commander in chief, Ms. Warren said, “Yes, I do.”

(…)

But her attacks on Mr. Trump were hatched in her own brain, and carried out with a combination of vehemence and apparent pleasure.

Through speeches, carefully chosen television appearances and tweet storms designed to skewer the businessman’s remarks, policies and dynamism, Ms. Warren has gone taunt-for-taunt with Mr. Trump, calling him a “loser,” a “small, insecure money grubber” and “weak.” And she is only warming up.

“Donald Trump says they ought to look into Judge Curiel because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace,” Ms. Warren said Thursday night in a speech to the American Constitution Society, addressing Mr. Trump’s attack on a federal judge, Gonzalo P. Curiel, based on his Hispanic heritage. “No, Donald, what you are doing is a total disgrace. Race-baiting a judge who spent years defending America from the terror of murderers and drug traffickers simply because long ago his family came to America from somewhere else. You, Donald Trump, are a total disgrace.”

Inevitably, the ‘attack dog’ mode that Warren has settled into so quickly has led to speculation about whether or not the Massachusetts Senator could end up being Clinton’s running mate in the fall given the fact that she seems to be taking on a role traditionally taken on by a running mate rather than a mere campaign surrogate. Clinton’s campaign is being mum on Vice-Presidential speculation, as is Senator Warren’s camp, but that’s not stopping others from working behind the scenes to bring the two women together. Outgoing Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, for example, has been pushing for a Clinton-Warren ticket for weeks now, notwithstanding the fact that such an even would risk at least temporarily handing her Senate seat to the GOP since a vacancy would likely mean that her replacement would named by Republican Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker and that this replacement would hold office until a Special Election could be held. Additionally, as Democrats learned in 2010, a Special Election could lead to the seat being held by a Republican until at least the 2018 General Election. More recently, Reid has been joined by other Senate Democrats who see a Clinton-Warren ticket as an excellent way for Clinton to unify the party after a long nomination fight and reach out to the progressive wing of the party by selecting the one person other than Bernie Sanders that they respect the most. For her part, Warren has been variously reported as being unsure about the idea of two women on the Democratic ticket and it’s unclear if Warren would even want the job compared to staying in the Senate and pursuing her agenda from that vantage point. Clinton, on the other hand, has said that Warren is assuredly qualified to be Vice-President, but has not commented further. Additionally, it’s unclear if Clinton would want Warren, who is only three years younger than her and thus would be unlikely to be an heir apparent at the end of a hypothetical two-term Clinton Presidency. In any case, Clinton and Warren are apparently scheduled to meet this morning, and it’s obvious that Warren will have a prominent role on the campaign trail even if she isn’t the Vice-Presidential running mate.

On a related note, one of the more interesting things about the past forty-eight hours or so since Hillary Clinton officially clinched the Democratic nomination has been the extent to which the party is unifying behind Clinton and shifting into campaign mode, a marked contrast to the chaos that remains on the Republican side. Most notable, of course, is the fact that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has largely abandoned his talk of trying to hijack the nomination via Superdelegates on the floor of the Democratic National Convention. Yes, Sanders is continuing his campaign, but it seems clear that he is going this largely because he feels he owes it to supporters to keep up the fight until the end, which officially happens next Tuesday with the Democratic Primary in the District of Columbia. At the same time, though, Sanders is talking in a way that recognizes that the fight is over and preparing his supporters for his inevitable endorsement of Hillary Clinton. In short order, we’ve seen endorsements from President Obama, Vice-President Biden, and, now Senator Warren. No doubt, the rest of the Democratic Party will fall in line quickly.

The contrast with the Republican Party at the moment couldn’t be any more apparent.

A large segment of the party seems perfectly comfortable with not allying with the presumptive nominee purely out of principle. The nominee himself continues to be as out of control as he was during the primary campaign and to spend more time talking about his personal vendettas than the issues or the opposition. As several commentators have noted, for example, Trump largely ignored a dismal jobs report and spent the majority of a campaign speech engaging in an undeniably racist, bigoted attack on the Judge presiding over a lawsuit alleging that he had been part of a fraudulent “University” that scammed thousands of people out of tens of thousands of dollars they couldn’t afford to lose. That attack led many Republicans who had already endorsed him to distance themselves from him in a preview of what could turn into a GOP civil war, while some on the right revived the idea that they could somehow still deny him the nomination. The advantages that a unified party give to Clinton should be rather obvious, and are likely to become even more apparent as we head into the hears of the General Election, especially if Republicans continue fighting among themselves.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2016, Congress, Hillary Clinton, Politicians, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Loviatar says:

    I’ve had the following confirmed as a result of the 2016 Republican primary.

    – 1/3 of the Republican base are racist.
    – 1/3 of the Republican base while they may not be personally racist will willing support a racist (does that make them semi-racist).
    – 1/3 of the Republican base is shitting their pants because it is now public knowledge that 2/3 of their party are racist or are willing to support a racist.

    Yet I’ve not seen this basic analysis anywhere in the press. Donald Trump won the Republican primary using racist messaging. He consistently garnered approximately 1/3 of the Republican primary voters in state after state. Once he became the presumptive nominee, another 1/3 of the Republican base immediately coalesced behind him despite his racist messaging. The final 1/3 is complaining not about his racist messaging, but about that fact that he is saying it in plain english and so tarnishing their beloved party.

    Guys the secrets out, any sentient knows you’re the party of the racist, now we just need to get the non-sentient (the press) to clue in.

  2. Tyrell says:

    I am in a southern area that is still mainly Democrat. The Democrats around here are certainly not Trump people, even though they agree with some of what he says.They do not like Hillary’s left views and the extreme left direction of the National Democrats. So it looks like another nose plug election.
    This Senator Warren seems to have one issue – the big banks. My credit card rates are still too high. Let her fix that. She always seems to be ranting and raving about something. She needs to calm down and have some coffee. She is too high strung to be president. But maybe she would not take any junk off ISIS or Iran*. None of that drawing lines in the sand for her.
    There hasn’t been a Republican elected to local offices around here since Reconstruction.
    *The official Navy report on the Iranian seizure and treatment of the US sailors still has not been released. And probably won’t be until after the election.
    “If Obama keeps drawing those lines in the sand, he’ll need a John Deere tractor !”

  3. Jack says:

    Now that Pocahontas has declared her support for Shillary, the Dems are sure to win. Eyeroll.

  4. EddieInCA says:

    @Jack:

    The Dems will win because the GOP has finally been exposed as either…

    a) Racist

    or…

    b) willing to support a racist over a Democrat.

    That makes you either A or B. Which is it?

  5. Davebo says:

    @Tyrell:

    The official Navy report on the Iranian seizure and treatment of the US sailors still has not been released.

    Are their some questions you have on the subject? I think, if the situation were reversed America may have handled the situation very differently regardless of the administration in charge at the time. (Imagine two Iranian military vessels showing up without warning on the Hudson.)

  6. Davebo says:

    @Tyrell:

    The official Navy report on the Iranian seizure and treatment of the US sailors still has not been released.

    Are their some questions you have on the subject? I think, if the situation were reversed America may have handled the situation very differently regardless of the administration in charge at the time. (Imagine two Iranian military vessels showing up without warning on the Hudson.)

  7. Jack says:

    @EddieInCA: You would have called ANY Republican nominee a racist. That’s the liberal mantra.

    The mere fact that a Secret Service member has stated that Hillary is the most racist person he has ever seen just doesn’t matter to you.

  8. Moosebreath says:

    @EddieInCA:

    Given the name he refers to Warren by, looks like A.

  9. EddieInCA says:

    @Jack:

    Jack –

    What you’re exhibiting is called “cognitive dissonance”.

    Here are some facts:

    1. Donald Trump has, on the record, said racist things. That’s not me saying it. That’s Paul Ryan calling it “textbook racism”. http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/07/politics/paul-ryan-donald-trump-racist-comment/

    2. Multiple members of the GOP have called Donald Trump racist. Paul Ryan, Reid Ribble (R-Wisconsin), Bill Flores (R-Texas), Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska), Jeff Flake (R-Arizona). That’s REPUBLICANS – not Democrats. You can’t claim that it’s a liberal mantra when it’s GOP members saying it.

    3. So you believe that HIlary is racist based on the word of one Secret Service agent, despite that much of her early professional life was spent working with poor African Americans and migrants. YET, you choose to ignore the multiple people, in your own party, who call Trump is a racist.

    That’s cognitive dissonance. Google it.

    Sad.

  10. An Interested Party says:

    You would have called ANY Republican nominee a racist. That’s the liberal mantra.

    Sure…ANY nominee that accused a judge of being biased solely because of his ethnic background…

  11. Kylopod says:

    @Jack: I don’t know what EddieInCA will say, but I have never called Mitt Romney or John McCain racists. I don’t think George W. Bush was personally a racist either, though he did make an appeal to the racist vote when he chose to speak at Bob Jones University in 2000. Bill and Hillary Clinton have done similar things throughout their careers.

    Donald Trump is, beyond any doubt, the most openly racist nominee of either party since Woodrow Wilson. You don’t have to be a hardcore partisan Democrat to recognize that fact, and you shouldn’t let your partisan Republican instincts blind you to it.

  12. EddieInCA says:

    @Kylopod:

    I have never in my life called the GOP Racist. I have said that they have, since the early 1970’s appealed and tailored their message to some racists. That is undeniably true.

    However, Trump has exposed that. He said openly ractst comments, then doubled down on them so badly that his own party is trying to figure out a way to disavow him while supporting the party. It’s an untenable situation.

    He won the GOP nomination by getting about 1/3 of the GOP primary electorate to vote for him. Since he locked up the nomination, he’s squandered whatever head start he had. Now he has to face off against HIllary, Barack, Obama, Biden, and Sanders. I don’t think poor Donald knows what’s about to hit him.

  13. Jack says:

    @EddieInCA: Eddie,

    You seem to believe I care what certain people in the Republican party say and that it affects my opinions.

    rac·ist
    /ˈrāsəst/

    noun: racist; plural noun: racists

    1. a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

    adjective

    1. having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.

    Trump has said nothing that anyone with the ability to discern fact from fiction would consider racist.

  14. C. Clavin says:

    @Tyrell:

    This Senator Warren seems to have one issue – the big banks. My credit card rates are still too high. Let her fix that.

    You really have no idea how the world works, do you?
    0% interest rate cards are pretty prevalent these days.
    For those clever enough to take advantage of them.

  15. Loviatar says:

    @EddieInCA:

    I have never in my life called the GOP Racist. I have said that they have, since the early 1970’s appealed and tailored their message to some racists. That is undeniably true.

    I find this confusing. My statement up thread points out per the 2016 Presidential election 1/3 of the Republican base is racist and 1/3 of the Republican base will willingly support a racist. When 2/3 of your base is either racist or will support a racist doesn’t that make you a racist party?

  16. stonetools says:

    Looks like the Democrats are getting their stuff together and focusing on the general election. I was worried for a while that they would get bogged down in their internal disputes until the convention, but now it looks that they are decisively moving past that-much to the disgust of the die-hard purists who still want on to wank on about Clinton’s speaker fees and free college.
    Looks like the Obama posse will soon be on the campaign trial. The animators need to find a way to get Bill Clinton and Elizabeth Warren into the car

  17. stonetools says:

    Looks like the Democrats are getting their stuff together and focusing on the general election. I was worried for a while that they would get bogged down in their internal disputes until the convention, but now it looks that they are decisively moving past that-much to the disgust of the die-hard purists who still want on to wank on about Clinton’s speaker fees and free college.
    Looks like the Obama posse will soon be on the campaign trial. The animators need to find a way to get Bill Clinton and Elizabeth Warren into the car

  18. Tyrell says:

    @C. Clavin: Thanks for that information. I will look again for 0% interest. I know that some will offer that for a certain period of time, then it goes up. I would be happy with 6%.

  19. Loviatar says:

    @Tyrell:

    If you don’t mind me asking, how old are you, and what part of the country do you live in?

    you seem a little clueless.

  20. al-Alameda says:

    @Jack:

    Now that Pocahontas has declared her support for Shillary, the Dems are sure to win. Eyeroll.

    “Shrillary”? I’m surprised that you didn’t use the original German, “Schrillary,” why? Was that an oversight on your part?

  21. al-Alameda says:

    All of this – Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden and others attacking Trump on the same day – is smart on the part of Democrats, it’s from the Campaigning 101 playbook – send out the surrogates to attack, while the candidate lays back and addresses issues in a more studied manner.

  22. Jack says:

    @al-Alameda:

    shrill /SHril/

    adjective: shrill

    1. (of a voice or sound) high-pitched and piercing. “a shrill laugh”

    synonyms: high-pitched, piercing, high, sharp, ear-piercing, ear-splitting, penetrating, screeching, shrieking, screechy “that shrill voice gives me a headache”

  23. Rafer Janders says:

    @Tyrell:

    I am in a southern area that is still mainly Democrat.

    No, you’re not, unless that is you’re an African-American and live in an African-American area. There remain no areas in the South that are both (a) white and (b) mainly Democratic. There is not one single white Southern Democratic congressman in Washington today.

  24. An Interested Party says:

    @Jack:

    misogyny

    /məˈsäjənē/

    noun

    dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.

    “she felt she was struggling against thinly disguised misogyny”

  25. Jack says:

    @An Interested Party: So, in your opinion, not liking any person that happens to be a female is misogyny.

    Apparently you are laying the ground work and getting a head start on Shillary’s go to excuse for why she can’t get anything done or why people complain about her lame-assed policies. It’s not because Shillary’s policies are lame-assed or run counter to conservative values…it’s because 1/2 the country is misogynist.

    I believe this is a definition that applies to you.

    dumb-ass

    adjective
    North Americaninformal

    adjective: dumbass

    stupid; brainless.

  26. Rafer Janders says:

    @Jack:

    So, in your opinion, not liking any person that happens to be a female is misogyny.

    Um, yes. That’s exactly right. Not liking any person that happens to be female IS misogyny. That’s the textbook definition, man!

  27. Jack says:

    @Rafer Janders: You’re an idiot.

    I’m guessing this won’t pass muster either.

    Hillary Clinton is a blood-thirsty war-mongering lying harpy.

    The fact that she is war mongering and lies worse than Donald’s cheap rug are immaterial.

  28. C. Clavin says:

    @Jack:

    It’s not because Shillary’s policies are lame-assed or run counter to conservative values

    Clinton is the most Conservative candidate in this race.
    And yes…

    not liking any person that happens to be a female

    is the definition of misogyny.

  29. Jack says:

    @C. Clavin: No, it is not. I dislike Hillary. I don’t dislike women. Are you too obtuse to see the difference?

    Have you yourself not made Sarah Palin jokes? Is that misogyny or merely dislike for one person that happens to be a woman?

  30. Scott F. says:

    @al-Alameda:

    …send out the surrogates to attack…

    That’s why I think Senator Warren will not be the VP, despite what Harry Reid wants. She can attack more aggressively from the wings. I also think she will have greater impact on policy in a Dem controlled Senate from her current position.

  31. Jen says:

    @Jack:

    I think you’d be getting less flack if you said:

    Not liking a certain person who happens to be female

    rather than:

    Not liking ANY person that happens to be female

    That is the distinction.

  32. Tyrell says:

    @Rafer Janders: I am referring mainly to the town and county.

  33. Scott F. says:

    @An Interested Party: @C. Clavin:

    I’d let Jack have this point on his not being misogynist. The fact that he is an ignoramus is much more pertinent to the weakness of his commentary here than any disrespect he may or may not have for women in power.

  34. C. Clavin says:

    @Jack:
    Perhaps you should work on your syntax to make your meaning clear.

  35. gVOR08 says:

    @Jack: @ in your reply to EddieInCA: you say,

    Trump has said nothing that anyone with the ability to discern fact from fiction would consider racist.

    Eddie had said,

    2. Multiple members of the GOP have called Donald Trump racist. Paul Ryan, Reid Ribble (R-Wisconsin), Bill Flores (R-Texas), Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska), Jeff Flake (R-Arizona). That’s REPUBLICANS – not Democrats. You can’t claim that it’s a liberal mantra when it’s GOP members saying it.

    The funny thing is that Eddie’s list of Republicans who find Trump’s comments racist doesn’t disprove your claim that “anyone with the ability to discern fact from fiction” would find Trump’s remarks racist.

    You hear no racism, proving Paul Simon right,

    Still, a man hears what he wants to hear, And disregards the rest.

    That line’s been running through my head a lot lately.

  36. An Interested Party says:

    So, in your opinion, not liking any person that happens to be a female is misogyny.

    Why yes, it is, as others have noted…perhaps you should take some grammar lessons so that you can properly phrase your words to match your thoughts…oh, and using stereotypical terms like “shrill” and “harpy” certainly isn’t helping your case…by the way, anyone that doesn’t see many of the things that Trump has said as being racist is either a dumba$$ or is being deliberately disingenuous or both…take your pick…

  37. Grumpy Realist says:

    @Scott F.: she’s also having more fun making banksters sweat blood when they’re before her committee trying to justify their antics.

  38. Pch101 says:

    @Loviatar:

    I think what you’re missing is that conservatives have redefined racism so that it necessarily excludes them.

    At this point, everyone is in agreement that “racism” is bad; the label now carries such a stigma that even the racists don’t want to own it. That has led to the current situation with racists who not only refuse to acknowledge that they’re racists but who have decided that those who wish to end racism are the true racists.

    “I know you are but what am I?” isn’t just for kindergarten anymore.

  39. Kylopod says:

    @Jack:

    Have you yourself not made Sarah Palin jokes? Is that misogyny or merely dislike for one person that happens to be a woman?

    I think some of the attacks on Sarah Palin were sexist. People called her the “Caribou Barbie,” and other even nastier terms they would never have applied to a male candidate.

    I don’t say any of this as a supporter of Palin. Far from it. I thought she was dangerously unqualified for the office she was seeking. Recognizing sexism isn’t (or shouldn’t be) about whether you like or dislike the candidate in question. Any woman who rises to prominence in our society is going to be subject to sexist attacks she would never have to endure as a man. That applies to the most accomplished women as well as the most mediocre ones.

    There’s a reason the US has never had a female chief executive up to now, while many other countries did decades ago.

    Criticizing Hillary (something which I have done myself on plenty of occasions) isn’t sexist. Calling her names like “shrill” and “harpy,” on the other hand, most certainly is.

  40. Tyrell says:

    @Davebo: Some members of Congress have read the classified documents about this sordid event, but they are probably not allowed to discuss it; yet. It would be interesting to know how many officers the Navy canned from this affair. One thing about the Navy – they do not allow mess ups or excuses. Anyway, if these sailors were in any way mistreated, Iran should be held responsible. Seize assets or something. And to think the US had just given them a pot load of money right before that.
    Hillary has said more than once that she will release documents and information about the UFO investigations, Area 51, and Hanger 18 at Wright-Patterson AFB. I certainly hope she does, but I would not bet on it. Too many powerful people will stop that. I remember when Senator Goldwater started asking questions and snooping around about Hanger 18 at Wright Patterson. He was told off and warned off by General Curtis LeMay. See Kecksburg Incident for an example of the military’s standard operating procedures concerning UFO investigations – shocking.

  41. CB says:

    They do not like Hillary’s left views and the extreme left direction of the National Democrats.

    If Hillary and the DNC are too leftist for these Democrats in your area, brother, they’re not Democrats.

  42. CB says:

    @Jack:

    The mere fact that a Secret Service member has stated that Hillary is the most racist person he has ever seen just doesn’t matter to you.

    That same SS agent has said that he never had a problem with anyone under his protection, ever. Except Hillary. That sounds credible to you guys?

  43. Grumpy Realist says:

    @Kylopod: Sarah Palin got called “Caribou Barbie” because she kept trying to use her sexuality to push herself. Remember her winks and red-hot Mama persona? Remember Rick Lowry and his gushing over Sarah’s “starbursts”?

    There was a damn good reason a lot of us of the female persuasion detested her.

  44. C. Clavin says:

    @Tyrell:

    Hillary has said more than once that she will release documents and information about the UFO investigations, Area 51, and Hanger 18 at Wright-Patterson AFB. I certainly hope she does, but I would not bet on it.

    Are you f’ing serious??? UFO investigations??? YOu are going to base any sort of political opinion on UFO investigations???

  45. JohnMcC says:

    @C. Clavin: Well, Rep Chris Collins (R-NY) is hot after the answers to the ancient aliens issue.

  46. James Joyner says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    There remain no areas in the South that are both (a) white and (b) mainly Democratic. There is not one single white Southern Democratic congressman in Washington today.

    I guess it depends on what one means by “area.” Certainly, there are cities in the South that are both Democratic and plurality white. the Northern Virginia DC suburbs, where I live, fit that description. Ditto places like Austin, Texas and growing parts of the Carolina. Granted, most of the South’s major metropolitan areas are majority black in the “inner city” but the white suburbs in some of them are increasingly Democrat-leaning.

  47. Barry says:

    @Jack: “The mere fact that a Secret Service member has stated that Hillary is the most racist person he has ever seen just doesn’t matter to you.”

    Gee, lies by police against Democratic politicians!

  48. Barry says:

    @Tyrell: “Thanks for that information. I will look again for 0% interest. I know that some will offer that for a certain period of time, then it goes up. I would be happy with 6%.”

    Introductory rates and balance transfers are the key. You can probably find something which gives you a 0% balance transfer rate for a few to several months (maybe a year, if you are lucky). They are betting that you are not organized enough to shift to another card on schedule.

  49. Joe says:

    Culture check:

    Say to yourself “he’s an ambitious man” and think about all the cultural implications of that statement. Now say to yourself “she’s an ambitious woman” and think about all the cultural implication of that statement.

    There is no way that a woman can demonstrate the drive, focus, perseverance and, yes, ambition to be the President of the United States and not get some negative personal blow back.

  50. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @James Joyner: Sorry Dr. Joyner, the Northern Virginia/DC suburbs where you live are only geographically “southern.” For real “southern” think “the heart of Dixie” and do your demographic plotting again.