If not Warren, then whom? If not now, then when?

[Laelth]

Cross-posted from GD, just for convenience.

Original thread here.

While I appreciate the wisdom of those who regularly remind us to keep our eyes on the 2014 prize, the fact is that many of us on the left want to see a real liberal elected President in 2016, and we're running out of time to recruit a candidate. It must be done now. The machinery of the campaign needs time to grow, and, with only three years left before the 2016 contest, time is running short.

So, I ask DU: If not Elizabeth Warren, then whom?

We need to nominate a woman. This is almost conventional wisdom, now, in the Democratic Party as Noam Scheiber, the Senior Editor of The New Republic, argues in a recent essay. I also think we greatly improve our chances of winning by running women in this political environment, as I argued here.

So, if we need to nominate a liberal woman, whom should we choose? Who's the third best fundraiser in the Democratic Party? It's Elizabeth Warren, who falls right behind Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Before she was even elected, her fund-raising e-mails would net the party more cash than any Democrat’s besides Obama or Hillary Clinton. According to the Times, Warren’s recent speech at the annual League of Conservation Voters banquet drew the largest crowd in 15 years.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare

To those of you who proudly and definitively announce that Elizabeth Warren isn't running for President, I ask you this: whom else should we try to recruit? Elizabeth Warren is the best shot we've got to get a liberal in the White House. She's liberal, she's brilliant, she's articulate, and her record is, to my knowledge, spotless. She carries no baggage. Plus, she's an excellent fundraiser.

I would also add that she's a savvy politician, and that she keeps her options open. She may have said she wasn't running, but Barack Obama said that too. Big deal. What Scheiber's essay shows is that she is focused on her policy goals, and she doesn't care how she gets there.

The proper interpretation of Warren’s prodigious p.r. efforts, then, isn’t that she’s especially taken with the idea of media stardom. It’s that she is relentlessly, perhaps ruthlessly, maybe even a bit messianically, focused on advancing her policy agenda. Everything else is merely instrumental.

This is what the banking industry and its Republican allies (as well as internal opponents like Geithner) didn’t fully appreciate when they effectively killed Warren’s hopes of permanently heading the consumer agency in 2011. Anyone who knows Warren will tell you she had no particular ambition to be a senator. She decided that the Senate would suffice as a way to agitate for her issues only when Obama stiffed her for the CFPB job—an enormous disappointment after she spent months lining up support among banks. “It’s poetic justice. At end of the day, if the banking community hadn’t been so apoplectic, everyone could have decided it’s this little tiny agency, who really cares?” says Anita Dunn, Obama’s White House communications director in 2009. “Instead, she ends up as a senior senator from Massachusetts on the banking committee, blocking Larry at the Fed.”

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare

What Scheiber shows is that Warren, if she could be convinced that running for President was the best way to achieve her goals, might just do it.

If not Warren, then whom?

And, if not now, then when?

Now is the time to work on recruiting her (drafting her, if necessary) to run in 2016. We can't afford to wait. While I appreciate the efforts of those who want to see the Democratic Party re-take the House and hold the Senate in 2014 (and I support those goals, obviously), the fact is that Elizabeth Warren has to be thinking about this issue now, and she needs our encouragement in order to put in place all the pieces necessary just to preserve her option to run.

So, I invite all liberal Democrats to write, e-mail, or call the Senior Senator from Massachusetts, and let her know how you feel.

If not Warren, then whom? If not now, then when?

The Honorable Elizabeth Warren
317 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: [phone]

E-mail her here.

Donate here.



-Laelth

[NYC_SKP]

1. Recommended, bookmarked. nt

[Laelth]

12. Thanks for the k&r. n/t

-Laelth

[grantcart]

2. While we know that there won't be a fight for the nomination, should Hillary decide not to run

Senator Warrant would be THE candidate.

"Sometimes the good guys win".

[Sheri]

15. why are you certain that nobody will challenge Hillary if she decides to run?

honestly curious about that.

[Sheri]

3. cool. nt

[Scuba]

4. Wanna maximize the Republican turnout in 2016? Nominate Hillary.

I sincerely believe a lot of Republicans would vote for Warren, as they want the banks reined in and know she's the only one trying.

Most startling was the finding from those same national polls when respondents were asked which party was responsible for the economic crisis: “Republicans were precisely as likely as Democrats to blame ‘Wall Street bankers.’ ”

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/13-5

[Laelth]

5. Agreed. Hillary's negatives are very high.

That said, I have argued elsewhere that the demographics say we will win no matter whom we run.

So, since the right wing is going to paint whomever we run as the most liberal so-and-so since Lenin, why not run a real liberal?



-Laelth

[Sheri]

14. Hillary's negatives have always been high.

i think she can win in 2016 if she runs, but i'd rather have Elizabeth Warren.

[cascadiance]

6. The corporatists are afraid of Warren running as someone they won't be able to "control"...

That's why they keep saying things like:

1) She's too inexperienced to run now as president.

2) She's "said" that she won't run.

3) She's "endorsed" Hillary Clinton by being a part of a letter to encourage her to run.

4) No foreign policy experience

5) Too "far left" for America.

6) It's "Hillary's time".

7) She's not well known enough.

8) Too many Democrats in Massachusetts would rather her stay as senator so that they don't have to replace another one like they've been doing a lot the last few years.

My problems with the above analyses:

1) She will have a large part of a term as Senator under her belt, that she's already getting a lot of notice that she's doing very well as a freshman in what she's doing. It was argued that pols like Obama had earlier political experience that she doesn't. I would argue that perhaps it isn't just political experience that should count in newer elections now where populists want more representation in political positions that they've been left out of for so many years. Warren in my book makes up for lack of political experience earlier with a great amount of experience in studying and analyzing the plight of the American middle class even before the crash of 2008. Those who doubt this should watch this PBS video that shows her knowledge and shows that she's best equipped to understand what so many Americans have to deal with now in this economy that and far more qualified than many other politicians out there that try to champion themselves as working for us average Americans.

2) Many other pols like Obama and Clinton have said such things in the past as well before enough people coax them to run which they later do. These statements are meaningless. If enough of us speak up to her, as the links in the OP ask us to do, I bet we coax her in to running as well.

3) It seems like Warren is more saying that Hillary should run and be a part of the Democratic process for 2016 so that Americans have her as an available choice where hopefully she and many of the rest of us hope that we have an array of choices to choose from so that we can really settle down on a choice that best represents all of us, and not feel that it has already been chosen for us. Many sports teams and athletes don't want their competition to keep from playing sports if they are injured or run in to other difficulties that might prevent them from competing. In the spirit of competition, competitors want their big competition to compete and to be healthy, so that they can prove they are the best by beating them in their prime. I really see Warren's comments potentially as just someone who thinks strongly of the Democratic process and wanting more women like herself and Ms. Clinton to be a part of it along with the other women signing that letter.

4) This is a common critique that is selectively used (or avoided) to try to marginalize candidates as many candidates and former presidents haven't had foreign policy experience on their resume before being president. That's what VP selections should help with if it is really needed in a campaign.

5) I would argue that Warren's significant leadership in the Senate and in other contexts in wanting to make Wall Street accountable for their actions speaks not just to the "far left" but a majority of Americans which includes many independents as well as Republicans in addition to mainstream and "left" Democrats. As a cornerstone of her campaign and if it is well crafted will speak to and motivate many average Americans. The corporatist 1%ers want to marginalize her with this "far left" meme to try and make us afraid of championing her as a viable candidate. I think more and more Americans are getting wise to this sort of ploy now.

6) Saying this in my book is like saying we don't want to use democratic process any more to elect our public officials. Sure have Hillary run, but anointing her by saying it's now "her time"? Please. I want democracy, not just being lead around and having my decisions made for me.

7) A recent Quinnipiac Poll had her third as a "recognized candidate" behind only Christie and Clinton, and at this stage of the game, I think that speaks well for her being a "known" entity. I think that won't be a problem, especially if she announces that she will be running.

8) Personally, I think if I were in Massachusetts, I'd WANT her to run, as a way of having my choice as Senator to now help with national governance of the nation, and not just for the state interests of Massachusetts. I'd like the ability to put in another progressive as Senator to replace her, and continuing to shift the Senate as well as the presidency and the House to have more progressive participation that way. If a candidate were selected from a red state, then it might help the Republicans replace that candidate with someone more to their liking and weaken progressive representation. Many have asked in other threads who she might pick as her running mate. As an Oregonian, I'd LIKE her to pick my senator Senator Merkley, even if that would mean we'd have to work hard to find another progressive to replace him as Senator here. I'm confident we'd be able to find another progressive voice that Oregon could help move to the national scene. About the only reason I'd want him to stay in the Senate is if he were to have a chance at becoming Senate Majority Leader to replace Harry Reid should Reid retire as he is rumored to perhaps be doing soon. I think Merkley's leadership in the Senate in trying to fix the problematic filibuster rules show that he's the kind of person we wanting managing Senate affairs. But if seniority or other things dictate he not be in that position, I'd love seeing him as VP. And that wouldn't be too far out of the question I think, as Elizabeth Warren is helping him in his Senate campaign for 2014, and has in the past called him a mentor of hers when she started working together with him a lot on the banking committee in the Senate.

http://www.blueoregon.com/2013/06/netroots-nation-starring-jeff-merkley-assist-elizabeth-warren/

I think they would work together well in the White House and provide a ticket representing both coasts.

I think now is the perfect time for Warren to run.

[Laelth]

7. Excellent post. I agree completely.

btw, you can pick up a Warren 2016 banner for your sig. line, if you're interested, here.



-Laelth

[cascadiance]

8. Thanks! Done!

[Laelth]

9. Excellent. n/t

-Laelth

[Bonhomme Richard]

10. Elizabeth Warren needs to run.

Having her in the race would force her opponents to move toward what benefits the citizens and not only what benefits Wall Street.
Of course they will say what they have to say to get elected and then go back to their regular business of protecting business after the election.

[Laelth]

11. Hear, hear!

Her entry into the race would be of benefit to the left even if she doesn't win the nomination.



-Laelth

[Sheri]

17. +1 nt

[Jefferson23]

13. I wish I knew. The idea of Hillary Clinton as POTUS is depressing to me.

I would be more hopeful overall if we had achieved a fair election process..too much
poisonous money injected..too many agendas.

[Sheri]

16. i want to see a woman elected.

but i'd much rather have Warren over Hillary.

[davidpdx]

18. I'm willing to consider Warren

She brings a lot of positive things to the table. If Clinton runs, I want to see as many alternatives as possible. In 2008, we had a few strong candidates leading up the primaries and it quickly narrowed to two.

[Sheri]

19. kicking. nt