Run, Elizabeth, Run! - Slate

[WillyT]

Run, Elizabeth, Run!
Why an Elizabeth Warren presidential bid would be good for all Americans.
By John Dickerson - Slate
7/17/14

<snip>

Imagine there were a political movement that was against pablum in the public square, that promoted tough debates on pressing issues, that was suspicious of coronations, and cared about a presidential candidate’s qualities as much as the ideas she would bring to office? This proud movement would engage all the right-thinking members of the citizenry, liberal and conservative. It would enliven the daily discourse and it would push Sen. Elizabeth Warren to run for president.

At the moment, the Democratic contest looks like it will be a foggy, repetitive march toward Hillary Clinton. It will have all the safety, risk aversion, and lack of impact of Clinton’s recent book, Hard Choices.

The latest polling from NBC and Marist shows just how dominant Clinton appears. She beats Vice President Biden among Democratic voters in Iowa 70 percent to 20 percent and in New Hampshire 74 percent to 18 percent. Eighty-nine percent of Iowa Democrats view Clinton positively. In New Hampshire, she is more popular than flannel: Ninety-four percent view her warmly, which may set some kind of record for humankind.

If Warren joined the race, she would not win, but she would till the ground, putting grit and the smell of earth in the contest. She would energize the Democratic Party’s liberal base, which would then stir up other Democrats who seek to moderate or contain that group. Warren would challenge the Democratic Party on issues like corporate power, income inequality, and entitlements. She would be a long shot and she would have nothing to lose—which means she could keep talking about those ideas out loud. Because Clinton is close to Wall Street and finance executives and Warren is gunning for them, she has the potential to put campaign pressure on Clinton that other candidates can’t. Clinton and other candidates would be forced to explain where they stood more than if Warren weren’t in the race.

Whether you agree with Warren’s ideas or whether she would even make a good president is immaterial to the benefits of her candidacy. She would keep the campaign lively and focused on ideas...

<snip>

More: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/elizabeth_warren_should_run_for_president_it_would_be_good_for_hillary_clinton.html

[flor-de-jasmim]

1. The fallacy of the argument lies in "she will not win"....

One recurring "play" is that people from the left may temporarily shift the discourse to the left, and Clinton would certainly have to battle it out, but if Warren does not win in the end, it is simply too easy to paint her as having her ideas "too far out there". "See, the public doesn't really want those things..."

Why use one of our best as scapegoat and sacrificial lamb?

[MoonRiver]

2. As she has repeatedly said she is not running.

Being an activist voice in the Senate is an extremely important to her. If she spent most of her time for the next year running a doomed primary race, she would greatly diminish her ability to get progressive things done in Congress.

[Hugabear]

5. I wonder if people were telling Obama the same thing in 2007?

That running a 'doomed primary race' would greatly diminish his ability to get progressive things done in Congress?

[MoonRiver]

6. Was he telling people he definitely wasn't running and that he supported Hillary Clinton?

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Warren said she "hopes Hillary runs"

That is NOT the same thing as a political endorsement.

If and when Hillary actually announces what we all assume will be her candidacy, then we can start talking about who officially "supports" her. As of now, she's not actually running either, so officially "supporting" her is meaningless.

[krawhitham]

16. So has Hillary

[Metric System]

3. WHY IS THE MEDIA PUSHING ELIZABETH WARREN DOWN OUR THROATS?!?

Heh.

[brooklynite]

4. Every day that someone spouts a "Warren should run" message...

...is one less day that progressives who don't like Clinton have to find a real candidate to carry their banner. Warren has been adamant that she does not want to run. AND she's been clear that she wants Hillary Clinton to run and thinks she'd make a great President. Given those two point, how energetic a campaign against Hillary do you expect her to wage?

Personally, I'm happy with my current choices, and don't care what you do, but when the formal campaign starts next year, please don't come back and complain that THEY (insert evil political entity of your choice) wouldn't let you vote for a real progressive candidate.

[WillyT]

8. Um... You Realize I Didn't Write The Piece, Right ??? - Just Posted It Here For Discussion...

[Warren DeMontague]

14. What are your current choices?

Who has announced their 2016 candidacy?

[brooklynite]

15. Hillary if she runs...Schweitzer if she doesn't

[PowerToThePeople]

7. BS

Right here is BS

If Warren joined the race, she would not win...

[WillyT]

9. Kick !!!

[eridani]

10. About that "can't win" thing--

She has been asked by two senate candidates in pretty red states to campaign for them. Obviously, they think that Warren's presence in a red state will help them. The candidates seem not to have asked Clinton.

[cascadiance]

17. I think independents and some on the right who ALSO don't like banksters getting away with murder...

... might dispel the notion that she "can't win". The corporate media is still trying to plant the idea that someone who takes stances for the 99% against THEIR 1% collaborators can't win... They WILL be exposed, much like it was exposed that someone running under the illusion of a populist campaign won the last election. Warren I think would back up her populist stances with actions, unlike Obama's "change" that never really happened.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. I disagree about "would not win"

a lot of people said the same thing about a certain candidate before the 2008 race.

[WillyT]

12. Me Too... But I'm Not Gonna Edit Someone Else's Piece...