Democrats would be making a big mistake if they let Hillary Clinton coast to the presidential nomination without real opposition, and, as a national leader, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren can make sure that doesn’t happen. While Warren has repeatedly vowed that she won’t run for president herself, she ought to reconsider. And if Warren sticks to her refusal, she should make it her responsibility to help recruit candidates to provide voters with a vigorous debate on her signature cause, reducing income inequality, over the next year.
The clock is ticking: Presidential candidates need to hire staff, raise money, and build a campaign operation. Although Clinton hasn’t officially declared her candidacy, she’s scooping up support from key party bigwigs and donors, who are working to impose a sense of inevitability about her nomination. Unfortunately, the strategy’s working: Few candidates are coming off the Democrats’ depleted bench to challenge Clinton. Neither declared candidate Jim Webb, a former Virginia senator, nor rumored candidate Martin O’Malley, a former governor of Maryland, represent top-tier opponents; independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has also hinted he might enter the Democratic primaries, but it’s difficult to imagine him thriving on the trail.
Clinton’s deep reservoir of support, from her stints as first lady, New York senator, 2008 presidential candidate, and secretary of state, no doubt poses a formidable obstacle. But Barack Obama overcame Clinton’s advantages in 2008, and Warren or another candidate still could in 2016. Even if they don’t, Clinton herself would benefit from a challenger. As former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick put it recently, “My view of the electorate is, we react badly to inevitability, because we experience it as entitlement, and that is risky, it seems to me, here in America.” Fairly or not, many Americans already view Clinton skeptically, and waltzing to the nomination may actually hurt her in the November election against the Republican nominee.
The article takes into consideration the feelings of many that Warren is more effective as a Senator, and that running for office is a distraction that takes her attention away from her job.
However the editors believe that since Warren's party is in the minority, much of what she wants to accomplish will have to wait at least until after 2016. Until then running for President would give her a more visible platform and help to raise her national identity.
I have to admit they make a good argument.
Besides I guess if Warren ran it might convince Hillary that she needs her on the ticket, which of course is my not so secret political fantasy.
Oh right folks, let me know what you think.
I am so sick of this. Warren is an intelligent, conscientious woman who has very likely given much thought to what is best for the country and in what way she believes she is best suited, able, and willing to contribute toward the betterment of the country.
ReplyDeleteHow can people keep talking about a Warren candidacy and presidency, when they have no respect for her?
Those most insistent on her running don't respect her enough to accept her at her word, but instead project all their feelings about who she is, what she believes, what stances she would take as a candidate, and what her priorities would be as president.
They would savage her relentlessly if she didn't immediately do exactly what in their own minds they assumed she would and should do, whether or not she actually promised those things, just as what happened to President Obama.
True that. Plus she knows she doesn't have the other experiences necessary to be president.
DeleteYou just described every "talking heads" program I've ever watched, Nefer, and why I quit doing so!
DeleteThose who choose to do this to Warren are very similar to the Palinbots, except they have intelligence going for them!
DeleteWhile I like what Lizzie is doing in the Senate, and am wholly opposed to the Clinton's running again, we know very little about Warren's foreign policy stances. I guess if she throws her hat into the ring we will learn more.
ReplyDeleteAll the people wanting Warren to run are not considering the daunting problem that she is a one-trick pony. In other words, she is an outstanding economist with tremendous guts. She does not have the rest of the skill set needed to be President. The rethugs would kill her on that. I can already hear the screaming, "National security! Foreign affairs! "
ReplyDeleteAdmit it Gryph. You have an Oedipus complex. Nothing would bring you more pleasure than being dominated by these post menopausal women that remind you of your mom. Nothing gets the motor running like a pair of granny panties and some estroven eh?
ReplyDelete"Estroven [sic]" eh?
DeleteOne assumes that 5:52 would rather vote for Gorgeous Raphael Cruz, or Mop-Top Rand Paul, or Sleek and Sexy Chis Christie? Or the Midwestern Hero Scott Walker. Or Pear-Shaped but Still-Sexy Jeb Bush?
Attacking women because of their age is despicable and shows that the writer, no matter what his age, is not an adult.
Awe, c'mon! As a post menopausal granny, 5:52 made me chuckle. It was a silly jab at Gryphen. Better than implying cat fights and slumber parties in the oval office!
Delete"Anonymous6:17 AM
Delete"Estroven [sic]" eh?"
----------------------
Estroven is an over the counter aid to alleviating menopause symptoms.
Elizabeth Warren has three things going against her:
ReplyDelete1) She is a woman.
2) She is new on the scene.
3) She is a woman.
Hillary has only two of those things going against her.
One-trick pony, indeed!
ReplyDeleteBesides Clinton's service as Sec'y of State, which of any of the other candidates have national security or foreign affairs experience?
The thing is that Warren is incredibly bright and a quick study.
If she turned her mind to a campaign, she'd learn what she needed to know, and then make her opinions clear.
Remember John McCain -- all sorts of foreign affairs experience, allegedly, but no clue about economics, as was proven in September '08. Palin was being coached, but didn't know that there had been an East and West Germany, and nothing at all about economics except the price of a Beef Jerky.
Great intelligence and curiosity go a long way, and could for Warren. On the other hand, we're told repeatedly how "brilliant" Ted Cruz is. But he's cynically using his intelligence to further an agenda that he may or may not agree with -- but that he sees as politically advantageous.
I write from western Massachusetts, where I happily have Warren as one of my Senators, and Vermont is just a few miles north, and I subscribe to "Bernie Buzz." We're a different breed of 'Muricans over here in the cold and snowy Northeast.
Hear, hear!! I'm down on the South Shore... Voted for Warren and LOVE Bernie.
DeleteDoesn't Vermont wants to start a single payer program? Hope it sets a precedent for the rest of the nation.
Yes, Vermont's leading the way again.
DeleteRemember, it was the first place, the first state, to allow civil unions. Then Massachusetts allowed same-sex marriages.
Howard Dean: former governor of Vermont. Well, okay, Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, but used it as a political stepping stone. After getting Romneycare passed, he was awol much of the time.
Oh, yeah. Romneycare -- precursor of Obamacare.
Three cheers for the original 13 colonies.
yep, and notice that John McCain is NOT in the White House. They killed him on his lack of economics skills. Well that and his poor judgment in picking Belmont Boobie.
DeleteI want Warren in the Senate for many years to come.
ReplyDeleteI want Warren in the Senate for a few more years too.
DeleteThen when Hillary runs for her second term I want Warren as either her running mate or her Secretary of State.
After that, Warren can run for President if she's interested. She'll be old, but no older than some of her male counterparts that have done so.
The media has been the source as to putting Elizabeth Warren 'in the run' for POTUS. She has constantly said 'no' from the very beginning!
ReplyDeleteHillary Clinton will run and be elected. Leave Elizabeth alone - she's terrific and effective where she currently works - U.S. Congress!
btw -- Elizabeth Warren's only two years younger than Hillary Clinton.
ReplyDeleteMost of the Republicans are in their '40s, but they're all so rough and unattractive that women two decades older are more fetching than they are, in every sense.
The Republicans have no one in their mix that can beat Hillary Clinton! They are truly in a turmoil!
DeleteElizabeth Warren is best serving in the U.S. Congress.
Not everyone wants to be president. Not everyone wants to or can handle the emotional toll of a national election.
ReplyDeleteWarren is great as a Senator, but has literally zero chance at running for President.
ReplyDeleteShe has at least four strikes against her and she would be crucified in any national campaign:
She's a liberal's liberal, and would be viciously attacked. For Hillary, that's an old story, but Lizzie might find her claim to be 1/32 native a big hindrance.
She's from Massachusetts, making her an automatic loser in every red state, and many battleground states.
She's not an evangelical Christian, which is a requirement in the religious Taliban communities of the USA, in spite of Article 6, paragraph 3.
She's a woman with no foreign policy experience and little name recognition nationally.
I also think she's too intellectual, and not enough of a people person to make the top spot. Obama's election was a bit of a fluke, seeing he was the first black man, and his timing was right.
The person I'd like to see run is firebrand and Governor Jennifer Granholm who took the roof down with her convention speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPxvGd0BDW8
Unfortunately, she's not eligible, being born in Canada
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPxvGd0BDW8
"Unfortunately, she's not eligible, being born in Canada"
Delete---------------------------------
It's not that she was born in Canada that is the problem. The problem is that she was born in Canada to Canadian citizens. She became a US citizen after moving to the US. She is a naturalized American citizen. Unlike Cruz or McCain, there is no interpretation of citizenship that could make her a "natural born" US citizen.
How about a Bernie/O'Malley ticket?
ReplyDeleteOff topic just a bit! Ted Cruz is not receiving media coverage today because of the plane crash in Europe. It is now the main coverage on the networks!
ReplyDeleteYea! Love it, love it!
I'm retiring in June and have no immediate plans.
ReplyDeleteI'd be happy to run for President. I'm qualified and everything.
first off move on is the one pushing for this to happen. and they are doing it to raise money for move on. what else do they have? the boston globe went along with it for much the same reasons. print media esp needs something controversial to sell papers and ad space online. thats all the media cares about and they manufacture bullshit and spread gossip like its news to do it. second, warren isnt running period. for so many reasons. not the least of which is that she is a good soldier and friends with the clintons. she will also never be a running mate. hillary will never pick a woman of her own age from another north east state. not gonna happen. lets hope for a minority at the very least and not another white male. im pushing one of those castor boys from texas. and lastly and most importantly; no we dont NEED someone to primary hillary. why? to push her to the left? all candidates run to the right or left then to the center for the general. we dont need to distract ourselves or waste money (the most important reason of all) in the primary. we should all be running against the right from this moment forward period. every cent we can possibly raise should go to the general. we are going to need it. we should spend more money on changing congress. not wasting it on a primary where we already know what the result will be. focus people. the republicans will spend twice as much money as the dems in the next election AND they are going to cheat in every way possible to get elected. we need to overcome all that and we will be much better off if we spend all our resources, time, effort etc on beating them in the general.
ReplyDeleteI would love to see Elizabeth Warren run for president. I think she has the ability, the verve, and the appeal to win. But she has repeatedly said she's not running, and I respect that. The Senate needs her also.
ReplyDeleteWarren would take out Clinton in the primary if she were to run. But that is unlikely.
ReplyDeleteWhat this article shows is that there is a large group of people who stand against Clinton, even in the Democrat Party.
She can't win.
depends on who or what the GOP comes up with, they're all so damn ready and smart!!!!
Delete