Before she was Hillary Clinton, she was Hillary Rodham. Then, when she wanted to differentiate herself as a singular (albeit not “single”) person outside of her husband’s legacy when she ran for Senator, she specified her name as Hillary Rodham-Clinton. She dropped the “Rodham” for her two presidential runs, but has always just been “Hillary” to many who know her.
The same can’t be said about Elizabeth Warren. Sure, she’s simply “Liz” to friends but her identity has never clashed with he original name, Betsy Herring. Her ideology, on the other hand, has changed drastically over the decades. Like Clinton, she’s a former Republican. But unlike Clinton, Warren has taken on a radical progressive persona that denounces anything even resembling moderation. Yet she’s been able to maintain a chameleon-like posture for most of her career due in large part to similarities she has with three very different politicians.
Let’s just call her “Hillary Romney-Sanders,” a name that combines the three politicians she unwittingly emulates through her actions. Each has different traits she embodies. Combined, it creates the Frankenstein’s monster of a presidential candidate we all get to hear too much from today.
The two most prominent female Democratic candidates to ever run for president share something that would make each unique if not for the other. Their blind ambition goes well beyond the desires many others have had to be president. They both so desperately want it, not just because of the position itself but to be in history books for centuries as the first female President of the United States of America.
They want it. They can taste it. Like Beto O’Rourke, both feel like they were born for it. But unlike Beto or anyone else who’s ever run for the office, their blind ambition is unquenchable. Clinton lost the nomination in 2008, only to spend the following eight years doing everything she can to take her turn at the office in 2016. She spent four years as Secretary of State to beef up her foreign affairs credentials, then spent the next four years cultivating relationships with other Democratic power brokers until she could lay claim in 2015 of being THE true power broker, and it worked. She finally won the nomination she had long sought.
But even after losing to President Trump, she still acts like someone who actually won, even claiming she would consider a run again in 2020 because “she could beat him again.” It’s this type of unhinged attitude that would make her unique in that regard if this her ambition wasn’t matched stride-for-stride by Warren. But the current nomination frontrunner isn’t taking the same approach as Clinton. Instead of buttering up power brokers, she’s throwing anything and everything against the wall in hopes that it will stick. This more than anything else is why she has eclipsed Bernie Sanders in the progressive lane for the nomination race. When your ambition is as high as hers, she’s do or say anything to achieve her goals.
Mitt Romney may be the most egotistical person in Washington DC. That’s saying a lot with the likes of Adam Schiff, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, and even President Trump himself, all of whom have a very high perception of themselves. But Romney’s tops all of their’s. We saw it in stark display in 2016 when he came out in a press conference opposing then-candidate Trump’s nomination in an embarrassing display of self-importance. A press conference? Really? Just to say he didn’t like Trump? Seriously?
His ego is so high, only one person in DC might be able to match him. Warren has demonstrated she values herself more than she values anything or anyone else. The greatest gift she can bestow on her supporters is to interact with them by taking a selfie or calling them on the phone. The sad part is, she truly believes she is making herself more relatable by granting her minions the wonderful blessing of direct contact with her, as if someone simply touching her garment might be healed as a result.
The irony is if she gets the nomination, she can join Romney in the category of nominees who failed to defeat an incumbent president.
There’s really no need to discuss the similarities between Warren and Bernie Sanders. If anything, the differences between them should be the highlights since they’re more rare. One big difference is Sanders doesn’t intentionally try to mislead people the way Warren does. To this day, she has pretended like the middle class will not see a tax increase under her Medicare-for-All plan. Sanders acknowledged it proudly from the start. She also pretends to be a capitalist. Sanders invokes no such subterfuge.
That’s not to say Sanders doesn’t mislead people, but he usually misleads himself first. He’s just telling the truth from his perspective. Meanwhile, Warren is willing to tell bald-faced lies because her aforementioned ego allows it as long as her aforementioned ambition justifies it.
We call Elizabeth Warren by the name “Hillary Romney-Sanders” because she has somehow been able to take three terrible politicians and combine their worst traits into a monstrosity of a candidacy for President.
We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.
[gravityform id=”2″ title=”true” description=”false”]