General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBoston Globe Editorial: Democrats need Elizabeth Warren’s voice in 2016 presidential race
By The Editorial Board MARCH 22, 2015
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 doesnt happen. While Warren has repeatedly vowed that she wont 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 hasnt officially declared her candidacy, shes scooping up support from key party bigwigs and donors, who are working to impose a sense of inevitability about her nomination. Unfortunately, the strategys 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 OMalley, a former governor of Maryland, represent top-tier opponents; independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has also hinted he might enter the Democratic primaries, but its difficult to imagine him thriving on the trail.
Clintons 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 Clintons advantages in 2008, and Warren or another candidate still could in 2016. Even if they dont, 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.
More important, though, the Democratic Party finds itself with some serious divides that ought to be settled by the electorate. Some are clear-cut policy differences, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an enormous free-trade agreement with Pacific Rim nations that Warren opposes and Clinton backs. Even in areas where the candidates agree, there are bound to be different priorities: Its hard to imagine a President Clinton defending and enforcing the Dodd-Frank legislation with as much vigor as a President Warren, for instance.
more
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2015/03/21/democrats-need-elizabeth-warren-voice-presidential-race/TJkJtbu3UYaJYBmVHcrAcI/story.html
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)We need a real primary. Most likely I will not vote for Warren but it's going to be very dull without debate and we need to have people revved up to go. If hill doesn't meet the challange then she shouldn't be the nominee. I admire her and am confident a vigorous primary would only make her a better nominee.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)hedda_foil
(16,376 posts)radiclib
(1,811 posts)Good argument, though, and that last line would resonate with anyone.
(Intended for OP, but no matter..)
StoneCarver
(249 posts)She would so far make a fine President. Hillary is so far a "third way" she's nothing but a moderate Republican -just like Obama. Please Elizabeth run, run! I'm tired of Bush's and Clinton's.
Iwillnevergiveup
(9,298 posts)Both Bernie and Elizabeth need to get in and shake things up. For the good of the country.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)and for the screamers