America: Meet Obama's Mini-Me and be afarid, be very afraid

The NY Post is running a Sunday morning article declaring H Obama's intentions to support for Elizabeth Warren   . . . . .   not Hillary Clinton.

Editorial thoughts:

First,  we can all take a breath,  knowing that Obama has no intentions of pushing for more time in office.  That has been a concern of the Right,  and,  for good reason.  But the man is not a politician,  knows absolutely nothing about getting things done inside an adversarial Congressional system,  and is as devoid of original ideological  thought as any man to have sat as "president."  Because of these failing,  he has been a "lame duck" since March 24, 2010,  the day after he signed ObamaCare into law.

Secondly,  Warren is far more charismatic than Hillary ever thought of being, and is far more faithful to her ideology than Ms Clinton.  Consider this:  at this late date,  Hillary has made it clear that she is still deciding whether to run against some of Obama's actions or to be a candidate for continued "hope and change."  No core beliefs.  After years and years of political positioning,  most of us have no clue as to what issues are passionate concerns of this woman.  For those who follow Warren,  such is not the case,  at all.    More than this,  in making her indecision known,  Hillary has allowed for the notion that she is more of a danger to Obama's legacy than is Warren.  

According to the Post,  Valarie Jarrett and M Obama,  both "haters" of Hillary, are working behind the scenes for a Warren candidacy as they try to convince H Obama of a Warren run for the presidency.  Understand that there is nothing that demonstrates the pettiness of Michelle Obama and Jarrett more than their dislike for Hillary,  a discontent that is without foundation  --  purely personal and as unprofessional as it gets.

The failure of Hillary's book tour,  her ties to Benghazi and that cover-up,  her ineptness to terms of political instincts,  and the fact that so many of us are tired of the Clintons,  all have convinced me,  as an editor,  that Hillary is not electable,  especially if opposed by Warren during the primary process.  Assuming  Hillary would win that battle,  a huge assumption,  the past-First Lady would come out of such a battle,  far less the progressive's choice,  than before the primary process,  very much "damaged goods."

We are about to discover the strength of the "Marxist/progressive" influence within the Democrat party.  Hillary is not in that camp  . . .  "progressive,"  yes;  Marxist,  no.  Should be interesting.

Update:  Vulnerabilities for Warren:  very low name recognition;  no administrative experience;  no business experience;  "freshman" Senator;  lied about her heritage (she has no Indian blood in her ancestry);  was the civilian chair for the overshight of T.A.R.P.,  through which between 7 and 24 trillion dollars where funneled back to the banks  -  adding to her difficulty of claiming to be anti-Big Banking;  and her Marxist/collectivist/distributionist doctrine,  all leading to an anti-colonial stance that sees America as the problem in the world,  not the solution.  She is committed and aggressive in her teachings,  so there is bound to be a good amount of background info on her  -  unlike the sequestered Obama,  living his life in fear of full disclosure.