Elizabeth Warren

So what was HRC's purpose in requesting/having this very private (no aides/witnesses present) meeting w/Warren, if NOT to "say what she wants to run on and what she wants to do"???

Trying for innocence by association? Hoping some of Warren's credibility would rub off? A little arm-twisting? A few veiled threats? Some quid pro quo promises (those have worked so well while the Clintons have accumulated their many millions of personal wealth)?
It was also interesting that no joint statement/announcement was issued afterward. Instead it was months before a report of the meeting was leaked by a "Democratic insider." The meeting was in December; the leaks in mid-February.

For a very provocative analysis of this meeting, and the pro-Clinton spin put on it by an anonymous "Democratic insider", check out this link:
http://www.news.alayham.com/content/%E2%80%8Bhillary-clinton-meets-privately-elizabeth-warren-politico-speculates-why

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/02/17/hillary-clinton-met-with-elizabeth-warren-in-december/

But she wants something else as well. The Politico article suggest that Clinton wants more than just "cred" from Warren — she wants a bit more silence: The one-on-one meeting also represented a step toward relationship building for two women who do not know each other well. And for Mrs. Clinton, it was a signal that she would prefer Ms. Warren’s counsel delivered in person, as a friendly insider, rather than on national television or in opinion articles.

About Warren and "insiders," consider what she told Bill Moyers. And again, where did the writers get such an idea?

What's the Source of Politico's Many "Speculations"?

Now let's look at the layer below the Clinton-Warren layer. This article came from somewhere. Does it contain a large amount of speculation on the writers' part, or is there an "unacknowledged source" from the Clinton team whispering into the writers' combined shell-like, helping to feed the article that helps to feed Clinton's cred?

Again, feel free to make up your own mind, but know that pieces like these don't come out of the wild blue, and the writers, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Martin, are connected to people who know the people who know how to get things in the press. With that question about "unacknowledged sources" in mind, note the writers' ending:

Both Mrs. Clinton and her husband appeared eager to keep a close eye on Ms. Warren; Bill Clinton has appeared sensitive to her oblique criticism of his deregulation of financial institutions.

The word "appeared" appears twice in this sentence. Under what hedge do you have to be looking for these appearances to be seen? Or is it a matter of to whose mouth your ear is tuned? I'd be shocked if this piece — with all its insider-y motive-guessing — came from any source but the Clinton camp. If so, with Ms. Clinton's knowledge? On that, your speculation is as good as anyone's — and as obvious.

If you do think Clinton is ultimately the source of so much in this article, I strongly suggest you reread it carefully with that in mind and find, phrase by phrase, Clinton's likely contributions to it. What information can only come from Team Clinton? You too can hear like an insider.

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2015/02/hillary-clinton-meets-privately-with...