Hillary is used goods. Yes, best chance (at moment) but she's a divider. Nonetheless I'm not happy with current Great Unifier. Reps win if they unite better than the Dems and have fresh face not too off-putting to general public. Hill performance today just nails on black board. Likely only 1 term even if makes history goal. Is that enough to put Dems & Country through the Hill Hoops? Warren direct, smart, focused, w/o the baggage. You Run Girl...
3
God Bless Elizabeth Warren and those who fight the good fight. At least we have someone in the Congress who cares about the average person. Most are wholly owned subsidiaries of some rich person or corporation.
12
That Warren is a decrepit 65 years must surely mean the younger generation can't possibly support her. Or something.
Reprehensible ageism.
Reprehensible ageism.
5
She should wait.
It's too soon. And for her bid to succeed a Republican should be in the White House merrily making a mess of the economy; what they excel at.
It's too soon. And for her bid to succeed a Republican should be in the White House merrily making a mess of the economy; what they excel at.
1
Ms. Warren is not electable as a Presidential candidate. She is too liberal and her personality is that of a scold. Not enough men will vote for her. The rest of it about demographics and coalitions is useless if she never gets the nomination.
The good news is she is not running anyway. She is smart enough to know not to challenge Ms. Clinton, who WILL be our next President, unless she or her family have a bad health crisis. Ms. Warren can serve better as the voice of liberal conscience, one very few will listen to if they want to get elected, or reelected as Democrats in today's center-right America.
3
"Elizabeth Warren Is No Barack Obama"
Too true. Senator Warren is a progressive liberal, and as such, can not be elected in a national election, more's the pity.
President Obama, like former president Clinton and president wannabe Ms Clinton, are moderate centrists, Rockefeller Republicans redux and writ large.
Rockefeller Republicans are about the best (only) choices that progressive liberals have in a national election...
Too true. Senator Warren is a progressive liberal, and as such, can not be elected in a national election, more's the pity.
President Obama, like former president Clinton and president wannabe Ms Clinton, are moderate centrists, Rockefeller Republicans redux and writ large.
Rockefeller Republicans are about the best (only) choices that progressive liberals have in a national election...
5
In reading the comments, it is a clear as day that the best path to the presidency for the Democrats is having Hillary as their candidate. I have nothing but respect for Elizabeth Warren, mostly because of her stand against Wall Street. As much as I hate to say it, The Democrats need Wall Street help or this country is going down the Conservative trap door for the next decade. I'd go for a Hillary/Elizabeth ticket if I were an adviser. Very few women would resist the chance to help pull this off. At a minimum, Elizabeth will help the Democrats in the campaign, no matter who is on the ticket.
5
Save Warren for another time, Hilly may be more vulnerable after a first term. I hope Bernie Sanders makes a run. I will vote against Hillary in the primary but I will vote Democratic in the General. I think Hillary not declaring serves to ensure that she wins the primary but weakens the Democratic party. That is too self-serving. Without her declaring and releasing her platform we will not get the full debate on issues that we, as Americans, deserve.
4
All of those who are waiting for the "perfect" Democratic presidential candidate to come along wait in vain.
Meantime, back at the Grand Ole Republican Corral, the right-wingers and Republicans don't give a hoot about finding the perfect right-winger to support, they just want to WIN.
They understand the game, and liberals never seem to learn.
Once in a while liberals get lucky and mange to elect a president, but it usually takes a catastrophe or a fluke in the election for that to happen.
For Republicans, winning is all that matters; the Republicans don't care a whole lot which Republican wins as long as a Republican wins.
There are so many "goodies" that go along with winning, such as (in 2016) complete control of all three branches of our government. Dare we shine a spotlight on the Supreme Court, where the next appointee will sit and decide what kind of country we will be living in for the next four decades at least?
So, while we wait for "perfection" in our nominee, the Republicans just seek a winner!
Guess which side has the best chance of seeing its dream come true.
Meantime, back at the Grand Ole Republican Corral, the right-wingers and Republicans don't give a hoot about finding the perfect right-winger to support, they just want to WIN.
They understand the game, and liberals never seem to learn.
Once in a while liberals get lucky and mange to elect a president, but it usually takes a catastrophe or a fluke in the election for that to happen.
For Republicans, winning is all that matters; the Republicans don't care a whole lot which Republican wins as long as a Republican wins.
There are so many "goodies" that go along with winning, such as (in 2016) complete control of all three branches of our government. Dare we shine a spotlight on the Supreme Court, where the next appointee will sit and decide what kind of country we will be living in for the next four decades at least?
So, while we wait for "perfection" in our nominee, the Republicans just seek a winner!
Guess which side has the best chance of seeing its dream come true.
7
Elizabeth Warren can voice the case for inequality in incomes in the United States and the remedies to cure it. She scares the republican party who want to do away with parts of social security, medicare and any other benefits for most citizens. We are in the midst's of being manipulated by fear of war and other distractions by powerful interests. It is time for people to wake up and realize that the big slice of the pie does not necessarily have to go to the 1% or even the 5% or even the 10% but could and should be divided up in a more progressive way and still maintain a strong economy. Hillary doe not shake me up. It is the same ole, same ole. Why go through it.
3
What you say you want is just what happened during the Clinton years in the White House.
The wealth was distributed more widely and fairly.
The wealthy paid more in income taxes but, in the end every economic group did well during the Clinton presidency, and Hillary was there by the president's side the whole time.
The wealth was distributed more widely and fairly.
The wealthy paid more in income taxes but, in the end every economic group did well during the Clinton presidency, and Hillary was there by the president's side the whole time.
2
Has Nate tried to quantify what percentage of the support for Obama in 2008 came from die-hard men who loathed the thought of a female President? Nate’s young; maybe he doesn’t appreciate the virulence of that? I think it was a huge impetus and the main reason Obama overcame the similar, but less potent, resistance to the idea of a Black male President. Men will move heaven and earth to screen off women from power like this. The Conservatives will admit it; the Liberals will just do everything in their power to make it happen, including undercutting their own candidate and losing elections. I doubt that Elizabeth Warren has any illusions about this; I don't think she will waste her energy on a battle no woman of my generation can win. She has work to do, and she knows it. I was hoping that Hillary Clinton had decided the same, but I fear not: She still thinks she will be allowed to triumph. If somehow one or the other of them wins, I will be like those old Black women crying tears of incredulous relief as the 2008 election results come in; but I don't expect it and indeed I fear it because I fear the hate that will be unleashed. I was surprised by how poorly White men conducted themselves after Obama's victory. I thought I was worldly, but I didn't see that coming. I LIKE White men! so it was hard to see them sink so far. I don't want to have to go through that again.
1
Have we had enough speeches? Yes it sound good jumping on the banks, but without action the words don't amount to a hill of beans. Senator Warren called out the lack of transparency as the Justice Dept failed to release names of victims from the settlement reached between them and the banks.
So if the Justice Dept not reviewed all the cases its claimed that were effected in the settlement and not granted relief to all under the loans effected, then how is it that the victims to know that their case is not one of the loans in the settlement that the Federal Government received restitution for.
Starting over two years ago Warren ask for accountability from Federal agencies but to date none has been given. In Jan 2015 after they gutted Dodd/Frank, Warren when on the Senate floor and drop a dime on Citigroup and Citigroup was just caught and settled for up to 25,000 bankruptcy cases where they claimed ownership but had not provided any ownership of these loans. But this was on top of last year $7 billion settlement.
Why has there been no real action against MERS over the last 6 years as they are this unregulated electronic registry? Who help create MERS? The answer to most of the Fraud that taken place is over at MERS! Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) like Countrywide are the center of most of the government fraud, but WaMu to a greater has damaged the Federal Government than Countrywide under BOA then Wells Fargo being the servicer for WaMu illegally!
So if the Justice Dept not reviewed all the cases its claimed that were effected in the settlement and not granted relief to all under the loans effected, then how is it that the victims to know that their case is not one of the loans in the settlement that the Federal Government received restitution for.
Starting over two years ago Warren ask for accountability from Federal agencies but to date none has been given. In Jan 2015 after they gutted Dodd/Frank, Warren when on the Senate floor and drop a dime on Citigroup and Citigroup was just caught and settled for up to 25,000 bankruptcy cases where they claimed ownership but had not provided any ownership of these loans. But this was on top of last year $7 billion settlement.
Why has there been no real action against MERS over the last 6 years as they are this unregulated electronic registry? Who help create MERS? The answer to most of the Fraud that taken place is over at MERS! Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) like Countrywide are the center of most of the government fraud, but WaMu to a greater has damaged the Federal Government than Countrywide under BOA then Wells Fargo being the servicer for WaMu illegally!
3
I’m not sure whether the same hot-button issue exists to battle Mrs. Clinton. "
Then you misjudge the resentment and anger in this country toward Wall St. and those who profited and continue to profit from a fixed, unfair rigging of the market that brought so much pain to so many. Mrs. Clinton is Wall Street's girl, not ours. Elizabeth Warren would certainly get my vote in any primary contest.
Then you misjudge the resentment and anger in this country toward Wall St. and those who profited and continue to profit from a fixed, unfair rigging of the market that brought so much pain to so many. Mrs. Clinton is Wall Street's girl, not ours. Elizabeth Warren would certainly get my vote in any primary contest.
12
Where do you think all those Republicans are getting their money? From the counter-top cans at some convenience stores?
Jeb Bush is on track to raise one billion dollars for his presidential campaign.
He even felt he had to tell His Big Money guys NOT to let anyone give Jeb more than One Million Dollars "for now" -- I guess it would look unseemly or like Jeb wasn't a man of the people.
Where do you think any Democrat hoping to raise One Billion Dollars for a run at the presidency is going to get Big Money, now that the unions are disappearing from the American scene?
Everyone gets money from The Big Money Guys, wherever they live and/or work: Texas, California, Florida, Wall St, etc., etc.
In contrast to all the anger among "liberals" about Hillary raising money, the right-wingers are joyously leaping up and down at the Supreme Court's "glorious" decision in Citizens United, because most of the billionaires in this country do not share our liberal and progressive goals.
Advantage: Republican presidential candidates.
Jeb Bush is on track to raise one billion dollars for his presidential campaign.
He even felt he had to tell His Big Money guys NOT to let anyone give Jeb more than One Million Dollars "for now" -- I guess it would look unseemly or like Jeb wasn't a man of the people.
Where do you think any Democrat hoping to raise One Billion Dollars for a run at the presidency is going to get Big Money, now that the unions are disappearing from the American scene?
Everyone gets money from The Big Money Guys, wherever they live and/or work: Texas, California, Florida, Wall St, etc., etc.
In contrast to all the anger among "liberals" about Hillary raising money, the right-wingers are joyously leaping up and down at the Supreme Court's "glorious" decision in Citizens United, because most of the billionaires in this country do not share our liberal and progressive goals.
Advantage: Republican presidential candidates.
5
thank you for making that statement. It's bad enough that Wall Street got away with what happened in 2008. Not one of the bankers have been criminally prosecuted- the message in that.... "you are free to do it to the public all over again".
Hillary Clinton would serve us all up to Wall Street and the bankers without a second thought. And i'm a registered democrat who voted twice for President Obama...
Hillary Clinton would serve us all up to Wall Street and the bankers without a second thought. And i'm a registered democrat who voted twice for President Obama...
Ms. Warren may not have to beat Mrs. Clinton, because Mrs. Clinton may not be eligible to run. The statutory punishment for the felony that Mrs. Clinton has committed ("concealing records," in the server-gate scandal) includes a lifetime ban from serving in ANY federal office. A conviction thus would preclude her candidacy; even an indictment would de-rail it, as the Party would not risk having their nominee struck from the nation's ballots by a looming conviction.
There are enough voters who would vote for just about ANY woman - simply because of her gender. She may not really be part Cherokee, but no one has questioned her X chromosomes.
There are enough voters who would vote for just about ANY woman - simply because of her gender. She may not really be part Cherokee, but no one has questioned her X chromosomes.
1
This tack has as much chance of succeeding as the claim that Goldwater was born in Arizona before it was a state, or that McCain couldn't run because he was born outside the U.S. , or Obama couldn't run because he was born in Kenya. Nice try, but no cigar.
3
Watching the sleazy slippery Hillary on tv (not) answering questions makes me want to puke. Is this the best Democrats can do? Is the bench empty? Is the party hollowed out? At least Liz has morals.
5
I agree. It's like we're expected to go the polls in 2016 and vote for who?-- a Republican and an even worse Republican if Hilary runs.
Interesting to read about the ins and outs of the last election. But really, this column is not about Elizabeth Warren. It's about Hilary Clinton -- a subject the press just can't seem to write enough about, and seems too lazy to try to put in the context of actual issues and positions. Can we get some real reporting on who might make the best president, rather than demographics and the horse race? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaase??
5
Mr. Cohn lists the obvious.
in short: Ms. Warren has stated that she does not wish to be President.
period. why spend an entire column on what might otherwise happen?
expanding the discussion a bit, consider that the level of unwanted-support that Ms. Warren's non-candidacy generates is reminiscent of Democratic Senator Eugene McCarthy, who very late in 1967 rose up to challenge a sitting Democratic President...were Ms. Warren to reconsider her current position, a much different outcome might be in the offing in next year's Democratic primaries, just as McCarthy dramatically changed the entire process in 1968.
why? Passion. Mr. Obama had it 2008.
the true test, at present, for Ms. Clinton is not the-winning of her party's nomination...rather it is: can she be elected in November, 2016...without any viable primary-challenger(s), fatigue and distrust will become more and more obvious.
in the end, for any Democrat, and most especially for Ms. Clinton, to be elected, a whole lot of folks will have to be convinced that their vote is necessary and that after it is cast that it will be rewarded...this will require deep seated trust and intense passion to accomplish.
more than 40% of eligible voters did not participate in 2012.
only 19% of eligible voters gave us the makeup of the 114th Congress.
passion and/or the lack thereof, so easily dismissed by Mr. Cohn, clearly cost Ms. Clinton the nomination in 2008, and may well be the one thing that prevents her election in 2016.
in short: Ms. Warren has stated that she does not wish to be President.
period. why spend an entire column on what might otherwise happen?
expanding the discussion a bit, consider that the level of unwanted-support that Ms. Warren's non-candidacy generates is reminiscent of Democratic Senator Eugene McCarthy, who very late in 1967 rose up to challenge a sitting Democratic President...were Ms. Warren to reconsider her current position, a much different outcome might be in the offing in next year's Democratic primaries, just as McCarthy dramatically changed the entire process in 1968.
why? Passion. Mr. Obama had it 2008.
the true test, at present, for Ms. Clinton is not the-winning of her party's nomination...rather it is: can she be elected in November, 2016...without any viable primary-challenger(s), fatigue and distrust will become more and more obvious.
in the end, for any Democrat, and most especially for Ms. Clinton, to be elected, a whole lot of folks will have to be convinced that their vote is necessary and that after it is cast that it will be rewarded...this will require deep seated trust and intense passion to accomplish.
more than 40% of eligible voters did not participate in 2012.
only 19% of eligible voters gave us the makeup of the 114th Congress.
passion and/or the lack thereof, so easily dismissed by Mr. Cohn, clearly cost Ms. Clinton the nomination in 2008, and may well be the one thing that prevents her election in 2016.
1
Here's one thing in Ms. Warren's favor. There's a tradition going back to the founders that a candidate insists that he has no ambition for the presidency. There has to be a perception that forces beyond his control are pulling him in and demanding that he run for the good of the country. She would clearly fit that description.
3
Elizabeth Warren is doing a great job where she is--we need her there. I just wish someone would give Hilary Clinton a decent run for her money. We need somebody NEW, with new ideas, new goals. I really don't think she will measure up to the challenge of providing real change.
1
Those of us in the center, Indepentants who feel threatened by a world filled with terrorists and bombastic nations hostile to us, want a President tough,smart, and ruthless enough to do what's necessary to protect us, with force if necessary. Ms Warren doesn't fit that profile for me. Nor am I entirely comfortable with Hillary as Commanderess In Chief - but at least we would have Bill Clinton providing input in the decision-making process.
2
Yes, indeed. Warren is no Obama. And that may be her greatest strength.
From my liberal standpoint, Obama was no liberal. He squandered the liberal mandate which voters gave him and the Democrats in 2008. His strongest belief was compromise, not liberalism. His willingness to compromise took him so far to the right that much needed liberalism disappeared.
In 2009, Obama was also naive about governance, believing there was something to be gained from trying to get the support of Republicans.
Warren doesn't have those two failings. She is a true liberal, believing that the most urgent issue of our time is advancement of the middle and working classes. She understands that's not going to happen by trying to appease the very rich.
Warren, with her efforts to create the consumer protection agency, also has experience with the behind the scenes workings of Washington. That's something Obama completely lacked, and it contributed substantially to his political ineffectiveness.
Warren understands that, as president, one must lead both the nation and the Democratic Party. Obama, in contrast, stayed away from leadership until these last 2 years of his 2nd term. That's too little, too late.
Warren understands the need for liberalism and how to implement it. For his first 6 years, Obama had no clue.
From my liberal standpoint, Obama was no liberal. He squandered the liberal mandate which voters gave him and the Democrats in 2008. His strongest belief was compromise, not liberalism. His willingness to compromise took him so far to the right that much needed liberalism disappeared.
In 2009, Obama was also naive about governance, believing there was something to be gained from trying to get the support of Republicans.
Warren doesn't have those two failings. She is a true liberal, believing that the most urgent issue of our time is advancement of the middle and working classes. She understands that's not going to happen by trying to appease the very rich.
Warren, with her efforts to create the consumer protection agency, also has experience with the behind the scenes workings of Washington. That's something Obama completely lacked, and it contributed substantially to his political ineffectiveness.
Warren understands that, as president, one must lead both the nation and the Democratic Party. Obama, in contrast, stayed away from leadership until these last 2 years of his 2nd term. That's too little, too late.
Warren understands the need for liberalism and how to implement it. For his first 6 years, Obama had no clue.
10
Yes, indeed. Warren is no Obama. And that may be her greatest strength.
From my liberal standpoint, Obama was no liberal. He squandered the liberal mandate which voters gave him and the Democrats in 2008. His strongest belief was compromise, not liberalism. His willingness to compromise took him so far to the right that much needed liberalism disappeared.
In 2009, Obama was also naive about governance, believing there was something to be gained from trying to get the support of Republicans.
Warren doesn't have those two failings. She is a true liberal, believing that the most urgent issue of our time is advancement of the middle and working classes. She understands that's not going to happen by trying to appease the very rich.
Warren, with her efforts to create the consumer protection agency, also has experience with the behind the scenes workings of Washington. That's something Obama completely lacked, and it contributed substantially to his political ineffectiveness.
Warren understands that, as president, one must lead both the nation and the Democratic Party. Obama, in contrast, stayed away from leadership until these last 2 years of his 2nd term. That's too little, too late.
Warren understands the need for liberalism and how to implement it. For his first 6 years, Obama had no clue.
From my liberal standpoint, Obama was no liberal. He squandered the liberal mandate which voters gave him and the Democrats in 2008. His strongest belief was compromise, not liberalism. His willingness to compromise took him so far to the right that much needed liberalism disappeared.
In 2009, Obama was also naive about governance, believing there was something to be gained from trying to get the support of Republicans.
Warren doesn't have those two failings. She is a true liberal, believing that the most urgent issue of our time is advancement of the middle and working classes. She understands that's not going to happen by trying to appease the very rich.
Warren, with her efforts to create the consumer protection agency, also has experience with the behind the scenes workings of Washington. That's something Obama completely lacked, and it contributed substantially to his political ineffectiveness.
Warren understands that, as president, one must lead both the nation and the Democratic Party. Obama, in contrast, stayed away from leadership until these last 2 years of his 2nd term. That's too little, too late.
Warren understands the need for liberalism and how to implement it. For his first 6 years, Obama had no clue.
6
I got nothing against Hillary, but I think her time has passed. If Hillary had not voted for the Iraq War she would have been President in 2008. I wonder why she would want to be President anyway, having to deal with the Republicans who did their best to destroy her, her husband and Obama.
4
Look, I like Elizabeth Warren, but haven't we Democrats learned our lesson about Massachusetts liberals in general elections?
3
"But it probably does not create an opening to defeat her."
Think again! Hillary lost the last nomination to a Junior Senator with hardly any name recognition.
Voters need to 'trust' and 'like' candidates for President. For clear reasons, Mrs. Clinton falls short on both counts (probably the reasons why she lost to Obama the last time around).
America needs to push the Clinton's and the Bush's to the side and start fresh with a new candidate with less baggage.
Think again! Hillary lost the last nomination to a Junior Senator with hardly any name recognition.
Voters need to 'trust' and 'like' candidates for President. For clear reasons, Mrs. Clinton falls short on both counts (probably the reasons why she lost to Obama the last time around).
America needs to push the Clinton's and the Bush's to the side and start fresh with a new candidate with less baggage.
21
Warren is no Obama! Well thank god for that. The truth of it is that Obama was never what he pretended to be.
6
Sorry, this seems like more rumor-mongering and speculation...
How about focusing more on real analysis of the issues that face the nation and candidates' view on these?
How about focusing more on real analysis of the issues that face the nation and candidates' view on these?
3
Liz Warren:
"As a United States Senator, I will work to ensure Israel’s security and success. I believe Israel must maintain a qualitative military edge and defensible borders. The United States must continue to ensure that Israel can defend itself from terrorist organizations and hostile states, including Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others. I also believe firmly that a two-state solution is in the interest of Israel and the United States. Lasting peace, however, requires negotiations between the parties themselves, and although the United States can and should aid in this process, we cannot dictate the terms. Unilateral actions, such as the Palestinians’ membership efforts before the United Nations, are unhelpful, and I would support vetoing a membership application."
"Iran is a significant threat to the United States and our allies. Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, it is an active state sponsor of terrorism, and its leaders have consistently challenged Israel’s right to exist. Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is unacceptable because a nuclear Iran would be a threat to the United States, our allies, the region, and the world. The United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I support strong sanctions against Iran and believe that the United States must also continue to take a leadership role in pushing other countries to implement strong sanctions as well. Iran must not have an escape hatch."
Thanks but no thanks!
"As a United States Senator, I will work to ensure Israel’s security and success. I believe Israel must maintain a qualitative military edge and defensible borders. The United States must continue to ensure that Israel can defend itself from terrorist organizations and hostile states, including Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others. I also believe firmly that a two-state solution is in the interest of Israel and the United States. Lasting peace, however, requires negotiations between the parties themselves, and although the United States can and should aid in this process, we cannot dictate the terms. Unilateral actions, such as the Palestinians’ membership efforts before the United Nations, are unhelpful, and I would support vetoing a membership application."
"Iran is a significant threat to the United States and our allies. Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, it is an active state sponsor of terrorism, and its leaders have consistently challenged Israel’s right to exist. Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is unacceptable because a nuclear Iran would be a threat to the United States, our allies, the region, and the world. The United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I support strong sanctions against Iran and believe that the United States must also continue to take a leadership role in pushing other countries to implement strong sanctions as well. Iran must not have an escape hatch."
Thanks but no thanks!
Hillary Pres. , Elizabeth VP
Hillary brawn , Elizabeth brains
Hillary presentation , Elizabeth performance
A matriarchal team that can reflect the needs of
the nation with the sensitivity and discipline needed
to grow up and work in the worlds schoolyard.
t
Hillary brawn , Elizabeth brains
Hillary presentation , Elizabeth performance
A matriarchal team that can reflect the needs of
the nation with the sensitivity and discipline needed
to grow up and work in the worlds schoolyard.
t
Sadly, Progressives do not win national elections. Why are all Republican Neocons still carping about Benghazi? Because they are desperate for anything to stand in the way of Hilary winning in 2016. They know they have an uphill battle with her and that she, a Centirst, can and will win if she runs. Though I am a Progressive I recognize that a true populist Progressive like Elizabeth Warren has not been in our White House since Franklin Roosevelt. Truman was a Centrist, Kennedy was a Centrist, Carter was a Centrist and so is Obama. Just short of half this nation voted in 2012 for a right wing, hawkish Mormon for heaven's sake. And people think Elizabeth Warren can win? Not in this divided nation. My vote is on Hilary, whether I prefer Warren or not.
You don't understand the power of Warren's rhetoric. With a couple sentences, she could end Clinton's career. Obama never had the guts or even the ability to do that. Remember when he mangled Warren's "you didn't build that?"
5
I think a ticket with Clinton and Warren would be unbeatable.
Warren is a revolutionary and would attack the corrupt wall street hedge funds for the influence peddlers they are. Clinton is the recipient of that corrupt money.
3
My dream candidate for the Democrats would be Bernie Sanders. He is everything they pray and wish for, but never select.
The defeat he would suffer in the general election would be so earth-shattering and monumental that socialism as a way of
thinking about politics and the world would
not be heard-of again in this country for the next hundred years.
The defeat he would suffer in the general election would be so earth-shattering and monumental that socialism as a way of
thinking about politics and the world would
not be heard-of again in this country for the next hundred years.
1
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are both outspoken champions of the interests of working people--the core Democratic conspiracy. I can't think of any comparable leadership by Hillary Clinton. Democrats need an inspiring candidate, not one they'll simply settle for as the lesser evil.
5
I got nothing against Hillary, but I think her time has passed. If Hillary had not voted for the Iraq War she would have been President in 2008. I wonder why she would want to be President anyway, having to deal with the Republicans who did their best to destroy her, her husband and Obama.
2
Hillary Clinton will no more roll back the "carried interest" section of the tax code than Obama did.
2
Yes, indeed. Warren is no Obama. And that may be her greatest strength.
From my liberal standpoint, Obama was no liberal. He squandered the liberal mandate which voters gave him and the Democrats in 2008. His strongest belief was compromise, not liberalism. His willingness to compromise took him so far to the right that much needed liberalism disappeared.
In 2009, Obama was also naive about governance, believing there was something to be gained from trying to get the support of Republicans.
Warren doesn't have those two failings. She is a true liberal, believing that the most urgent issue of our time is advancement of the middle and working classes. She understands that's not going to happen by trying to appease the very rich.
Warren, with her efforts to create the consumer protection agency, also has experience with the behind the scenes workings of Washington. That's something Obama completely lacked, and it contributed substantially to his political ineffectiveness.
Warren understands that, as president, one must lead both the nation and the Democratic Party. Obama, in contrast, stayed away from leadership until these last 2 years of his 2nd term. That's too little, too late.
Warren understands the need for liberalism and how to implement it. For his first 6 years, Obama had no clue.
From my liberal standpoint, Obama was no liberal. He squandered the liberal mandate which voters gave him and the Democrats in 2008. His strongest belief was compromise, not liberalism. His willingness to compromise took him so far to the right that much needed liberalism disappeared.
In 2009, Obama was also naive about governance, believing there was something to be gained from trying to get the support of Republicans.
Warren doesn't have those two failings. She is a true liberal, believing that the most urgent issue of our time is advancement of the middle and working classes. She understands that's not going to happen by trying to appease the very rich.
Warren, with her efforts to create the consumer protection agency, also has experience with the behind the scenes workings of Washington. That's something Obama completely lacked, and it contributed substantially to his political ineffectiveness.
Warren understands that, as president, one must lead both the nation and the Democratic Party. Obama, in contrast, stayed away from leadership until these last 2 years of his 2nd term. That's too little, too late.
Warren understands the need for liberalism and how to implement it. For his first 6 years, Obama had no clue.
3
Lets all be real here, if I want a smart, tough, experienced,battle hardened, president Elizabeth Warren is no Hillary Clinton. If you want a republican in the White House continue these ridiculous "issues". Hillary did nothing illegal with the emails. She is smart, and with the history of attacks on her by the right, having control of the situation is prudent and smart. She has turned over all the State department related emails. Hillary has served the country well in a very tough and demanding position as secretary of state. She set aside her issues with Obama and did what was best for the country. The presidency is much more then spin about Wall Street and spin about Benghazi. You want to see real problems on Wall street, and many other issues, get a second rate candidate and let the republicans take the White House.
3
I am a great admirer of Elizabeth Warren but I support Hillary as the Democratic candidate for President because she has greater appeal to Americans than does Warren. I hope Warren will continue to make herself known as a consumer champion to the country at large, but she does not have enough experience to be a good candidate.
Whoever becomes the Democratic candidate needs a David Axelrod with vision and experience to help them beat the Republican smear machine. Obama's brilliant campaign and campaign management put him in office. Romney did not have such a good staff and that ultimately failed him.
Hillary's staff in the first campaign failed her with infighting and we see that starting already. I wish David Axelrod would take over Hillary's campaign ( or Warren's) to help us combat the Republicans incredibly strong adveritising ability.
Jeb Bush will undoubtedly be the Republican candidate and he is far from perfect. A Democrat should be able to win against him if they have a good campaign, which is an enormous management problem.
I note with sadness that one of her fundraisers, David Brock, has already quit the campaign because he was "left out". Going to the press with internal struggles is a campaign killer. We don't need any more of that.
I think both Hillary and Elizabeth Warren are good candidates, but neither can win without a truly excellent campaign staff.
Whoever becomes the Democratic candidate needs a David Axelrod with vision and experience to help them beat the Republican smear machine. Obama's brilliant campaign and campaign management put him in office. Romney did not have such a good staff and that ultimately failed him.
Hillary's staff in the first campaign failed her with infighting and we see that starting already. I wish David Axelrod would take over Hillary's campaign ( or Warren's) to help us combat the Republicans incredibly strong adveritising ability.
Jeb Bush will undoubtedly be the Republican candidate and he is far from perfect. A Democrat should be able to win against him if they have a good campaign, which is an enormous management problem.
I note with sadness that one of her fundraisers, David Brock, has already quit the campaign because he was "left out". Going to the press with internal struggles is a campaign killer. We don't need any more of that.
I think both Hillary and Elizabeth Warren are good candidates, but neither can win without a truly excellent campaign staff.
4
at this stage I'd plan to write-in Bernie Sanders for President, Michelle Obama for Vice-President (or vice versa) trusting that either would offer Elizabeth Warren any position she wants under a progressive administration.
1
Michelle Obama? Really? On what basis? She married Barack? What we don't need is another lawyer in the White House, other than the fact that she isn't even qualified. Put that Kool Aid down.
2
Dear MS Hunt,
thanks for reply. only slightly tongue-in-cheek (why are good ideas so often ridiculed with contempt until being realized as genius?)
1) she doesn't even want the job, best reason of all to vote for her.
2) she's the "brains behind pa," he married HER.
3) she'll secure the Oprah vote.
4) any "lack of qualifications" – think Bush-regime – is routinely addressed and solved by having perfect access to the best administrative counsel available on Earth.
5) she's for the kids, i.e. the future of the US, which leaves her alone amongst the legion politicians concerned only with fund-raising for a next campaign.
. . . i could run on, but, re Kool Aid, you're either on the bus or you're off.
thanks for reply. only slightly tongue-in-cheek (why are good ideas so often ridiculed with contempt until being realized as genius?)
1) she doesn't even want the job, best reason of all to vote for her.
2) she's the "brains behind pa," he married HER.
3) she'll secure the Oprah vote.
4) any "lack of qualifications" – think Bush-regime – is routinely addressed and solved by having perfect access to the best administrative counsel available on Earth.
5) she's for the kids, i.e. the future of the US, which leaves her alone amongst the legion politicians concerned only with fund-raising for a next campaign.
. . . i could run on, but, re Kool Aid, you're either on the bus or you're off.
Senator Warren is a galvanizing public servant whose body of work reveals a woman who is passionate about saving the American middle class. Hillary Clinton is the Madonna of politics. She is over-ripe and suffering stature deflation among the American public since her best days during the Nineties.
Warren is America's best hope to save our representative democracy. Another Clinton presidency is one reunion tour too many.
Warren is America's best hope to save our representative democracy. Another Clinton presidency is one reunion tour too many.
14
Jerry, it is easy to be "passionate" about the middle class when you spend most of your career in elitist liberal academic institutions where words are cheap and the ability to enact change to real lives are non-existent, all which sums up Ms. Warren's brief tenure in the U.S. Senate as someone who is large on rhetoric, but has yet to build any bridges and influence or enact meaningful legislation for people like me.
1
In my opinion one big reason Obama was able to to defeat Hillary in 2008 was his personal X-factor: Michelle Obama. While he orated so well to large crowds with his stump speech she wowed on CSPAN in the early primary home venues where she was down to earth,passionate , sincere , and incredibly articulate in a way he never has been in off the cuff type interviews( and we all know Hillary has never been good at that either).And of course none of the Republican wives could come close to what she did. Michelle outdid even Bill Clinton. She sent BO over the top inMHO.
2
These discussions about support, policy, competition, appealing to certain voters, competency, yada, yada, yada, makes me chuckle. Ultimately, in the American political system it is about who can raise the most money in the shortest amount of time, otherwise, why would the same, most familiar cast of characters keep coming out of the woodwork and almost immediately become the front runners?
3
Hillary Clinton would be a very strong Democratic candidiate. I actually voted her in the New York primary against Barack Obama. However, two things about her worry me: She may be a war monger and get us involved in endless wars like fighting ISIS in Syria which Obama is mostly keeping us out of and Clinton also seems too beholden to big money.
The dream ticket would be Warren and Clinton, especially if Warren has real power as a VP. Warren doesn't have enough experience to run for president in 2016 but she would after eight years of being Hillary's VP. Warren could steer Clinton to the left and make her look out more for poor and working people's interests.
Be still my beating heart! Warren/Clinton that would be a dream ticket. Their policies would mesh well. Maybe two women could fix some of America's many problems.
Make history, Hillary. Run with Elizabeth as your VP.
Clinton/Warren 2016!
The dream ticket would be Warren and Clinton, especially if Warren has real power as a VP. Warren doesn't have enough experience to run for president in 2016 but she would after eight years of being Hillary's VP. Warren could steer Clinton to the left and make her look out more for poor and working people's interests.
Be still my beating heart! Warren/Clinton that would be a dream ticket. Their policies would mesh well. Maybe two women could fix some of America's many problems.
Make history, Hillary. Run with Elizabeth as your VP.
Clinton/Warren 2016!
9
Hillary is basically a Corporate Republican, Warren is a Democrat. Haven't we had enough of the Clinton Bush death spiral into this militaristic corporatist dictatorship.
I would guarantee you this...If there were a televised debate between Warren and Clinton, the poll numbers would be very different. Hillary would be exposed as the conservative corporate owned hack that she is.
I would guarantee you this...If there were a televised debate between Warren and Clinton, the poll numbers would be very different. Hillary would be exposed as the conservative corporate owned hack that she is.
16
She thinks she has wall street in her back pocket. Actually, the opposite is true.
2
More aptly, "Barack Obama Is No Barack Obama" - Although I am immensely grateful that Obama will most likely be able leave office without a major political scandal on his record (unlike Bill Clinton and George W Bush), it certainly feels like Barack capitulated to the banks since the beginning of his 1st term. I strongly suspect Hillary would have done the same - BUT NOT Warren. I have to believe that Warren would have incarcerated at least some of those financial Kleptocrates. The real issue for the Democratic party (and the future of our democracy) is getting lower and middle class citizens off of their butts and into the voting booth. Somehow I don't see Hillary overcoming that tragic level of apathy out there !
6
It seems highly unlikely to me that Warren would ever get anything done as president. Clinton confines her policy agenda to things that are possible in Washington in 2016. This isn't because she is spineless, or ambivalent towards an issue, or out-of-touch; its because she is pragmatic, only Kings get everything they want.
Warren wants to 'fight' the banks. This had lead her to team up with Ted Cruz to stop spending bills. People may find this admirable, but it would be asinine if it actually succeeded.
Warren wants to 'fight' the banks. This had lead her to team up with Ted Cruz to stop spending bills. People may find this admirable, but it would be asinine if it actually succeeded.
1
The problem with Hillary's candidacy is direct. Hillary's nomination is synonymous with a Republican 2016 win.
Eight more years of Republican theocracy is not what this country needs.
Eight more years of Republican theocracy is not what this country needs.
5
I love Elizabeth Warren. She is the most honest politician and work for the poor and middle class people. But such a liberal can not win in presidential race. She does not run for white house. Then why we waste time wishing her to run?
1
If the next election is between Hillary and Jeb, the ever popular Abstain promises to be the biggest vote-getter, with the Republican candidate fielding the next largest bloc of votes. There will be no repeat of the 1964 election in which Johnson won in a landslide driven by the American people's fear of a war that seemed likely were Goldwater to win. Aside from a subset of the electorate that for some mysterious reason stubbornly clings to the notion that Clinton is a progressive, Americans who do not outright, (let's be blunt), hate Hillary, don't trust her. Democrats like her husband who still give a rousingly liberal stump speech and then sell out to a right wing agenda have demoralized American progressives and greased the skids for the right wingers who have pursued the goal of burying forever all of the hard won gains made in the last century. Historically, never an overwhelming majority, progressives have now been marginalized, a minority crying in the wilderness.
7
While I think Hillary Clinton might make a good president, and probably would have been more effective ultimately than Barak Obama, I've personally grown a bit weary of her and have become increasingly turned off by her obvious affinities with big corporations, financial especially. If nothing else, Warren would be a breadth of fresh air -- and someone that could be counted on to truly take a stand for the interests of average Americans whenever such a stand were needed. A few months ago, I thought a Clinton-Warren ticket would be desirable. Now, I think I'd much prefer something along the lines of Warren-Webb.
10
Elizabeth Warren has spent most of her adult life in academia and government public service. She is young, fresh and new only with respect to elective politics. In elective politics, as in public service and academia, she is known for only one particular issue that has failed to resonate with a significant number of voters.
The Hillary Clinton problem is the "President" Edmund S. Muskie and Edward M. Kennedy " problem." Coupled with the President Richard M. Nixon and Ronald W. Reagan reality. Unlike Republicans who fail to get the nomination of their party Democrats who miss out do not get a second chance. Rockefeller, Dole and McCain had 2nd chances and only the latter two made it to the nomination.
The main Hillary problem is that she is history but not so historical.
The Hillary Clinton problem is the "President" Edmund S. Muskie and Edward M. Kennedy " problem." Coupled with the President Richard M. Nixon and Ronald W. Reagan reality. Unlike Republicans who fail to get the nomination of their party Democrats who miss out do not get a second chance. Rockefeller, Dole and McCain had 2nd chances and only the latter two made it to the nomination.
The main Hillary problem is that she is history but not so historical.
3
It's amazing how badly the pundits missed this during Hillary's first go around. Apparently they're poised to swing wildly and miss again.
3
This kind of pundit certainty should drive all right-thinking people mad. The number of things it doesn't account for is staggering - for example, Clinton's support is neither deep nor passionate; she's assumed this "inevitable" stage only due to lack of viable alternatives. She was equally "inevitable" in 2008 but Obama's candidacy immediately showed how shallow her support was - and remains. It's more than a year out. Setting aside the possibility of continuing unforced errors (the email story is just beginning), there's plenty of time for a challenger to show, yet again, that she has clay feet. I have spoken to no one who is a passionate, enthusiastic Clinton supporter; they are resigned but not engaged. The fact is, if you look back at 2008 and 2012, the pundits basically got EVERY SINGLE important call wrong. Every one. On both sides of the aisle. Cohn is filing up column inches here, earning his salary, and that's fine - but it should not be mistaken for wisdom.
10
Hillary Clinton cannot win the White House; quite a few Democrats realize that and as such are looking for an alternate candidate to replace Hillary Clinton at an appropriate time.
Senator Warren, a newcomer to politics, when she speaks about a consumer protection agency, student loans, and the treatment meted out to a large portion of Americans by the Multinationals and Big Banks it strikes a chord with them. Both Republicans and Democratic voters view her rather favorably.
The idea about primary must be to find a candidate who would represent the party ideals and is electable in the general election. Hillary Clinton is recycled goods and is not electable and sooner the Democrats accept that the better it is.
With the Big Money, Big Multi Nationals backing both the Bushes and the Clintons does not bode well for the Democratic Party. 28 States have passed anti-union legislations, (the right to work law) thereby reducing the power of the union in elections. The upcoming primaries as well as the Presidential elections would be decided by the immigrants, by Latino voters. I wonder why this specific demographic was left out from the equation.
We should also consider the likelihood of the ‘no votes’ for Hillary Clinton as well as Senator Warren. In my estimation there is a significant portion of the American electorate who would cast a no vote for Hillary Clinton than Senator Warren. Maybe we should be looking at some more options if Senator Warren is not running.
Senator Warren, a newcomer to politics, when she speaks about a consumer protection agency, student loans, and the treatment meted out to a large portion of Americans by the Multinationals and Big Banks it strikes a chord with them. Both Republicans and Democratic voters view her rather favorably.
The idea about primary must be to find a candidate who would represent the party ideals and is electable in the general election. Hillary Clinton is recycled goods and is not electable and sooner the Democrats accept that the better it is.
With the Big Money, Big Multi Nationals backing both the Bushes and the Clintons does not bode well for the Democratic Party. 28 States have passed anti-union legislations, (the right to work law) thereby reducing the power of the union in elections. The upcoming primaries as well as the Presidential elections would be decided by the immigrants, by Latino voters. I wonder why this specific demographic was left out from the equation.
We should also consider the likelihood of the ‘no votes’ for Hillary Clinton as well as Senator Warren. In my estimation there is a significant portion of the American electorate who would cast a no vote for Hillary Clinton than Senator Warren. Maybe we should be looking at some more options if Senator Warren is not running.
7
Jim Webb can beat her-- thank God -- and likely will...look for him to announce in the next month or so. He can match her 'qualifications' and is a far better person to boot -- and like her husband and Mrs. Warren, and very unlike Hillary, he actually cares about the disenfranchised and downtrodden...while she lays that big fake smile on us again and again.
4
Democracy: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
7
The problem Elizabeth Warren will have is being able to maintain her populist message while executing the office of President. If she can accept that she MUST make some concessions, and even find time to point those concessions right back at the people who voted for her(because if you don't vote in mid-terms you're setting up the President to fail, basically). Then she'll have a chance.
IF she thinks for even one second she can maintain the message without compromise of some action(at least until she's given a majority Congress), she will go down in flames.
President Obama's tenure clearly shows the way.
IF she thinks for even one second she can maintain the message without compromise of some action(at least until she's given a majority Congress), she will go down in flames.
President Obama's tenure clearly shows the way.
2
The numbers say the only person who can beat Hillary, Democrat or Republican, is Hillary herself. The recent email fiasco is just evidence that Republicans have nothing to run on when there is no democrat to bash. They are essentially saying they need Hillary to get into the race because nobody of their dozen candidates has one whit to offer other than more corporate giveaways.
6
Senator Warren stands firm and unequivocal.
Hillary is your 2016 candidate if you agree with her positions:
Hillary Clinton sat on the board of Wal-mart.
Hillary Clinton gave two paid speech at Goldman Sachs.
Hillary reversed her position on bankruptcy laws that ended up positioning TBTF banks over consumers.
Top 20 donors to Bill Clinton’s Global Initiative are from Wall Street.
Would Hillary Clinton cave in, along with other economic issues if pressed hard enough by opposing interest groups and lobbyists from K Street:
She has been silent on Keystone XL, the Trans Pacific Partnership, her policy position on the NSA.
Critics say while SOS, Secretary Clinton militarized the State Department; convinced President Obama into taking out Kaddafi in a way that was not only counter but against international law.
Hillary’s running mate - her nominee for Secretary of Treasury - Secretary of State?
If Hillary is being described as “tough as nails,” could she be as equally tenacious on domestic issues.
Is Hillary crafting a universal theme and message that won’t appear too hypocritical, double-speak, cynical, out of touch, pandering, and other favorite buttons politicians like to push when trolling for votes?
Perhaps, policy substance matters more than having the optics of the first woman president of the United States. So no I will not be "getting behind" her candidacy as the first woman president, nor will I be voting for her if she decides to run.
10
"Elizabeth Warren Is No Barack Obama"
A "click-bait" headline, if there ever was one --
A pity the Times feels the need to resort to them now -
Oh well...
A "click-bait" headline, if there ever was one --
A pity the Times feels the need to resort to them now -
Oh well...
3
Warren's pro-Israel stance is deeply disturbing. Apart from this, she is a far better candidate in every respect than Hillary, who is essentially a Republican.
7
Barack Obama is no Barack Obama and he won. So can she.
3
Among my friends and acquaintances, I've noticed that the people who support Senator Warren are the ones who talk about politics but don't engage in politics. They have never worked on a political campaign or only in the most remote sort of way, maybe putting up a yard sign or two. They love to talk about candidates who aren't even candidates. For those of us who have helped candidates get elected, this article makes sense, no matter how much we wish someone would challenge Clinton.
7
Mr. Cohn's explanation is cogent, but he misses an important point: maybe the "silent majority" of old line Democrats is tired of another "first." To them, Barack Obama as the first black president may initially have been exhilarating, but has now become exhausting. Thus, Ms. Clinton's trump card, first women president, may not be as strong as Mr. Cohn imagines. Additionally, African-American, playing THEIR cards shrewdly as always, may position themselves as the swing votes within the Democratic party - more bad news for Hillary if Mr. Obama decides to hold a grudge. Some years the whole party picks the candidate, some years only the activists. And Ms. Clinton's biggest liability is still there: we know she CAN be beaten!
7
At least Warren is honest.
6
What about the Indian heritage nonsense?
6
Ignore it for the nonsense it is. Anyone who falls for that nonsense may be exactly the kind of economically deprived person who would benefit from a Warren presidency. Who would benefit from learning more about her. Which you won't get from Fox or Limbaugh. Every day I Google the day's date and Elizabeth Warren. Do that and learn something.
Wall Street, income inequality and the 1% versus the middle class. That's what an Elizabeth Warren's candidacy is all about. And the fact that Hillary Clinton is a champion of Wall Street. And that the Clinton era deregulation of the banking industry paved the way for crash of the banks.
Yet Wall Street is dismissed as an insignificant issue in Cohn's analysis of Warren's chances while that issue is the raison d'etre for her candidacy. Regarding resentment against Wall Street, even the rise of the Tea Party is due both to the bailout and the "save the banks" mentality and actions of Sec. Geithner. Currently Warren is unknown to most of the electorate. However, her message about Wall Street and her attack on the policies that always favor the 1% will have resonance not just with liberals but with a broad swath of the public including some, yes just some, members of the Tea Party. Are these really significant issues? Not to Mr. Cohn. We'll see.
The only good from the crisis was the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren. Most people don't know about that but they will hear about it during a Warren campaign and recognize it as a major accomplishment. And finally, to say that Elizabeth Warren's appeal to blacks will have to be based on prison reform or some other issue is sheer nonsense. I guess the black population, which was the most heavily impacted by the foreclosure crisis, really loves banks and Wall Street. Really?
Yet Wall Street is dismissed as an insignificant issue in Cohn's analysis of Warren's chances while that issue is the raison d'etre for her candidacy. Regarding resentment against Wall Street, even the rise of the Tea Party is due both to the bailout and the "save the banks" mentality and actions of Sec. Geithner. Currently Warren is unknown to most of the electorate. However, her message about Wall Street and her attack on the policies that always favor the 1% will have resonance not just with liberals but with a broad swath of the public including some, yes just some, members of the Tea Party. Are these really significant issues? Not to Mr. Cohn. We'll see.
The only good from the crisis was the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren. Most people don't know about that but they will hear about it during a Warren campaign and recognize it as a major accomplishment. And finally, to say that Elizabeth Warren's appeal to blacks will have to be based on prison reform or some other issue is sheer nonsense. I guess the black population, which was the most heavily impacted by the foreclosure crisis, really loves banks and Wall Street. Really?
3
Was Nate Cohn comatose during the rise of the Occupy Movement? As someone who has fallen out of the middle class I can tell you things have only gotten worse for most of us in the last couple years. Stagnating wages and dead-end low-wage temporary part-time jobs with no benefits and unpredictable schedules is now the norm. If the time was ever right for a populist candidate with a message like FDR it is now. The economy has not rebounded and never will for most of us unless structural changes are made to reduce income inequality. Perhaps Mr. Cohn needs to take a cross-country tour and get out of the rarefied confines of NYC and actually talk to people on the ground. We paycheck to paycheck people do not view Hillary as anything more than a tool of the banking industry. If you haven't read Elizabeth Warren's autobiography yet I encourage you to do so. She is one of us. She gets us. If not Elizabeth for President, then someone like her. Unless something turns around in this country there will be an uprising much larger and broader than the Occupy Movement. Why wouldn't Mr. Cohn think a populist message would play well in minority communities? Thank you for your post JPC Maryland. I agree whole heartedly with what you have written. Let's get someone elected who actually will work for the people of America, not Wall Street for a change.
2
it took a catastrophic economic crisis for the Greeks to vote for Syriza, and something similar would have to happen here for Americans to vote for Ms. Warren. Otherwise, it would be like voting for Ralph Nader in 2000 -- a back door vote for the republicans.
3
Mrs Clinton was heir apparent the last time around, yes she is the odds on favorite but the election is still well over a year away. While I am a big fan of Elizabeth Warren, she would probably do the most good continuing as a very strong Senator for now.The best thing the Democratic Party can do is let the GOP clown car spectacle run its course for the next year or so then the Democratic candidate will have a bloodied opponent torn to shreds in the GOP mayhem. They are already taking potshots at Hillary and she has not announced yet. Let them continue to eat their own for now.
5
I am actually a great fan of Elizabeth Warren, but in the current political landscape her odds are not great. It seems she is shrewd enough to realize this, but her fans are nevertheless eager to form a circular firing squad within the Democratic Party.
3
It's far easier to win if as a candidate you portray yourself differently from how you would actually perform as President. I'm talking about criticizing Wall Street then appointing a gang of the same culprits who crashed the economy to fill your team after arriving in office.
Barack Obama essentially cheated his way into the Presidency, winning under false pretenses. We were truly hoodwinked and bamboozled.
Yes, Elizabeth Warren would be handicapped if she ran an honest race but let's not get cynical or feel hopeless about the few honest politicians out there just because of the bad apples. I hope this time we pay more attention to actions and less to 'just words'.
Barack Obama essentially cheated his way into the Presidency, winning under false pretenses. We were truly hoodwinked and bamboozled.
Yes, Elizabeth Warren would be handicapped if she ran an honest race but let's not get cynical or feel hopeless about the few honest politicians out there just because of the bad apples. I hope this time we pay more attention to actions and less to 'just words'.
6
Warren would get my vote in a second if she ran. That's up to her, but Hillary of the Clinton Family Scandal Hour will be hard-pressed to lure me and my 5 dollar contribution. I'm done with dynasties and if that is all the democrat party has to offer, I'm done. I'm joining the other 67 % who have apparently hung up their voting gloves.
7
It's likely that Cohn's analysis is right however a candidacy isn't always about winning in the current electoral cycle. Think back at how the Republican Party started its dramatic shift to the right with the losing candidacies of Goldwater 1964 and Reagan 1976. Those two losing campaigns planted the seeds for major changes to come. Warren can begin a similar process within the Democratic Party- steering it away from the Republican-lite Party it's become under the Clintons and Obama. Not sure if Warren has the fire in the belly to carry it out but it's desperately needed for the Party and our democracy.
3
Thats it then, Warren is; (no pun intended) the standard "plain vanilla", "do-gooder", white woman; who, grew up genuinely poor; but quickly escaped that life of poverty thru an elite education. And given the age when she grew to adulthood, she had the good fortune to be able to piggy-back upon the Civil Rights struggles and their successes that were won by the sacrifices of Blacks.
1
Never underestimate the cloud of ignorance enveloping the American voter. Many of your so-called "pro" Clinton constituencies are only such because they've heard of Hillary but have no idea of who Elizabeth Warren is or what she stands for. For those folks especially, her message of economic fairness would resonate loud and clear.
6
Do we really need to trudge through all the Clinton mess again? The e-mail problem is just a tiny window into the cesspool. The Clinton Foundation is a disorganized mess that Chelsea has been trying (unsuccessfully) to fix, and Hillary should have been running away from it over the past several years. We haven't begun to hear about her husband's, shall we say, dalliances since he left office.
I think Elizabeth Warren has a duty to the party and the public to run. This is bigger than herself. There needs to be a choice and she is the only Democrat who I think is a credible challenger. Hillary's support is wide but shallow, and Warren could knock her out.
I think Elizabeth Warren has a duty to the party and the public to run. This is bigger than herself. There needs to be a choice and she is the only Democrat who I think is a credible challenger. Hillary's support is wide but shallow, and Warren could knock her out.
6
Why does it have to be Clinton or Warren?
I would like to see a Democratic Primary with Jim Webb getting into the mix. There are good people out there who deserve consideration. Mrs. Clinton does not deserved to be "crowned."
I would like to see a Democratic Primary with Jim Webb getting into the mix. There are good people out there who deserve consideration. Mrs. Clinton does not deserved to be "crowned."
5
Probably because Jim Webb is almost completely unknown in the US. He may be a wonderful person but he cannot win when no one even knows who he is. Even Elizabeth Warren is unknown to a huge percentage of Democrats.
Hillary is well known throughout the world. Her downside is that, in politics, if a candidate has been known for a long time is also a better tarket for mudslinging than a newbie.
This unfortunate habit of tarring and feathering candidates with experience in politics gives us young, exciting, but inept elected officials as some claim Obama is.
I would love to see the electorate grow up and rationally evaluate all candidates, but that is not likely to happen with our poorly educated electorate.
Hillary is well known throughout the world. Her downside is that, in politics, if a candidate has been known for a long time is also a better tarket for mudslinging than a newbie.
This unfortunate habit of tarring and feathering candidates with experience in politics gives us young, exciting, but inept elected officials as some claim Obama is.
I would love to see the electorate grow up and rationally evaluate all candidates, but that is not likely to happen with our poorly educated electorate.
Warren may be about the same age as Hilary but looks much younger. Hilary's sins are visible on her face and are not as easy to hide as her email.
2
If, by some miracle, Elizabeth Warren were to win the Democratic nomination, she would lose the general election in all 57 states. Remember Kerry? McGovern? Dukakis? Even Adlai Stevenson? This country has no interest in decent people who care about human values. It is much more enamored of odious little fascists like Scott Walker or the new up-and-coming Sen. Cotton.
3
How very sadly true.
Name the seven new states. You mean D.C., a federal district? What else? Don't think Guam and Puerto Rica get electoral votes.
Even if Nate is correct- and I am not sure he is by any means...I would love to see Warren run if only to move Clinton to the left a bit.
The ideal ticket for me would be Clinton/Warren or Warren/Clinton- either way could beat any of the current crop of Republican bozos.
The ideal ticket for me would be Clinton/Warren or Warren/Clinton- either way could beat any of the current crop of Republican bozos.
1
So how about a Joe Biden / Elizabeth Warren ticket ?
Then we'd have an upstanding, reasonable, decent honest man with 8 years of veep experience (and don't veeps historically become the presidential candidates ?), along with a sorely needed honest outspoken reformer.
What's wrong with that?
The Clinton machine has too much baggage. And she's already lost the primaries before in 2008. What has actually improved with Hillary since then..her work as Secretary of State? Guess you'd have to see her cherry-picked emails from her private non-government server to find out.
Then we'd have an upstanding, reasonable, decent honest man with 8 years of veep experience (and don't veeps historically become the presidential candidates ?), along with a sorely needed honest outspoken reformer.
What's wrong with that?
The Clinton machine has too much baggage. And she's already lost the primaries before in 2008. What has actually improved with Hillary since then..her work as Secretary of State? Guess you'd have to see her cherry-picked emails from her private non-government server to find out.
6
Agree with the many posters who say Warren can do more, now, in the Senate. Hillary will run, and likely lose, and perhaps after that, we won't have to hear from her again.
What is the point of this article?
To knock down a fantasy, ficticious Elizabeth Warren campaign to be the Democrat Party nominee?
None of the Democrat voters I know are thinking of Elizabeth Warren as a challenger to Hillary Clinton.
Many Democrat voters I know are unhappy about Hillary Clinton being the presumptive nominee with no viable challengers. But, not hoping for Elizabeth Warren to run.
Elizabeth Warren is a great advocate for all but the top 1%. But, she is not trying to be a Presidential candidate. She's using the press coverage to speak about her favorite issues.
Unfortunately, every time she makes a speech, the "talking heads" on cable news, and, now, The New York Times, feels the need to translate her appearances into a possible run for President, rather than appreciating the value of her real campaign, a campaign to represent about 99% of the people in the United States aith respect to consumer and financial issues.
To knock down a fantasy, ficticious Elizabeth Warren campaign to be the Democrat Party nominee?
None of the Democrat voters I know are thinking of Elizabeth Warren as a challenger to Hillary Clinton.
Many Democrat voters I know are unhappy about Hillary Clinton being the presumptive nominee with no viable challengers. But, not hoping for Elizabeth Warren to run.
Elizabeth Warren is a great advocate for all but the top 1%. But, she is not trying to be a Presidential candidate. She's using the press coverage to speak about her favorite issues.
Unfortunately, every time she makes a speech, the "talking heads" on cable news, and, now, The New York Times, feels the need to translate her appearances into a possible run for President, rather than appreciating the value of her real campaign, a campaign to represent about 99% of the people in the United States aith respect to consumer and financial issues.
8
Looks like the Democrats War on Women continues.
Warren is no Obama. Hilliary is no Obama.
Does this make Democrats sexist? They'll only vote for a female if there is no strong, dominant male candidate in the race?
Warren is no Obama. Hilliary is no Obama.
Does this make Democrats sexist? They'll only vote for a female if there is no strong, dominant male candidate in the race?
3
There is so much so wrong with this fantasy article it's hard to know where to start.
How about starting at the end?
"If Ms. Warren couldn’t have beaten Mrs. Clinton in 2008, it’s a stretch to argue she could do it today."
Huh? Fantasyland.
"I’m not sure whether the same hot-button issue exists to battle Mrs. Clinton."
Nate, where have you been the last decade?
How about Clinton represents more of the same and people are ready, even hungry, for substantial change? How about a "recovery" for the financial sector and not for anybody else? How about real wages dropping for the last three decades while executive pay quadruples?
How's them apples?
Hillary is a deeply flawed candidate and the Democrats would be wise to look elsewhere.
How about starting at the end?
"If Ms. Warren couldn’t have beaten Mrs. Clinton in 2008, it’s a stretch to argue she could do it today."
Huh? Fantasyland.
"I’m not sure whether the same hot-button issue exists to battle Mrs. Clinton."
Nate, where have you been the last decade?
How about Clinton represents more of the same and people are ready, even hungry, for substantial change? How about a "recovery" for the financial sector and not for anybody else? How about real wages dropping for the last three decades while executive pay quadruples?
How's them apples?
Hillary is a deeply flawed candidate and the Democrats would be wise to look elsewhere.
9
I like and respect E. Warren. She said she's not running, and I hope we can trust she is telling the truth. She can run in the future. Hilary, well, she'd be better than anyone the republicans offer. Another Bush????? Given dynasties, I prefer the Clinton one.
4
"Ms. Warren may be a new face, but, at 65, she doesn’t represent generational change against Mrs. Clinton, who is 67."
That's funny, because Warren seems young in comparison, and certainly the anti-Wall Street stance is sometning new for the Democratic party. Clinton, on the other hand, seems like just more of the same old same old that, well, isn't working out so well for most of us.
That's funny, because Warren seems young in comparison, and certainly the anti-Wall Street stance is sometning new for the Democratic party. Clinton, on the other hand, seems like just more of the same old same old that, well, isn't working out so well for most of us.
6
I totally agree. As a liberal I'd like to live in a country where Warren could be elected president, but I don't right now. So I'm ready for the first woman and second Clinton, rather than the third Bush (or worse yet, first tea partier).
1
Numbers are important but not definitive. Warren can beat Clinton; Clinton's vulnerable, and I believe she's brittle right now, so much so that she may decide not to run, after all. In that case, surprise!, Warren is a front-runner.
But she's not running and she shouldn't run. Her expertise is too narrow and her governing and leadership experience is to shallow. The Republicans would crush her with an "insecurity" campaign.
And she's smart; she knows this. I repeat, she's not running.
But she's not running and she shouldn't run. Her expertise is too narrow and her governing and leadership experience is to shallow. The Republicans would crush her with an "insecurity" campaign.
And she's smart; she knows this. I repeat, she's not running.
1
It is going to be interesting to see how the pack, both Democrat and Republican, play and thin out over the next year. As a moderate who leans slightly left I am not sure Hilliary can win in the General unless she makes some great strides toward appearing more transparent and connected. While the left adores her the middle is not committed to her. She comes across as cold, manipulative and insincere. If Jeb continues his relatively centrist leanings and doesn't take the Romney Right turn he may take the middle ground away from Clinton.
For nothing more than a waste of time, an hour of political pondering on the meaningless, Warren is as good of daydream as many, but who are we to not understand at this stage of the game that, Jeb is the selected one. Already media builds the narrative for his victory and we will be duped yet another time.
2
I don't think FDR won four terms as president because he "triangulated" with the bankers and industrialists in 1932. He was able to touch the hearts and aspirations of the middle class and poorer Americans who were sick of two parties that played with their hope for a better America. And , of course the Republicans by 1932, stood for nothing but money. Good luck Warren.
9
How about someone who espouses and advocates all the policy and change needed that an Elizabeth Warren advocates, with global and foreign experience, and NOT Hillary Clinton: fmr Sen. Jim Webb.
Webb will likely run. Hillary likely will but maybe won't, since I believe her time passed in 2008 and she's past her sell-by-date now.
If Hillary doesn't run, all the journalists will all of a sudden be giving Webb the attention he richly deserves.
Webb will likely run. Hillary likely will but maybe won't, since I believe her time passed in 2008 and she's past her sell-by-date now.
If Hillary doesn't run, all the journalists will all of a sudden be giving Webb the attention he richly deserves.
6
I fervently hope this is true: that Jim Webb runs and receives positive attention from the press!
1
Unlike what the media sells us, its not all about winning, its about supporting a candidate you believe in. Obama often says, "don't let the perfect get in the way of the good," but often the good is only good if you are in the 1%, otherwise its just part of America's continued decline into inequality. Because democrats have settled for basically moderate republicans for president, while republicans have received exactly what they have demanded, hard right leaders, America has continuously moved to the right. I find it insulting to my democratic ideals that republicans can demand a candidate that will be a "true republican", but democrats, not so much, we have to compromise our values, and in doing so, we have allowed ourselves to be simply republican- lite. It is time democrats stopped taking anything the establishment hands us, and instead demand a candidate that follows OUR values, we certainly deserve at least as much respect as the republicans, I mean they gave us George Bush, if that does not exemplify Republican's poor judgement, nothing will.
1
Elizabeth Warren is no Barack Obama, thank goodness! She would stand behind her words, her words would reflect her true beliefs. She would not turn out to be a closet Republican. She would not turn against her supporters. She would not move further right than the republicans and offer them things they didn't even ask for - like cuts in social security. She has a long history. And unlike Obama, she would have my vote (not that voting seems to matter much - or even the presidency, nowadays.)
9
Comparisons to Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton for that matter, are irrelevant if Elizabeth Warren isn't going to run. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0218-mcmanus-elizabeth-warren...
2
Oh come on, another Mass. liberal? A Harvard prof too, whoo-hoo! Be still my beating blue heart. I suggest the promoters of this stupid idea just shoot us all now and get it over with.
3
It's absurd even to consider the relative strengths of a candidate and a non-candidate. If Ms. Warren decided to run for President she'd probably make up a lot of ground on Ms. Clinton as soon as prospective voters realized whose agenda would work best for their own wallets and pocketbooks. For now, the senator from Massachusetts is not even talking about making a run for it and there's no reason to assume otherwise.
14
What seems missing in this article is that Ms. Warren has never declared or encouraged interest in running for president. Indeed, she has even discouraged those who urged her to run. So comparisons are difficult. It's instructive to remember that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton came from being unknown quantities to become front runners and eventual presidents. But trying to draw direct comparisons between a non-candidate and an all-but-formally-declared candidate seem rather meaningless.
11
Senator Warren won't sell out enough to become president. I suspect that's why she won't even consider running.
She would have to have massive support from outside the political establishment, massive enough to counteract the vast tides of money that animate politics today. She doesn't. She knows that.
"Massive support from outside the political establishment" can only come when the system is a lot more broken down than it is, and politics-as-usual is so obviously irrelevant to the lives of the average person that even the most inattentive notice it.
Sadly, such circumstances lie at the end of the road that we as a nation are traveling now.
She would have to have massive support from outside the political establishment, massive enough to counteract the vast tides of money that animate politics today. She doesn't. She knows that.
"Massive support from outside the political establishment" can only come when the system is a lot more broken down than it is, and politics-as-usual is so obviously irrelevant to the lives of the average person that even the most inattentive notice it.
Sadly, such circumstances lie at the end of the road that we as a nation are traveling now.
13
So why not put them both on the ticket?
2
"Hillary Clinton has already emerged as the 'inevitable' Democratic nominee." Glad to hear the Times pronounce that no one can beat Hillary, so we're stuck with her and should just shut up and fall in line. The Times is no doubt correct; after all, Hillary crushed that community organizer turned first-term senator back in 2008, didn't she? After both trailed in early polls to....wait for it....John Edwards!! John $200 haircut Cheat on My Dying Wife Who? Thanks for sticking that historical fact in parentheticals, NYT. Oh, and Hillary only lost to Obama because he's, well, you know, black. and "Mr. Obama’s appeal among black voters deprived her of an important element." As if she owned the black vote and it was stolen from her. I suppose if Warren were to run and prevail, the Times would tell us that Hillary once again deserved to win, but Warren was a woman and got those votes, "depriving" Hillary of another constituency she believed she was entitled to count on.
9
Obama didn't win because he was black. He won because his opponent was Hillary, and the American people would choose anyone but her. I loathed Obama from day one, but forced myself to stomach voting for him, since I had a moral obligation to do whatever was necessary to prevent Hillary from gaining power. My sole criteria for selecting a president is that it not be Hillary. The rest is irrelevant. Anyone but her, no matter who.
Hillary Clinton happily gives speeches to Wall Street banks in exchange for fees of several hundred thousand dollars each. Elizabeth Warren would never ever do that, as a matter of principle. That's all the analysis I need. Run Liz, run!
7
Yes, but she accepts $500K from Harvard for teaching one course. Where exactly does that money come from?
2
I think that all the current crop of "political experts" greatly underestimates the degree of dislike many Democrats have for Hillary Clinton. If she's the nominee I fully intend to write in Elizabeth Warren.
4
Your article is out of touch with American voters who do not want another Bush or Clinton in the White House, both sure predictors of the same old, same old. Warren offers intelligence, credibility and common sense. Bush and Clinton offer more corruption, manipulation and economic disparity.
13
This kind of speculation is meaningless. The comparison with Obama says nothing. Candidates emerge and succeed along many different paths and simply saying that she's on a different path than Obama was doesn't really say anything. Hillary has all sorts of warts that may make her look bad to the public.
5
This is true if things continue in a straight line. But they never do. In 2008 people were equally sure about Clinton. It's guesswork at this point.
4
thought folks were sure about edwards back then….
1
Sounds like Sen. Warren needs an ethnic identity / constituency. How about Native American?
3
The reality dividing who we liberals want - Warren - from who we can reasonably hope to elect - Clinton - epitomizes the situation of Democrats. I think we're livid about the ways organized capital is eroding the social compact and also despondent that the same can be held at bay. I find myself hoping for some sort of cataclysm to create a moment of recognition, but if the Great Recession didn't do it, what will? #soldieringonwithlimitedhope
2
Well, the problem for Democrats is that i cannot see Hillary Clinton generate the passion the she did in 2008 (and still she lost). Now she has more bad baggage and less energy. Unless some miracle happens, if she runs i believe she will lose again, this time maybe in favor of a Republican.
7
You stated what I might have stated more bluntly: her candidacy seems doomed. I was watching Fox news last night, and even I was convinced that she is sneaky. She doesn't know how to behave, she doesn't understand what not to do or say, and that's going to keep her from being a good president, and everyone knows it. She'll lose to a Republican if nominated. I hope someone else steps up. There must be someone else out there. Are there any democratic governors with a good reputation?
1
What a flaccid endorsement of Hilary Clinton, if that's what this is: Warren can't beat her, and who else is there, so why don't we just get in line?
I'll tell you why: I am as passionately against Hilary as this columnist is so flaccidly for her.
I'll tell you why: I am as passionately against Hilary as this columnist is so flaccidly for her.
10
So many stupid people voting on emotion instead of looking at what it takes to run a country, diplomacy, foreign affairs, the military, trade, terrorists etc.
3
exactly.. that's why i prefer warren!
4
Diplomacy, foreign affairs, the military, trade, terrorist: most of what you describe is what's needed to run a sterile fortress, not a living, breathing country in which people can survive -- not merely cower in fear behind the walls.
Clinton Warren ticket would be awesome!
2
Ms. Warren has repeatedly stated she's not running. So why do we still have this debate? Out of the entire populace, are we saying there are only two possible candidates for the Democratic ticket? Can't we please cast a wider net that includes people who are actually interested in running?
2
Elizabeth Warren is farther to the left than anyone else in current politics. If ideology can win over common sense then we can bet on Warren.
1
I like Warren but she hasn't spoken out enough on mass incarceration and drug reform. I know she's adamantly against marijuana legalization, despite the racial inequality marijuana enforcement leaves in its wake. We're finally making progress on those issues under Obama and I worry that she would send us backwards.
I recall that Hillary's advantage among black voters took a dive because her team had to go and criticize Obama's plan to reduce the racial disparity in crack cocaine sentencing as one that was "too liberal for America."
Warren supporters should pay heed.
I recall that Hillary's advantage among black voters took a dive because her team had to go and criticize Obama's plan to reduce the racial disparity in crack cocaine sentencing as one that was "too liberal for America."
Warren supporters should pay heed.
2
Nate,
I believe you underestimate the overall level of awareness there is in the United States to "popular" senators. A large voting portion of the United States has no idea who Elizabeth Warren is, plain and simple. I would venture to say that majority of the general election voting population has no face regonition of Elizabeth Warren.
Many of the people who voted for Barack Obama did not know he existed until he ran for president!
The level of awareness drastically improves once you declare you're running for president. If Warren decides to run, which is possible, she can crush Hillary.
There are drastic differences, if Hillary wins she's the first women, with the caveat that her husband did it first.
If Warren wins, she did it all alone with out legacy and the baggage of the past.
I believe you underestimate the overall level of awareness there is in the United States to "popular" senators. A large voting portion of the United States has no idea who Elizabeth Warren is, plain and simple. I would venture to say that majority of the general election voting population has no face regonition of Elizabeth Warren.
Many of the people who voted for Barack Obama did not know he existed until he ran for president!
The level of awareness drastically improves once you declare you're running for president. If Warren decides to run, which is possible, she can crush Hillary.
There are drastic differences, if Hillary wins she's the first women, with the caveat that her husband did it first.
If Warren wins, she did it all alone with out legacy and the baggage of the past.
14
I voted for Barrack Obama twice and I am no more disillusioned today than several years ago. Selecting a candidate based on their speeches and stage presence results in strange outcomes. There are no guarantees but the lesson I have learned is don't select a candidate based on appearance(race,gender or oratory skills). Vote only for candidates with demonstrated ability to lead, build consensus, and a demonstrated consistency in policy.
Using that criteria I expect to find myself seeking a candidate who will champion policy that helps the environment, education, health care, welfare reform, repeal of the income tax and a strong policy on national security.
I don't see any candidates fitting the bill. So again I will vote for the one I expect to do the least harm!
Using that criteria I expect to find myself seeking a candidate who will champion policy that helps the environment, education, health care, welfare reform, repeal of the income tax and a strong policy on national security.
I don't see any candidates fitting the bill. So again I will vote for the one I expect to do the least harm!
5
Elizabeth Warren may be no Barack Obama, but then, as it turned out, neither was Barack Obama much of a Barack Obama. The man fell far short of the myth.
But the point that she's no competition for Clinton is sound.
The more inevitable a Clinton presidency seems at this early stage, the more unlikely it will actually come to pass. It's just too much time to ponder and probe and prod, uncovering her legion of flaws.
Besides, she may be inevitable, but she's inevitable to everyone's chagrin. Nobody really likes her. Any strong candidate who isn't so personally repugnant could swoop in, allowing her to again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Except apparently in New York senatorial races, Hillary Clinton is politically repulsive to a large portion of voters.
But the point that she's no competition for Clinton is sound.
The more inevitable a Clinton presidency seems at this early stage, the more unlikely it will actually come to pass. It's just too much time to ponder and probe and prod, uncovering her legion of flaws.
Besides, she may be inevitable, but she's inevitable to everyone's chagrin. Nobody really likes her. Any strong candidate who isn't so personally repugnant could swoop in, allowing her to again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Except apparently in New York senatorial races, Hillary Clinton is politically repulsive to a large portion of voters.
10
"But the point that she's no competition for Clinton is sound."
Are we not going to make the choice of what we think is best for the country because it probably won't succeed? How many other great changes in this country looked like long shots in the beginning?
You're falling for the argument of those who love the status quo which is all Hillary has to give us.
Are we not going to make the choice of what we think is best for the country because it probably won't succeed? How many other great changes in this country looked like long shots in the beginning?
You're falling for the argument of those who love the status quo which is all Hillary has to give us.
Elizabeth Warren?
That's exactly what this country needs, especially the abandoned working class America, another sheltered, Harvard-bred elitist with no track record of accomplishment in government trying to sell us on the mantra of Hope and Change, version 2.0.
Look, I am not a supporter of Hillary Clinton, but thinking that someone so unqualified and out of touch with middle and working class America, like Elizabeth Warren, can be a better candidate is simply wishful thinking.
As such, it is inconceivable that the Democratic Party does not have someone with real political experience and real empathy for the plight for those whose income does not hit six figures.
So kids let's grow up and get behind a proper candidate for 2016, unless you like the idea that all three branches of government will be in the hands of the GOP in early 2017.
That's exactly what this country needs, especially the abandoned working class America, another sheltered, Harvard-bred elitist with no track record of accomplishment in government trying to sell us on the mantra of Hope and Change, version 2.0.
Look, I am not a supporter of Hillary Clinton, but thinking that someone so unqualified and out of touch with middle and working class America, like Elizabeth Warren, can be a better candidate is simply wishful thinking.
As such, it is inconceivable that the Democratic Party does not have someone with real political experience and real empathy for the plight for those whose income does not hit six figures.
So kids let's grow up and get behind a proper candidate for 2016, unless you like the idea that all three branches of government will be in the hands of the GOP in early 2017.
6
Warren seems to be in touch with middle and working class concerns over economics...
2
I would love to see an Andrew Cuomo - Elizabeth Warren ticket in 2016. Cuomo has the experience and centrist record to appeal to a wide portion of the electorate and Warren would totally energize the Democratic base. I'm hoping that Cuomo would declare his candidacy and break convention by getting Warren to sign on as his running mate the same day he declares. This would enable him to mount a successful challenge to Hillary Clinton in the primaries and get the Democratic nomination.
1
Apparently you haven't been following New York state politics and the ethics scandals surrounding Mr. Cuomo and his not too rosy relationship with labor.
And, Elizabeth Warren?
For what purpose would she serve other than to give the illusion that the Democratic Party values the women's vote and maybe capture a couple of votes in Massachusetts, a thoroughly blue state.
Sorry, but can do better than either of those two.
And, Elizabeth Warren?
For what purpose would she serve other than to give the illusion that the Democratic Party values the women's vote and maybe capture a couple of votes in Massachusetts, a thoroughly blue state.
Sorry, but can do better than either of those two.
1
I should be a Warren supporter, but I'm not--mostly because I worry that she cannot win against the Republican candidate (especially Jeb Bush) and don't want to take the risk. I also think she is not seasoned enough to govern.
But I am very lukewarm on Hillary. The US is no place for dynasties, to begin with. The early problems with some infighting among her (pre-) campaign operatives, as well as the email scandal, make me worry if she can run an effective administration. And I wonder if she takes the support of women for granted.
Hillary is the least-worst alternative. My first goal as a voter is to prevent a Republican from winning the Presidency and dismantling health care and Social Security, as well as packing the Supreme Court for decades to come (when their rulings on contraception and abortion will affect the reproductive lives of my family members who are now just little girls).
I would welcome an electable alternative, especially someone who could do something to limit the influence of Wall Street and its risk-taking from the rest of the economy. But there isn't one.
But I am very lukewarm on Hillary. The US is no place for dynasties, to begin with. The early problems with some infighting among her (pre-) campaign operatives, as well as the email scandal, make me worry if she can run an effective administration. And I wonder if she takes the support of women for granted.
Hillary is the least-worst alternative. My first goal as a voter is to prevent a Republican from winning the Presidency and dismantling health care and Social Security, as well as packing the Supreme Court for decades to come (when their rulings on contraception and abortion will affect the reproductive lives of my family members who are now just little girls).
I would welcome an electable alternative, especially someone who could do something to limit the influence of Wall Street and its risk-taking from the rest of the economy. But there isn't one.
11
Hilary Clinton, the Democratic party, Jeb Bush, the Republican party, and, maybe most important, all of the media, including the New York Times, do not understand how profoundly the middle-class is struggling.
And they don't understand, because none of them is middle-class, or hasn't been for a very long time. They have no idea -- none -- what it actually feels like to not be able to make ends meet financially; to be stressed and overwhelmed
by a job that demands more and more of you, and respects, and pays you, less and less; to have effectively no disposable income; to be constantly worried whether your job will be there tomorrow, and to know that if it isn't, there are really no safety nets left for you. Effectively, if you're middle-class, you're screwed. And we know it.
To be empathic, you have to be able to feel something. And most of the folks making the pronouncements and decisions about policy, and writing about its impact, haven't had to feel anything like the stress of a middle-class family trying to keep up, trying to survive, in a very long time, if ever.
Elizabeth Warren does. She's enjoyed conventional success, but she grew up struggling. She hasn't forgot; she isn't greedy, and she isn't a megalomaniac who believes that she's entitled, after all.
Unless Elizabeth Warren runs, I'm not voting. If Americans have so little self-respect that don't believe they're worth more than leaders who are bought and paid for, the SCOTUS included, we deserve our fate.
And they don't understand, because none of them is middle-class, or hasn't been for a very long time. They have no idea -- none -- what it actually feels like to not be able to make ends meet financially; to be stressed and overwhelmed
by a job that demands more and more of you, and respects, and pays you, less and less; to have effectively no disposable income; to be constantly worried whether your job will be there tomorrow, and to know that if it isn't, there are really no safety nets left for you. Effectively, if you're middle-class, you're screwed. And we know it.
To be empathic, you have to be able to feel something. And most of the folks making the pronouncements and decisions about policy, and writing about its impact, haven't had to feel anything like the stress of a middle-class family trying to keep up, trying to survive, in a very long time, if ever.
Elizabeth Warren does. She's enjoyed conventional success, but she grew up struggling. She hasn't forgot; she isn't greedy, and she isn't a megalomaniac who believes that she's entitled, after all.
Unless Elizabeth Warren runs, I'm not voting. If Americans have so little self-respect that don't believe they're worth more than leaders who are bought and paid for, the SCOTUS included, we deserve our fate.
12
Modestly speaking, I have a very good memory. I remember back in Oct 2007, one year before the election, Mrs Clinton led Barack Obama 50% to 21% in the Gallup poll. Rudy Giuliani (remember him?) had led the Republican polls all year by an average of 12 pct points. Polls at this stage are meaningless harbingers of who will win next November Just name recognition pageants. Who can say if Sen Warren can win? Nobody really at this point of the campaign. Can she shake up the Democratic establishment, drastically change what issues are discussed during the primaries? Undoubtedly. Those who only see the election in "horse racing terms"=who's ahead, who will win are very often wrong one year out, and even oftener miss lot of key points to the whole process.
5
Hillary Clinton is running out of vanity. Elizabeth Warren would run to help people. I would much rather have Elizabeth Warren as president and Bernie Sanders as vice president, with a Democratic majority in the House and a cloture-proof majority in the Senate. But with the Kochs' billions and FOX News, truth is off the table.
4
Eilzabeth Warren is needed in the Senate, not in the White House.
3
She'd easily get the Native American vote. I say go for it.
2
Hilary is stale and pale. She has no vision, no convictions, no passion other than the passion for power and to be POTUS. She believes in nothing except that she is above the law and entitled to be POTUS. She is a congenital, inveterate liar. She bungled her two jobs - as senator of New York and Secretary of State.
Her one BIG idea is she wants to "save the middle class." Her idea of a presidential campaign is to hire the best marketing gurus as if she were selling some kind of bread. But that is because she is a cipher, empty, filled with nothing than lust for power.
She does not qualify and should not be a candidate for president. The fact that we are discussing why she is an inevitable candidate is a very sad commentary on the state of our country. I shudder to think what a Hilary presidency will bring - endless sleaze and drama about abuse of power, corruption, bimbos, and so on and so on. Why anyone would want to endure this kind of endless sleaze and drama is beyond me.
Her one BIG idea is she wants to "save the middle class." Her idea of a presidential campaign is to hire the best marketing gurus as if she were selling some kind of bread. But that is because she is a cipher, empty, filled with nothing than lust for power.
She does not qualify and should not be a candidate for president. The fact that we are discussing why she is an inevitable candidate is a very sad commentary on the state of our country. I shudder to think what a Hilary presidency will bring - endless sleaze and drama about abuse of power, corruption, bimbos, and so on and so on. Why anyone would want to endure this kind of endless sleaze and drama is beyond me.
8
Perhaps EW, assuming she could assemble at least the initial financial backing and decided to run despite disavowals (and articles like this certainly discourage such proposition), might do so in alliance with a putative vice-presidential candidate. She could thus broaden her primary challenge appeal to key demographics. It would be a first, as such, but - why not?
1
I hope this presumptuous editorial motivates Warren to run.
19
Warren is not Obama. Perhaps that is the good news in the sense that she might not draw the same vituperative opposition that he has received from the Republican.
But the best news is that she is not Hillary. She is principled. It seems to me a duty for Democrats to unite behind Warren because she works for the good of the people and reject Hillary who has worked, admittedly successfully, first and foremost for herself.
But the best news is that she is not Hillary. She is principled. It seems to me a duty for Democrats to unite behind Warren because she works for the good of the people and reject Hillary who has worked, admittedly successfully, first and foremost for herself.
13
The writer clearly fails to understand the very real and very very deep anger the working and middle class hold against those who do not work for their interests: banks, the medical I dustrial complex, lobyists, big oil...... Warren has a good shot because she is very different and offers hope simply because of who she is.
16
really? then why doesn't this show up in the polls? No doubt that resentment is present, in spades, but voters have yet to attach it to Warren or any other alternative, and Warren has the sense to see that.
1
It behooves me why the democrats would want to run a relic from the 90's, whose career has been mediocre, at best, and who has always been embroiled in scandals. Clinton's biggest, and frankly, only selling point is that she's a woman and I don't think that's going make it.
10
If Dems are so desperate to find a woman with administrative experience to be president, they should vote for Carly Fiorina.
" Carly Fiorina." is a 1%'er and rich to boot. We have had enough of those insiders to last a life time and then some. "she was forced to leave her position as CEO and chairman of HP due to "differences about how to execute HP's strategy". "
She is worth 80 million, has been CEO of Hewlett-Packard, AT&T, Lucent. These are all the positions that would make her too much of an insider as the world is gobbled up by questions of technology. NO THANKS.
She is worth 80 million, has been CEO of Hewlett-Packard, AT&T, Lucent. These are all the positions that would make her too much of an insider as the world is gobbled up by questions of technology. NO THANKS.
Yes, Carly Fiorina is the "perfect" candidate with "administrative experience," not only her "experience" in running a losing in a GOP campaign in California for the U.S. Senate in 2010, but also her role as adviser to John McCain's run for president in 2008, but most notably for her cracker jack "experience" in running a company into the ground (HP) with her incompetent leadership....
1
I think it would be wonderful if our country could have an American Indian as president.
3
Who is Nate Cohn, says Elizabeth Warren. As J.F. Kennedy said, the only valid test of leadership is the ability to lead and lead vigorously.
3
I have yet to read a Comment to the many Times' pieces on Hillary, celebrating Hillary. Instead by a wide margin, those that write Comments fully and enthusiastically embrace Elizabeth Warren.
Why is that? Why does the media keep telling Democrats that Hillary is 'their' candidate, when the masses quite convincingly, and by a very large margin, repeatedly say they want someone else?
Why is that? Why does the media keep telling Democrats that Hillary is 'their' candidate, when the masses quite convincingly, and by a very large margin, repeatedly say they want someone else?
25
What "masses"? And by what very large margin? Wishing don't make it so.
1
Please don't confuse (a) "the masses" with (b) the NYT readership.
Not even close to the same thing.
Not even close to the same thing.
1
I think those are all nit-picking points such as they are close in age, and comparisons with the primary cycle, and minor differences.
What was the huge factor was simply the debate performance. Obama swept the debates because he was so talented, had experience, smart, likable. There was a huge contrast between him and all of the other candidates.
What was the huge factor was simply the debate performance. Obama swept the debates because he was so talented, had experience, smart, likable. There was a huge contrast between him and all of the other candidates.
3
Experience?
The only "experience" Mr. Obama had was giving vapid, flowery speeches, as well have sadly come to realize.
The only "experience" Mr. Obama had was giving vapid, flowery speeches, as well have sadly come to realize.
1
I respect Mr. Cohn's analytical abilities but like others haver pointed out I think he under estimates the anger that is seething under the breath of many Americans. We are tired of being kicked around by the beltway bullies, the oligarchs and their unquenchable appetite for extreme wealth and power. The poor are tired of being demonized. I think that any candidate that speaks honestly to that anger could upend Clinton and every Republican candidate out there.
9
folks keep forgetting that that black kid senator from illinois became president in 2008 more because of the AnybodyBut HIllary, Anybody But Bush was already a given since 2005.
5
As an academic, I am adamant that no academic should ever be President of the United States.
We may hold an audience captive with our ideas, but that is a far cry from managing an institution, let alone the United States.
We may hold an audience captive with our ideas, but that is a far cry from managing an institution, let alone the United States.
1
Woodrow Wilson, former Princeton University president, governor of New Jersey, and 28th president of the United States,
I knew someone would mention Wilson, an alumnus of my university. Please note that he had some real world experience in management as a college and a president of a major university. Elizabeth Warren's only real world experience is that as a Senator. And you will probably cite Obama as well.....that lack of real world experience is being reflected in his aloofness and lack of connection with world leaders.
No way do the Dems make the Dukakis-Kerry mistake again.
3
Warren would need to be elected with an enormous wave of support in Congress - at least 300 in the House and 75 in the Senate. Obama Fatigue will compound with Clinton Fatigue, and much of the 2008 Coalition, especially Blacks, will simply stay home in 2016. And therin lies the GOP victory.
1
Those who support Warren as a candidate (and I agree she has many good qualities as a Senator) might pause for a moment to ask themselves why it is that Republican operatives share their enthusiasm?: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-vs-elizabe...
Could it be for the same reasons that professional Republicans, whose job it is to win elections, were delighted by Ralph Nader's candidacy in the 2000 debacle?
Could it be for the same reasons that professional Republicans, whose job it is to win elections, were delighted by Ralph Nader's candidacy in the 2000 debacle?
5
Warren's articulation is needed in the Senate, just where she is now, rather than an also ran, whose stature would then be diminished. She will have a greater impact on policies which impact the 99% there and in Congress, which will carry over to the executive branch in addition to Congress, no matter who wins.
8
Elizabeth Warren is hardly a radical. She started as a Republican early in life (as did Hillary Clinton, incidentally.)
She seems to me to be saying what any average American would be saying, if they saw how Congress actually works. She wants to fix the stuff that makes most of us throw up our hands.
Warren needs to be a voice on the national stage. Who knows if she can win. But I can easily imagine her picking up some Republican votes once they heard her message, which is quite rational and practical and not especially radical at all.
She seems to me to be saying what any average American would be saying, if they saw how Congress actually works. She wants to fix the stuff that makes most of us throw up our hands.
Warren needs to be a voice on the national stage. Who knows if she can win. But I can easily imagine her picking up some Republican votes once they heard her message, which is quite rational and practical and not especially radical at all.
17
Reps have the money to make the message anything they want it to be. American politics is a mud fight and Warren comes in wearing a backpack filled with 50 pounds of sand.
1
Jim Webb, whom some have mentioned here and who under-whelmed as a senator from Virginia, also started out as a Republican. It's so hard for me to understand why Democrats are gung-ho on finding candidates that aren't at heart Democrats.
Listening to supporters of Senator Elizabeth Warren, brings to mind the supporters of Governor Howard Dean or advocate Ralph Nader. Warren supporters describe their preferred candidate in much the same terms: anti-big business, anti-status quo, anti-establishment, etc. And similarly they believe she can transcend politics to enact a broad progressive agenda. But, I foresee her experiencing similar limited success as a national candidate.
Undoubtedly, all these political figures have a message that resonated with a segment of the Democratic party, but it is not a message that is embraced by a wide enough block of Democrats (or Americans) to suggest that they would be viable presidential candidates. Recall that notwithstanding the enthusiasm of "Deaniacs," Dean's campaign fizzled at the Iowa Caucuses. As for Nader, his campaign, marginal as his support was throughout, ultimately tipped the balance to George W. Bush. Given this last bit of history, Warren supporters would be well advised to channel their enthusiasm to Hillary Clinton should, as expected, Senator Warren chooses to remain in the Senate.
Undoubtedly, all these political figures have a message that resonated with a segment of the Democratic party, but it is not a message that is embraced by a wide enough block of Democrats (or Americans) to suggest that they would be viable presidential candidates. Recall that notwithstanding the enthusiasm of "Deaniacs," Dean's campaign fizzled at the Iowa Caucuses. As for Nader, his campaign, marginal as his support was throughout, ultimately tipped the balance to George W. Bush. Given this last bit of history, Warren supporters would be well advised to channel their enthusiasm to Hillary Clinton should, as expected, Senator Warren chooses to remain in the Senate.
6
The article downplays the contrast between Warren's tough stance against the financial industry and the Clintons' reliance on the industry. That to me, is Warrent's equivalent to De Blasio's stop-and-frisk policy, and is something I think would resonate with many voters. Even though Warren probably can't win, it would be nice to see her in the race just to raise these issues and hold Clinton accountable for them.
10
It would serve the world well if Warren could become a powerful person in Hillary's administration--perhaps a Secretary of Labor, Commerce, or the Fed, and if Clinton and Warren could play good cop, bad cop on financial reform, to appease the irreconcilable sides and take real steps to improve the chances of the worlds (financial, labor) surviving. Warren should speak in a subdued way at Clinton's nominating convention, be seen as a helpful campaigner, and then be made a power in the Clinton presidency, much as Obama did for Hillary.
Warren represents a vital part of American interests that Hillary finds politically unviable for herself--her backers require a healthy stock market, buoyed by assurances that the President will not sell out the fat-cats to the actual national interest; but Hillary and Bill and their once-liberal coalition should keep Warren empowered and use her as a conscience, if she'll accept that role. Since she can't be elected, Warren should value the idea of being a power broker with Hillary instead of a spoiler who empowers Republicans.
Warren represents a vital part of American interests that Hillary finds politically unviable for herself--her backers require a healthy stock market, buoyed by assurances that the President will not sell out the fat-cats to the actual national interest; but Hillary and Bill and their once-liberal coalition should keep Warren empowered and use her as a conscience, if she'll accept that role. Since she can't be elected, Warren should value the idea of being a power broker with Hillary instead of a spoiler who empowers Republicans.
8
These comments are disturbing. I love Warren but please think seriously about the coming campaign and 2-3 Supreme Court vacancies.
Jeb Bush will be the nominee - runaway fundraising + the Bushes already stole an election in 2000.
Unless things change, Jeb Bush is going to run on fear - fear of ISIS and spreading Islamic fundamentalism. He'll smear Hillary (or any Dem) as soft on terror, not a 'strong leader' who'll rid the world of ISIS. He'll do everything to pin the rise of ISIS on Obama, Hillary and the gutless Democrats.
Remember the 2004 swiftboating campaign the GOP ran against John Kerry, morphing his heroic combat record into lying treachery - that's what's coming. War-mongering neocons. Government hating nuts. James Baker. The religious right. They'll sling mud like we won't believe. Citizens United assures the GOP/secret PACS will run 24/7 lying negative ads claiming Hillary (or any Democrat) too weak to fight ISIS.
The good news is Hillary is tough and will rise to this, assisted by Bill - the smartest, toughest political strategist out there. The Clintons won't be in this to lose. Neither will the Bushes.
If you want to pout and sit this out because Clinton isn't perfect, we'll get: military interventions, war with Iran, privatized Social Security, more extremist nuts on the Supreme Court, the return of Saudi Prince Bandar, gutted social programs, blithe denial of climate change.
Please get real. Know your enemy or prepare to get eaten alive.
Jeb Bush will be the nominee - runaway fundraising + the Bushes already stole an election in 2000.
Unless things change, Jeb Bush is going to run on fear - fear of ISIS and spreading Islamic fundamentalism. He'll smear Hillary (or any Dem) as soft on terror, not a 'strong leader' who'll rid the world of ISIS. He'll do everything to pin the rise of ISIS on Obama, Hillary and the gutless Democrats.
Remember the 2004 swiftboating campaign the GOP ran against John Kerry, morphing his heroic combat record into lying treachery - that's what's coming. War-mongering neocons. Government hating nuts. James Baker. The religious right. They'll sling mud like we won't believe. Citizens United assures the GOP/secret PACS will run 24/7 lying negative ads claiming Hillary (or any Democrat) too weak to fight ISIS.
The good news is Hillary is tough and will rise to this, assisted by Bill - the smartest, toughest political strategist out there. The Clintons won't be in this to lose. Neither will the Bushes.
If you want to pout and sit this out because Clinton isn't perfect, we'll get: military interventions, war with Iran, privatized Social Security, more extremist nuts on the Supreme Court, the return of Saudi Prince Bandar, gutted social programs, blithe denial of climate change.
Please get real. Know your enemy or prepare to get eaten alive.
51
All I can say is thank God Elizabeth Warren is no Barak Obama. And it is meaningless to debate how she would fare as a political contender against the Hillary Brand® - considering she has been bought off by the democratic (sic) party to keep her nose clean and stay within the Senate "where she can do the most good." AKA, keep her on a short leash and proffer her up to the masses when discussion arises about the need for some non-inevitable political alternative to Hillary.
The joke on us all is the delusional idea that we actually have some choice in who runs for President, or if there is a Republican who can compete with the Brand®.
But Elizabeth Warren serves a very good purpose. She is the sacrificial lamb served up to the voters - voters whose desire for a true populist candidate will never be fulfilled and who will suffer more disappointment and despair once Hillary landslides her way to the White House.
The joke on us all is the delusional idea that we actually have some choice in who runs for President, or if there is a Republican who can compete with the Brand®.
But Elizabeth Warren serves a very good purpose. She is the sacrificial lamb served up to the voters - voters whose desire for a true populist candidate will never be fulfilled and who will suffer more disappointment and despair once Hillary landslides her way to the White House.
7
Hillary will be basically a carbon copy of Obama. That's probably the best we can hope for. Hopefully she appoints an attorney general who further steers us away from the drug war and mass incarceration.
2
Well gosh, Barack Obama is no Barack Obama.
I knew from the minute I heard him speak at the Democratic Convention that one day he would be President. But I did hope he'd stay in the senate longer to get some experience. Had he done so, he would have come to understand that people just don't "play nice," particularly Republicans who'd spent almost the whole of Bill Clinton's time as President trying to get him on some pretext or another. (A pity Bill had to oblige them, of course.)
Might I add that Iranians don't "play nice," either.
I knew from the minute I heard him speak at the Democratic Convention that one day he would be President. But I did hope he'd stay in the senate longer to get some experience. Had he done so, he would have come to understand that people just don't "play nice," particularly Republicans who'd spent almost the whole of Bill Clinton's time as President trying to get him on some pretext or another. (A pity Bill had to oblige them, of course.)
Might I add that Iranians don't "play nice," either.
11
Wall Street is bigger, by far, than Iraq.
6
Agreed. Couldn't believe the assertion was made that people care more bout Iraq than their wallets.
Mrs. Warren may have a few faults, but she'd definitely beat Hillary Clinton. And don't think for one minute that voters would go with a Republican just to keep her out. The Democrats will still have to come up with someone better than Hillary if they want to win the White House in '16.
9
You bring up an interesting point about Hillary's electability among independent voters. If I'm not warm to her (and I'm pretty much all the way left, now), than you can bet they won't be. She does inspire particular vitriol for some people. Some of those people would not vote for any Democrat. But I do wonder about white, working-class voters in Ohio (for example). Not just will they vote for her, but will they vote AGAINST her?
1
I miss 538.
4
The good news: Clinton is now pretty much unelectable.
The bad news: Elizabeth Warren is not running.
No other Democrat is electable, so a Republican is going to win the White House, which means an acceleration of the march toward fascism.
God help us.
The bad news: Elizabeth Warren is not running.
No other Democrat is electable, so a Republican is going to win the White House, which means an acceleration of the march toward fascism.
God help us.
19
What Mr. Cohn ignores is the possibility that Mrs. Clinton could self destruct. All we need is another revelation like the personal e-mail server designed to avoid scrutiny and Mrs. Clinton's campaign could turn to dust.
While I'm not a fan of Ms. Warren, she is clearly a conviction politician and you know where she stands, unlike most others who need to conduct a poll before deciding their position on any issue.
While I'm not a fan of Ms. Warren, she is clearly a conviction politician and you know where she stands, unlike most others who need to conduct a poll before deciding their position on any issue.
5
If you are the most popular presidential candidate in your party, you (somewhat ironically) have the worst chance of becoming president. Why? Because you will always be seen by the general electorate as either too liberal or too conservative. That's why you will never see a President Ted Cruz or a President Elizabeth Warren
3
The Democrats have had the time to find and groom a candidate, but they have failed. I'm disappointed in them. They should really have put in more effort rather than do nothing and expect Hillary to go for it. This is a mistake they may come to regret soon enough. If Warren is able to stay "out of the beltway" for another few years, she may gain the trust of the may who are disenchanted with the same old inner circle. In that case, her time will come for winning the highest office. I hope it does... she is one of the small handful of Congresspersons with a real spine.
5
All of this clearly points to Jim Webb as a *the* opponent for HRC to beat, and my dark-horse pick for the next POTUS. As an Appalachian Scots-Irish former Marine, he has the identity magic to bring these disaffected former Dems back into the fold. And as a genuine decorated veteran of Vietnam he could make likely GOP chickenhawk opponents like Scott Walker melt into nothingness.
He's both to the left of Hillary and to the right of that national Democratic party. I think Hillary's support is extremely fragile. And Webb is strong where she is weak.
He's both to the left of Hillary and to the right of that national Democratic party. I think Hillary's support is extremely fragile. And Webb is strong where she is weak.
8
I agree. Webb is the Democrat most likely to win in 2016, but there are others: for example, Martin O'Malley, Kirsten Gillebrand, Andrew Cuomo, Howard Dean who are already known figures. But even Eldrick "Tiger" Woods is old enough and well-known enough.
2
I wish we had 47 more Elizabeth Warrens in the senate right now.
23
Still wouldn't have a majority.
Thank you for your analysis. Too many people on the right and the left put ideology over practicality. I am against it, just as I am against putting practicality over ideology. There must be a balance between the two of them. Politics is just about ideas, as it is about compromise, dirty moves, hard work and outflanking your opponents. Mrs. Clinton is very capable and she can become a good President, just like Mr. Clinton. And she is the best hope for a deterrent against a complete Republican takeover in the next elections.
4
I am sorry that the Democrats have only one candidate to offer us. It seems to me that they are relying on Clinton and that can be a mistake. Her winning the presidency is not inevitable. The only thing that is inevitable is that President Obama will be leaving the White House and another president moving in.
10
Whoever is the next president will be in a position to change this country for the better or for the worse -- for decades to come.
One more appointment of a right-winger to the U.S. Supreme Court and we could see America become a country that is unrecognizable to all but the elderly.
For those who remember 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932, it would be a familiar America: horrifying poverty, homelessness, hunger, few jobs, etc., etc., etc.
It took FDR's policies and appointments to the Supreme Court to turn this country into the place we know today, where most people have jobs, homes, adequate clothing, and their savings accounts in banks are safe.
We can predict with great certainty that any of the current Republican presidential contenders would appoint someone like Antonin Scalia -- or worse.
Even someone far to the right of Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas would be approved with great cheering by the Republican senators.
This must not happen. We must not let a Republican win the presidency this time.
Elizabeth Warren, no matter how "perfect" she may be, will never win the presidency.
Hillary can win, and will win -- and that is why the Republicans are hurling everything they can at her in their frantic attempt to stop her.
The Republicans know -- even if some liberals don't -- that Hillary would appoint someone to the Supreme Court who is in harmony with progressive and liberal ideas.
One more appointment of a right-winger to the U.S. Supreme Court and we could see America become a country that is unrecognizable to all but the elderly.
For those who remember 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932, it would be a familiar America: horrifying poverty, homelessness, hunger, few jobs, etc., etc., etc.
It took FDR's policies and appointments to the Supreme Court to turn this country into the place we know today, where most people have jobs, homes, adequate clothing, and their savings accounts in banks are safe.
We can predict with great certainty that any of the current Republican presidential contenders would appoint someone like Antonin Scalia -- or worse.
Even someone far to the right of Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas would be approved with great cheering by the Republican senators.
This must not happen. We must not let a Republican win the presidency this time.
Elizabeth Warren, no matter how "perfect" she may be, will never win the presidency.
Hillary can win, and will win -- and that is why the Republicans are hurling everything they can at her in their frantic attempt to stop her.
The Republicans know -- even if some liberals don't -- that Hillary would appoint someone to the Supreme Court who is in harmony with progressive and liberal ideas.
11
In a perfect world
we would have both Ms. Warren and Mr. Bernie Sanders in the White House. I would nominate Richard Wolff to restructure the economy
http://www.lannan.org/bios/richard-wolff/
in a perfect world.
we would have both Ms. Warren and Mr. Bernie Sanders in the White House. I would nominate Richard Wolff to restructure the economy
http://www.lannan.org/bios/richard-wolff/
in a perfect world.
4
What she said. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, Bernie first and Elizabeth to follow.
I imagine the Republicans who blocked Sen. Warren's appointment to head the Consumer Affairs Bureau sincerely regret having done so, as her position as a Senator, I believe, gives her much wider exposure and greater influence. For that reason I wouldn't want to see her in the Oval Office, as her tenure there would be, at most, eight years, during which there would be no guarantee that a President Warren would be able to fill any Supreme Court vacancies. Ms. Warren can do more good for Democrats and Progressives from the Senate than the White House, which I hope is causing Republicans a great deal of discomfort.
11
I'm really, really, growing tired of this back-of-the-hand compliment that imo seems designed more to keep her where she is than anything else.
Am I supposed to take entirely unnecessary analysis, with cherry-picked numbers and questionable conclusions seriously? Elizabeth Warren is no Barack Obama. You're right, Nate. She's the anti-Obama. That's why she has a chance. She's not a cynical, charming liar, or the tool of special interests, like he was from the start. That's actually why she might not have a chance. The American political system has been entirely corrupted by money, even down to the way races for office are reported on in the news media. You make no mention of that in your analysis. You don't connect the dots. Obama was owned by Wall Street in 2008 but that story was deemed irrelevant by the mainstream news media.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Could that be because political news has devolved into a crass dog and pony show and that the mainstream news media is just part of another corporate conglomerate, with no stake in promoting representative government or a functioning democracy?
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Could that be because political news has devolved into a crass dog and pony show and that the mainstream news media is just part of another corporate conglomerate, with no stake in promoting representative government or a functioning democracy?
4
Generally speaking, the more you see of any US politician, the less you like them.
4
This theme of Warren running against Clinton was always a media fantasy, cooked up to stir the pot when there was no actual story there. I can tell you as a liberal Democrat that I've never gotten emails from Moveon.org or any other group trying to build a Warren candidacy and all Democrats I know are comfortable with the current balance of power within the party even if Obama has been disappointingly lax at times: he has the right values, which is half the battle. If the Warren candidacy is being touted by some shadow celebrities or donors with money then the media should be talking to them and outing them so us rank and file Democrats can know who the media is trying to designate as power brokers on our behalf; most of us aren't buying it...
5
I don’t regret a minute of the time I spent working my tail off to help Elizabeth Warren win her Senate seat and defeat that empty suit named Scott Brown. I am proud to have her as my senator, and am inspired by her truth-to-power stance than never cracks or wavers.
I do believe Warren has the courage, the smarts, and the backbone to be the next FDR. If she runs, support may start at a simmer, but it will grow to a hot boil. The people of this country who live with the boots of the oligarchs and their political lackeys on our necks will respond to her message. She is what we are waiting for. She is what we the people desperately need before we are disenfranchised completely.
I’m not sure she’d run, but I wish she would. In a national campaign her message would get through, it would resonate, and the relief of voters to have sometime truly on their side would be palpable.
I do believe Warren has the courage, the smarts, and the backbone to be the next FDR. If she runs, support may start at a simmer, but it will grow to a hot boil. The people of this country who live with the boots of the oligarchs and their political lackeys on our necks will respond to her message. She is what we are waiting for. She is what we the people desperately need before we are disenfranchised completely.
I’m not sure she’d run, but I wish she would. In a national campaign her message would get through, it would resonate, and the relief of voters to have sometime truly on their side would be palpable.
15
LindaP, I agree with your assessment.
And to all of the other commenters who view Ms. Clinton as the Democratic Party's inevitable presidential nominee, please recall the 2008 presidential election, when she was given the same label by many in the media and political establishment, until Barack Obama offered an appealing alternative.
Senator Warren, please run for the presidency in 2016!
And to all of the other commenters who view Ms. Clinton as the Democratic Party's inevitable presidential nominee, please recall the 2008 presidential election, when she was given the same label by many in the media and political establishment, until Barack Obama offered an appealing alternative.
Senator Warren, please run for the presidency in 2016!
If Hillary Clinton did not have problems, people would say that she is...boring! In no time voters would lose interest in her. But this way, with all her faults, there is real interest.
Since we have never had a woman president or vice president, we wonder whether if would make a difference in the future of the nation. Time will tell...
Since we have never had a woman president or vice president, we wonder whether if would make a difference in the future of the nation. Time will tell...
1
Can you imagine Elizabeth Warren trying to negotiate with Vladimir Putin? Disaster.
1
Warren has a message that resonates in voters ears. No candidate should wish to debate her. If Hillary stumbles or can't move away from the Street look out.
1
Elizabeth Warren is no Barack Obama. That is probably her best qualification to become President.
7
How about Hillary and Elizabeth running on the same ticket... ? They'd have my vote....
4
The only person who can beat Mrs. Clinton is Mrs. Clinton herself. And, at this point, it looks like she is running one heck of a race. It is definitely too close to call.
7
Warren doesn't have a chance outside the east coast. She'd play to a two person audience in the mid west and forget getting one vote in the Bible Belt. I don't even think she'd play out well in California where they are even more moonbat progressive than Warren.
Call me crazy but I see Biden sitting in the wings ready to jump in. Like his policies or not, he's a man of little mystery. No smoke and mirrors like Clinton and Warren. He is who is is and I think voters respect that aspect of Joe.
Call me crazy but I see Biden sitting in the wings ready to jump in. Like his policies or not, he's a man of little mystery. No smoke and mirrors like Clinton and Warren. He is who is is and I think voters respect that aspect of Joe.
1
He's intelligent, too, and would have significant support in Congress. And despite his occasional gaffes -- which the immature media pounce on and amplify out of proportion -- he is a serious politician who hasn't gotten rich by putting the screws to citizens. We could do a lot worse and I'd vote for him.
If our choices in 2016 are a Clinton and a Bush, I may never vote again.
2
-- if elizabeth warren runs, she has my vote, and my money, such as it is -- she is something hillary clinton is not: inspirational -- and she is doing something hillary clinton is not doing: working for ME, as in the consumer financial protection bureau she created and her ongoing devotion to america's little guy -- elizabeth warren as the democratic nominee would bring out democratic voters in droves -- those presidential debates would be a democratic delight --
5
Imagine this inspiring populist senator winning the White House. Being pulled center right, like they always do. No thank you. I'd prefer that she keeps her job.
2
One of the simple joys of my life was watching Ms Warren destroy Scott Brown during the past Senatorial debates.
On the national stage, her greatest shortcomings are intelligence, independence, integrity and courage. All demonstrated in her debate performance.
However, she won that election. I would not underestimate the respect a large number of Americans still have for those values.
On the national stage, her greatest shortcomings are intelligence, independence, integrity and courage. All demonstrated in her debate performance.
However, she won that election. I would not underestimate the respect a large number of Americans still have for those values.
5
That was a pun folks
A fun but highly speculative read. Weak on actual data that supports the headline, which of course got me to click on the article.
Comparing the wide popular voter enthusiasm for Obama when running for first term does not make **either** HC or EW look good in that comparison. I am not sure that was a meaningful point for the article writer to make.
Comparing the wide popular voter enthusiasm for Obama when running for first term does not make **either** HC or EW look good in that comparison. I am not sure that was a meaningful point for the article writer to make.
1
And even if Mrs. Warren could defeat Mrs. Clinton for the nomination, she is probably too liberal to win the general election unless it was against an ultra-right republican candidate. And even that would likely be a close contest.
I don't think young people have enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton, I know progressives don't, but barring a health issue, I believe she is the strongest Democratic Candidate out there. Senator Warren represents my ideals better, but there are not enough progressives out there to put her or Bernie Sanders in the White House. I don't know how anyone without access to big money can win a Presidential election, for a candidate like Sen. Warren to win, Citizens United needs to be undone.
16
So it's not a "hot-button issue" that wealthy financiers control more and more of the economy (and our politics)? Many people associate the Clinton name with the "reforms" of the financial industry that removed the safeguards separating banking from reckless investments, as well as the non-regulation of harebrained schemes like credit default swaps, which had disastrous, impoverishing consequences. The hefty speaking engagement fees that Hillary has been taking from well-heeled interests like Goldman Sachs is a big vulnerability.
And as for there being no Clinton version of stop-and-frisk, are you forgetting that the rapid expansion of domestic policing, as well as its militarization, really took off under Bill Clinton? A #blacklivesmatter policy agenda would include a return to community-based policing, along with demilitarized communities.
Personally, while I admire Senator Warren for her defense of the American people against modern-day robber barons, she should find it important to defend human dignity everywhere. As long as she continues her defense of Israel's oppression and collective punishment of the Palestinian people, unfortunately I'll have to find someone else to vote for (though not Hillary).
And as for there being no Clinton version of stop-and-frisk, are you forgetting that the rapid expansion of domestic policing, as well as its militarization, really took off under Bill Clinton? A #blacklivesmatter policy agenda would include a return to community-based policing, along with demilitarized communities.
Personally, while I admire Senator Warren for her defense of the American people against modern-day robber barons, she should find it important to defend human dignity everywhere. As long as she continues her defense of Israel's oppression and collective punishment of the Palestinian people, unfortunately I'll have to find someone else to vote for (though not Hillary).
1
New York Times readers may want to take a look at former Senator Jim Webb from Virginia. He is a very good fiction and non fiction writer with clear ideas of fairness and leadership that go back for years. He is not a great campaign speaker and he doesn't have many backers at this point, but I really like him.
3
What I find disappointing in this column is the persistent use of the terms "left" or "left leaning" in describing Sen. Warren. I don't recall the Times describing Jeb Bush or Scott Walker as "right" or "right leaning." Besides, as your editors clearly realize, "left" in American politics is a pejorative, while right or conservative is not.
And while on the subject, what exactly does "left leaning" mean in regards to Senator Warren? As far as I know, she wants to curb the excesses of Wall Street, insure consumer protections in the marketplace, and help ease the burden of college loans, among other things. That's hardly leftist rhetoric, unless the media is committed to always labeling Warren with a label that undermines her actual policy positions.
And while on the subject, what exactly does "left leaning" mean in regards to Senator Warren? As far as I know, she wants to curb the excesses of Wall Street, insure consumer protections in the marketplace, and help ease the burden of college loans, among other things. That's hardly leftist rhetoric, unless the media is committed to always labeling Warren with a label that undermines her actual policy positions.
6
Senator Warren just has a bigger mouth than everyone around here and throws her passion behind an easy, populist agenda. Oh, Wall Street is greedy? Really going out on a limb there Elizabeth.
Unfortunately for her being President involves representing the country as a whole, not some left-wing extreme liberal agenda. She doesn't have a chance and never will.
Unfortunately for her being President involves representing the country as a whole, not some left-wing extreme liberal agenda. She doesn't have a chance and never will.
4
My dream team for the Democratic ticket would be Deval Patrick (for Pres.) and Elizabeth Warren (for VP). Massachusetts Strong!
1
Do you people listen to yourselves? Electing Presidents based on charisma and appeal? How about ability to do the job?
You might notice that the current incumbent isn't very good at his job. This was predictable back in 2008 based on his background, but that didn't stop the ravening hordes of charismophiles who wanted him elected. And here we are.
So what do people say? "Let's do it again!"
"What fools these mortals be." - Wm. Shakespeare.
You might notice that the current incumbent isn't very good at his job. This was predictable back in 2008 based on his background, but that didn't stop the ravening hordes of charismophiles who wanted him elected. And here we are.
So what do people say? "Let's do it again!"
"What fools these mortals be." - Wm. Shakespeare.
10
One word: "Bush".
Elizabeth Warren may be the darling of Move-On.Org and other left wing groups for her antipathy toward " the banks" but she hasn't got the money, she hasn't got the charisma, she hasn't got the oratorical skills and, in the end, she wouldn't have the votes to beat Hillary or a Republican candidate for President. That's why she's not running. If Hillary self-destructs, which is possible but unlikely, the party will look elsewhere for a nominee.
3
The author underestimates the appeal Elizabeth Warren could have focusing on income inequality and the evils of Wall Street. This should resonate strongly with the Middle Class, which struggled before and after the Great Recession. This has been her signature issue, and where she could differentiate herself from Clinton.
She doesn't have the extraordinary oratory powers and charisma of Obama, nor the failure of the Iraq War which Obama used to distinguish himself from Hillary, or his youth or even the excitement of being the first female President. The biggest issue, though, is she doesn't have the political and donor infrastructure Clinton has.
Warren would be a long shot indeed, though she'd definitely be a shot in the arm to the progressive wing of the Democratic party.
Apparently Clinton is already cozying up to Warren, so she might have a positive influence without being a candidate. If, miracle of miracles, Warren did become President, wouldn't it just be a repeat of the Obama years (some hard-fought victories, but not the hope and change we hoped for due to Republican incompetence and obstruction), unless the Democrats also miraculously won the House and Senate?
It will be Hillary against Jeb, cause they got the donors and the bucks and the political organization. The only difference is whether the downfall of the United States is slowed (by a Clinton victory) or picks up steam (with a Bush win).
She doesn't have the extraordinary oratory powers and charisma of Obama, nor the failure of the Iraq War which Obama used to distinguish himself from Hillary, or his youth or even the excitement of being the first female President. The biggest issue, though, is she doesn't have the political and donor infrastructure Clinton has.
Warren would be a long shot indeed, though she'd definitely be a shot in the arm to the progressive wing of the Democratic party.
Apparently Clinton is already cozying up to Warren, so she might have a positive influence without being a candidate. If, miracle of miracles, Warren did become President, wouldn't it just be a repeat of the Obama years (some hard-fought victories, but not the hope and change we hoped for due to Republican incompetence and obstruction), unless the Democrats also miraculously won the House and Senate?
It will be Hillary against Jeb, cause they got the donors and the bucks and the political organization. The only difference is whether the downfall of the United States is slowed (by a Clinton victory) or picks up steam (with a Bush win).
1
The people who are obsessed about income inequality and the banks are the upper class, not the middle class. Liberals who live in an bubble of affluence don't realize this, but when have you heard a blue-collar worker from Ohio complain about capital ratios and hiding derivatives in holding companies?
2
Wall Street was dying in the early 1990's and is essentially dead now. The banks are all gone or mega merged. Whats left are these "eat what you kill shops" which do not produce jobs. Ms. Warren needs a new target.
1
I am a huge Elizabeth Warren fan but I must acknowledge her resume is currently thin in the international arena. Theoretically, she could gain that experience via some appropriate appointment in the Hillary Clinton Administration, and then run in 2024. However, in 2024 Warren will be 74 years old.
Sadly, I think the best chance Warren has of gaining the presidency will come if the Republicans win in 2016. Once they tank the economy (it's a question of when, not if), Warren's economic smarts can carry the day in 2020.
Sadly, I think the best chance Warren has of gaining the presidency will come if the Republicans win in 2016. Once they tank the economy (it's a question of when, not if), Warren's economic smarts can carry the day in 2020.
1
Obama was running strong in 2008 because he was not Bush. People were so hopeful, and eventually relieved to finally have sight of an alternative to the 8 year nightmare that was the Bush Administration of war criminals. During Obama's speech in Grant Park on election night, many were crying tears of joy (shown by the TV cameras panning the crowd), and relief. Unfortunately, Obama has not lived up to his potential to be a transformative president and has disappointed many, if not most, of those grant Park attendees (I voted for him once).
I would have preferred that Elizabeth Warren had run as an Independent instead of as a member of the other corrupt, corporate party, and very likely, she would have won in Massachusetts, a state with over 50% declared-registered Independents.
But Warren is proving to not be the very smart professor we thought she was, declaring that income inequality is the defining issue of our time (it is not, the growth of the police-survelience state is, even as income inequality is up there in importance) and that we live in a democracy (hardly, especially if the two major corrupt corporate parties continue to have their way) at a recent speech she gave at a community college in Greenfield, Mass. She also parrots the AIPAC-Israel lobby line about Gaza, to the great disappointment of many of her more aware supporters. Not looking good for Dems anyway you slice it.
I would have preferred that Elizabeth Warren had run as an Independent instead of as a member of the other corrupt, corporate party, and very likely, she would have won in Massachusetts, a state with over 50% declared-registered Independents.
But Warren is proving to not be the very smart professor we thought she was, declaring that income inequality is the defining issue of our time (it is not, the growth of the police-survelience state is, even as income inequality is up there in importance) and that we live in a democracy (hardly, especially if the two major corrupt corporate parties continue to have their way) at a recent speech she gave at a community college in Greenfield, Mass. She also parrots the AIPAC-Israel lobby line about Gaza, to the great disappointment of many of her more aware supporters. Not looking good for Dems anyway you slice it.
4
Among Democrats, Income Inequality is an issue of greater importance than the Police Survelience State.
Many Democrats fear promoting presidential dynasties. If Hillary runs against Jeb, then the dynasty issue is neutralized. But if Elizabeth Warren runs against Jeb Bush, or Hillary Clinton runs against someone other than Bush, the dynasty issue is intensified.
NY State's seemingly unconstitutional Election Law makes it impossible to win a State-wide election unless running as a Democrat or Republican.
The GOP and its candidates are in such a sorry state, that it will be difficult for any Republican to be elected President in 2016.
Many Democrats fear promoting presidential dynasties. If Hillary runs against Jeb, then the dynasty issue is neutralized. But if Elizabeth Warren runs against Jeb Bush, or Hillary Clinton runs against someone other than Bush, the dynasty issue is intensified.
NY State's seemingly unconstitutional Election Law makes it impossible to win a State-wide election unless running as a Democrat or Republican.
The GOP and its candidates are in such a sorry state, that it will be difficult for any Republican to be elected President in 2016.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Nate seems to think that all politics is personality identity politics, or group identity politics based on race or gender. That is a truly sorry state of mainstream thinking.
What if the group was class? If that were the case, and a strong message built around economic inequity that appealed to, say, the 90%, that could be transformative. I don't see any candidate other than Warren who is doing that even half as effectively as she does.
What if the group was class? If that were the case, and a strong message built around economic inequity that appealed to, say, the 90%, that could be transformative. I don't see any candidate other than Warren who is doing that even half as effectively as she does.
15
In case you haven't noticed, the top 10% control the entire political process. They are not going to give up their money and power voluntarily.
The only candidate who is not totally of this class is Scott Walker. He didn't graduate from college, and apparently drives around in his own car and shops in Target and Kohl's. He is closest to actually being middle-class of any candidate.
You may not like Walker's views, but he's not a member of the private plane/limo crowd, unlike both Hillary and Jeb Bush (and Christie and Cuomo and Huckabee and Jerry Brown etc, etc).
The only candidate who is not totally of this class is Scott Walker. He didn't graduate from college, and apparently drives around in his own car and shops in Target and Kohl's. He is closest to actually being middle-class of any candidate.
You may not like Walker's views, but he's not a member of the private plane/limo crowd, unlike both Hillary and Jeb Bush (and Christie and Cuomo and Huckabee and Jerry Brown etc, etc).
2
Me thinks the Clintonites sound desperate.
If it's not Warren, it's Webb, or someone else. I do know I won't vote for Hillary under any circumstances, and I do intend to vote. Hillary should've run as a republican, since her mindset and policies align wit them, no matter what she says today.
This attempt to recruit neocons/WS-servants as candidates from both parties is going to fail miserably.
If it's not Warren, it's Webb, or someone else. I do know I won't vote for Hillary under any circumstances, and I do intend to vote. Hillary should've run as a republican, since her mindset and policies align wit them, no matter what she says today.
This attempt to recruit neocons/WS-servants as candidates from both parties is going to fail miserably.
9
Hillary for 2016!?? - Oh God!
btw, I am a die hard liberal democrat
btw, I am a die hard liberal democrat
I'm not sure if you are serious, but Hillary wouldn't get a single vote if she ran as a Republican. You may think of her as a conservative, but she is the personification of evil to conservative voters.
One always wishes for more from one's leaders, and I also wish the differences between Clintons and Republicans didn't come down to this, but they will not attack reproductive rights and they won't appoint far-right ideologues to federal courts.
As a former faculty member, this analogy comes to mind. Elizabeth Warren may well be a brilliant researcher, wonderful teacher, and enjoys taking the lead in service related activities, but she does not aspire to become an administrator, and she would lose her effectiveness if she become a member of the Administration in any capacity.
3
Robert Reich's blog post from Sunday (http://robertreich.org) cites a study (http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_an... showing empirical evidence that "average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence" on U.S. policy. If we voters are faced with a Bush vs Clinton rehash, large numbers of voters will turn away in disgust. Unfortunately, a reasonable, intelligent, thoughtful populist like Elizabeth Warren could easily be out-shouted by a dangerous firebrand who inflames passions without a sense of history or responsibility. The 2016 election will be a major decision point; will our failing democracy survive?
4
Jerry Brown for President. He is more electable than Ms. Clinton or Ms Warren. He would also be better for the U.S. and the world, in my opinion.
Why would any thinking person prefer to see Elizabeth Warren as President when she is not equipped, yet, by experience for the job, and when she can be much more effective in championing her initiatives to restore the middle class to a state of financial security as a Senator? She is our safeguard against a rapacious financial "services" industry. She has stiffened the backbone of an administration that so easily caves under pressure from congressional wingnuts, right and left. She has become the conscience of the Senate! That's where we need her to be.
21
Agreed, neither Elizabeth Warren or Hilary Clinton are viable candidates for the presidency, rather they are simply power brokers looking to advance themselves and their own ego-centric goals. An individual whom I've long believed to be quintessential presidential material, Oprah Winfrey, is the candidate who should run as an independent centrist. An individual who has risen from the shadow of the obscure masses to achieve notoriety as a savvy businessperson and an adored celebrity has what is needed to lead the country. This is an individual who is not to be swayed by mercurial interests, but who is thoughtful, unswayed, and focused. This is an individual who would be able to select a cabinet of individuals to support her in her decision-making processes, and she is someone who could walk into Congress and not be trifled with.
Why would any thinking person eschew Elizabeth Warren when "she is our safeguard against a rapacious financial "services" industry. She has stiffened the backbone of an administration that so easily caves under pressure from congressional wingnuts, right and left. She has become the conscience of the Senate!"
3
I have heard this argument before and I dont understand the reasoning at all. Many were senators first and then USA president later.
What _really_ do you mean when you say that Warren is "not equipped" to be President? Was Obama really "equipped?" I have no idea what you criteria are that makes one equipped and the other not.
What _really_ do you mean when you say that Warren is "not equipped" to be President? Was Obama really "equipped?" I have no idea what you criteria are that makes one equipped and the other not.
The criticism of "Warren for President" is that she lacks centricity.
But where is the center?
This political center is similar the center of mass of a structure built on a rotten foundation, where the center of mass keeps shifting in one direction at an increasing rate . If no serious remedial work is done on the foundation, the structure will topple.
Senator Warren, figuratively speaking, is one of the few with the courage to burrow down to stiffen the foundation, in order to save the structure.
But where is the center?
This political center is similar the center of mass of a structure built on a rotten foundation, where the center of mass keeps shifting in one direction at an increasing rate . If no serious remedial work is done on the foundation, the structure will topple.
Senator Warren, figuratively speaking, is one of the few with the courage to burrow down to stiffen the foundation, in order to save the structure.
2
Sen. Warren has a major character issue. She may be a foe of the vested interests of Wall Street and parts of corporate America, but she is no saint. Most importantly, she famously lied in job and promotion opportunities at several of her university employers, by falsely claiming to be part Cherokee.
Secretary Clinton also has character issues. So do all political candidates, both red and blue. I doubt abusing affirmative action policies for self advancement will hurt Sen. Warren in a competitive raise decided by liberal Democrats.
But affirmative action is a major, major wedge issue. If Sen. Warren were to somehow become the Democratic nominee, Republicans would jump on this issue to great advantage, as well they should. The behind-the-scenes Democratic strategists know this well. Sen. Warren's previous personal dishonesty would surely come back to haunt her. Which, I think, is a good thing.
Secretary Clinton also has character issues. So do all political candidates, both red and blue. I doubt abusing affirmative action policies for self advancement will hurt Sen. Warren in a competitive raise decided by liberal Democrats.
But affirmative action is a major, major wedge issue. If Sen. Warren were to somehow become the Democratic nominee, Republicans would jump on this issue to great advantage, as well they should. The behind-the-scenes Democratic strategists know this well. Sen. Warren's previous personal dishonesty would surely come back to haunt her. Which, I think, is a good thing.
8
This is false and an example of the misinformation repeated when you use talk radio as information source. Scott Brown tried to make her family heritage an issue when she ousted him from office and under intense media and opposition scrutiny, not a single instance was found where Sen. Warren used Affirmative Action in Educational or Career advancement. Her family history as told to her included the fact that one of her ancestors was part Native American but she at no time ever claimed that she was entitled to minority status. Scott Brown's inability to prove his allegations that she had benefited contributed to his defeat.
7
These claims against Warren have been proven false.
Yeah, good thing for you none of the republican candidates have any personal dishonesty issues.
1
I disagree. If Senator Warren were to enter the race with all of the passion and conviction she demonstrates on the issues she represents her polling numbers would sky rocket. Senator Warren has one major advantage over Secretary Clinton and that is that Warren would appear to be running entirely because of her passion on the issues of middle class and working poor degradation whereas Clinton would appear to be running for the reason that she just wants to be President because she has earned it. Hillary Clinton is not a particularly loveable candidate the way Obama is, or the way Warren would be, and Democrats want to fall in love with their candidates.
17
Even conceding to Mr. Cohn all the points he made, I still wish that Elizabeth Warren makes a run for the nomination. I am supposedly one of those party voters highlighted in his op-ed: a retired boomer who grew up in a working-class, immigrant family of FDR New Dealers in the Democratic bastion of northeastern Ohio, a Vietnam veteran, and college-educated. But I'm rather independent -minded. For despite being a Vietnam veteran, I had no real qualms voting for Bill Clinton though GOP operatives smeared him mercilessly during the campaign as being a "draft-dodger." I voted for President Obama, because he really cares about veterans. But I could never vote for Hillary Clinton. She voted for the Iraq War resolution. And to be honest, I did vote for John Kerry, a fellow Vietnam veteran, despite his vote for the resolution. But I almost held my nose in the polling booth. So I don't want to repeat that mistake again. And I'm not one of these professional "Hillary-haters" that her supporters always are harping about in the comment section. Now Elizabeth Warren would be have a very slim chance of capturing the nomination. But she would send a clear message to the moneyed centrists in the party how disappointed the independents and progressives are with Hillary as the frontrunner. Hillary could care less about the working-class. She represents the type of elitist, educated and well-off liberals that read this column more concerned with identity politics than economic issues.
37
Mr. Hoffman
You may want to consider former Senator Jim Webb. Maybe you didn't even know that he is in the Presidential race.
He was a captain in the Marines in Vietnam. Navy Cross and Silver Star. He wrote some great fiction about Vietnam and what happened there after the war. He has administrative experience as Secretary of the Navy.
He is a breath of fresh air compared to the rest of the field. He could be the second coming of Captain Harry Truman.
You may want to consider former Senator Jim Webb. Maybe you didn't even know that he is in the Presidential race.
He was a captain in the Marines in Vietnam. Navy Cross and Silver Star. He wrote some great fiction about Vietnam and what happened there after the war. He has administrative experience as Secretary of the Navy.
He is a breath of fresh air compared to the rest of the field. He could be the second coming of Captain Harry Truman.
I couldn't vote for him either. Despite being a Vietnam veteran, he initially wavered for three weeks and stalled as a member of a committee that was holding hearings on President Obama's proposal for the VA to compensate Vietnam veterans like me who were exposed to Agent Orange. But finally, Jim Webb gave into political pressure and voted for this compensation though he implied in his comments that these fellow Vietnam veterans seeking compensation were trying to get a free ride from the government and implied that they had themselves to blame for their health problems given their lifestyles and their substance abuse issues. Well, I really had no choice being exposed to Agent Orange during my tour of duty as a medical corpsman. Neither did three million Vietnamese and around 150,000 children born with crippling birth defects. He showed his true colors despite all the accolades you noted in your reply.
Several comments bemoan the "lesser of two evils" choice we've faced in recent elections. In a two-party system, particularly one in which fundraising ability trumps all other qualifications, the "lesser of two evils" is built into the system (please stop saying "feature not bug"). More candidates, including Elizabeth Warren, would be a breath of fresh air for many across the ideological spectrum.
More parties, or even stronger ideological caucuses within the two parties, could break our polarized stagnation, because we'd have a spectrum of choices from (barely) left to (extreme) right. Although Nader is often blamed for handing Bush the election, third-party candidates, whatever else one thinks of them, can steer an election back to ideas, as the other two have position themselves around the third (we saw this more with Perot).
While Warren would have little hope of raising enough money to defeat Hillary, she would bring a lot of progressives to the voting booth who might otherwise stay home. Seeing the way some centrist democratic men chafe at Hillary just for being Hillary, the election could be tough for democrats. A third option would focus the candidates' respective positions and "keep them honest" (for politicians).
For those who think Warren is too "inexperienced" (as a Senator and law professor-- maybe the current owner of the Texas Rangers is available?), I wonder what the Founders would say about the notion that only a career politician is fit to be President.
More parties, or even stronger ideological caucuses within the two parties, could break our polarized stagnation, because we'd have a spectrum of choices from (barely) left to (extreme) right. Although Nader is often blamed for handing Bush the election, third-party candidates, whatever else one thinks of them, can steer an election back to ideas, as the other two have position themselves around the third (we saw this more with Perot).
While Warren would have little hope of raising enough money to defeat Hillary, she would bring a lot of progressives to the voting booth who might otherwise stay home. Seeing the way some centrist democratic men chafe at Hillary just for being Hillary, the election could be tough for democrats. A third option would focus the candidates' respective positions and "keep them honest" (for politicians).
For those who think Warren is too "inexperienced" (as a Senator and law professor-- maybe the current owner of the Texas Rangers is available?), I wonder what the Founders would say about the notion that only a career politician is fit to be President.
2
I like Senator Warren and agree with her critique of how out of balance our economic system has become. But I do think her relevant experience for the job is thin. It's not just a question of career politicians. She has no experience in -- or, to all appearances, interest in -- foreign affairs, and she has no experience running anything larger than her Senate office. Whether it's a good thing, a bad thing, or a bit of both, America is bigger, and the job of its chief executive is bigger, than it was in 1789. A gifted amateur might do well despite these holes in her resume, but it's a bit like trusting your open heart surgery to someone fresh out of med school.
4
Did experience matter for the current POTUS - hardly. We are being shown the horrific side of the adage, "anybody can become president." No history, promises made are like crack to the masses, the debacle of Obamacare an embarrassment to We, the People, total inexperience except as a radial organizer showing up as laughingstock internationally. When I read the headline Warren is no Obama, I was immediately all for her! (Although, of course, the article delaminates her as a non-contender.)
2
Warren is a far left winger who could never win the presidency.
9
You said the same thing about Obama, didn't you?
1
Warren is simply a sensible, honest liberal, of which there are far too few in the Democratic party nowadays. There are no "far left-wingers" in American politics in 2015. There haven't been for many years. But there are far right-wingers, reactionaries, who dominate the Republican party, extremists who have driven this country into a ditch.
3
She could, if she were running 2008. Once a liberal Democrat is tried, then the voters tend to turn the other way. The same thing happened after Carter.
1
The real reason she is not a viable candidate, which interest group is going to support her. The moneyed interests will never support a true financial progressive. Just another reason we need campaign finance reform.
13
Neither Mrs. Clinton or Ms.Warren have never run anything of consequence. We have had 6 years of a community organizer who spent little time in the U.S.Senate. The Democrats need to find a successful Governor who has experience in Governing. Light weights in the White House will be unproductive . The democrats need to find better candidates with experience and who lack negatives and ethical lapses. To be considered serious they need a real experienced Leader.
10
With all due respect-- and I'm speaking as someone who is no great fan of Secretary Clinton -- the U.S. Department of State is "something of consequence."
10
According to jim chin, the U.S. Department of State is "nothing of consequence".
1
Well, who do you suggest? Mark Drayton? Martin O'Malley? Andrew Cuomo? They all have serious baggage.
I'm in a difficult position. I definitely don't want someone as polarizing as Clinton back in the White House. On the other hand, Warren doesn't want to run. And I can't think of a single other Democratic candidate that has shown any potential as a leader.
Meanwhile, the Republicans have definitely abandoned "compassionate" as part of their platform. They are solidly for the one-percenters. Why do Americans have so few choices for decent centrist candidates?
Meanwhile, the Republicans have definitely abandoned "compassionate" as part of their platform. They are solidly for the one-percenters. Why do Americans have so few choices for decent centrist candidates?
19
The left knows her, the far right knows her, the rest of the voters do not. Whether they would like her enough to elect her would cost $1 billion to find out and most of the sources of that kind of money already committed to Mrs. Clinton.
As a Democrat,were he even five years younger, I would say our best next president, notwithstanding the stupid characterization of him by the media,would be Joe Biden because he better than anyone in politics today has the skills to make government work and to achieve some kind of compromise in this fractured government. But will be 74 in 2016 while Mrs.
Clinton will be 68 and there is yet a difference in those ages.
Moreover she will be nominated and for her all her missteps and being who she is and who Bill Clinton is I expect more, she is the only Democrat who can win the White House and with it the power to appoint the thousands of officials who run the executive branch, the power to issue executive orders and the power to name the entire judiciary, especially the SCOTUS. So it is not a choice for Democrats. It has to be Mrs. Clinton because winning is all that matters and all that will matter in two years.
Mrs. Clinton can, Sen. Warren can't and a Democrat must or the Supreme Court will be gone not for four years but for forty years.
As a Democrat,were he even five years younger, I would say our best next president, notwithstanding the stupid characterization of him by the media,would be Joe Biden because he better than anyone in politics today has the skills to make government work and to achieve some kind of compromise in this fractured government. But will be 74 in 2016 while Mrs.
Clinton will be 68 and there is yet a difference in those ages.
Moreover she will be nominated and for her all her missteps and being who she is and who Bill Clinton is I expect more, she is the only Democrat who can win the White House and with it the power to appoint the thousands of officials who run the executive branch, the power to issue executive orders and the power to name the entire judiciary, especially the SCOTUS. So it is not a choice for Democrats. It has to be Mrs. Clinton because winning is all that matters and all that will matter in two years.
Mrs. Clinton can, Sen. Warren can't and a Democrat must or the Supreme Court will be gone not for four years but for forty years.
16
Counterarguments! -
1) Hillary's position is much worse (why don't people work back from what will be carnage in Nov if she's the candidate? They will as it draws closer!) now than it was in 2008. Age may be a number, but she sure looks more than 2 years older than EW.
What she's done outside government in the last few years - well - stinks to high heaven. It's Romney-esque!
The stint as Secy of State?? The question is how many millions would use THAT (esp. with the email flap) as an excuse to vote Republican.
2) But the columnist's nearly unbelievable "There's nothing available to an HRC alternative like 'stop and frisk' " boggles the mind. Of course, you couldn't use Ferguson, Staten Is., Madison, etc. to attack HRC directly, but neither did BdB in his campaign - it's simply a case that a less tired voice than Hillary's could make the case that Clinton's "welfare reform" and other "centrist" approaches came at a cost.... Which segues neatly to the 1%/99% and HRC's banking chums nearly wrecking the econ., - those strike me as viable engines to a successful challenge.
Cohn's right about Dems="little guys" in many people's minds. HRC, as they say - not so much!
Plus, Hillary's gender will be an electoral minus in a way it would not for almost any other woman. Dems need a young male candidate without all her baggage. And - boy I wish I could name a name here - his path starts by creaming HRC in some early contests. Watch her go from inevitable to toxic in a NY minute.
1) Hillary's position is much worse (why don't people work back from what will be carnage in Nov if she's the candidate? They will as it draws closer!) now than it was in 2008. Age may be a number, but she sure looks more than 2 years older than EW.
What she's done outside government in the last few years - well - stinks to high heaven. It's Romney-esque!
The stint as Secy of State?? The question is how many millions would use THAT (esp. with the email flap) as an excuse to vote Republican.
2) But the columnist's nearly unbelievable "There's nothing available to an HRC alternative like 'stop and frisk' " boggles the mind. Of course, you couldn't use Ferguson, Staten Is., Madison, etc. to attack HRC directly, but neither did BdB in his campaign - it's simply a case that a less tired voice than Hillary's could make the case that Clinton's "welfare reform" and other "centrist" approaches came at a cost.... Which segues neatly to the 1%/99% and HRC's banking chums nearly wrecking the econ., - those strike me as viable engines to a successful challenge.
Cohn's right about Dems="little guys" in many people's minds. HRC, as they say - not so much!
Plus, Hillary's gender will be an electoral minus in a way it would not for almost any other woman. Dems need a young male candidate without all her baggage. And - boy I wish I could name a name here - his path starts by creaming HRC in some early contests. Watch her go from inevitable to toxic in a NY minute.
3
"Welfare reform" has little to do with the increasing wealth of the 1%. Tax policies, globalization, inequitable education, and industrial subsidies effectively explain the increasing wealth imbalance.
4
I'm a big fan of Elizabeth Warren, and am glad she has been clear about not running for president. A liberal academic from Massachusetts ain't going to win a general election, no matter how many pipe dreams say otherwise (better yet, it seems no candidate from Massachusetts - of either party - has a chance to win a national anymore). She's smart enough to know so.
16
How about that Elizabeth Warren has real policies and principles, and Hillary Clinton has none. Doesn't that count for anything?
38
The only political bright spot in the last 40 years was the presidency of Bill Clinton.
We had peace and prosperity. We were respected, appreciated and even loved in most of the world. We enjoyed the longest economic expansion in peacetime in our history. We experienced 22 million new jobs and the stock market went up, up, up.
In the eight years of Bill Clinton's presidency, Hillary was by his side, advising and learning. She noted what worked and what didn't. In her senate years, she worked collegially with senators who had recently tried to remove her husband from the presidency; many of those same senators came to admire and like her. She worked with senators on both sides to craft and push for good legislation; sometimes, liberals forget that.
She will be an excellent president.
We had peace and prosperity. We were respected, appreciated and even loved in most of the world. We enjoyed the longest economic expansion in peacetime in our history. We experienced 22 million new jobs and the stock market went up, up, up.
In the eight years of Bill Clinton's presidency, Hillary was by his side, advising and learning. She noted what worked and what didn't. In her senate years, she worked collegially with senators who had recently tried to remove her husband from the presidency; many of those same senators came to admire and like her. She worked with senators on both sides to craft and push for good legislation; sometimes, liberals forget that.
She will be an excellent president.
11
Let's let the people decide!
2
"...There is no obvious Clinton version of stop-and-frisk in national politics..."
There most certainly is: the banksters who "stopped-and-frisked" the economy in '08, from which we are only now just finally recovering from.
There most certainly is: the banksters who "stopped-and-frisked" the economy in '08, from which we are only now just finally recovering from.
5
I don't think the author of this piece understands the frustration so many citizens have with the status quo. Nor the power of a person who's time has come.
Warren is highly intelligent, well spoken and wants to rein in the white shoes mafia that runs this country. We know who the repubs serve. She evidently cares about little people and the common good. I'd vote for her no question. And like all past presidents, she'll bone up on areas she needs to, and learn as she goes. I hope she runs.
Warren is highly intelligent, well spoken and wants to rein in the white shoes mafia that runs this country. We know who the repubs serve. She evidently cares about little people and the common good. I'd vote for her no question. And like all past presidents, she'll bone up on areas she needs to, and learn as she goes. I hope she runs.
231
You are right. But how can one expect someone who is not even 30 years old to have the perspective, maturity, experience, and knowledge to understand that frustration--or many other things. The Times should have learned from the experience with the equally green Nate predecessor to this Nate, by hiring someone to undertake these analyses who has some significant life experiences to draw upon.
7
Yup. A perfect candidate who says she won't run and, of course, she should be believed about not running because truthfulness is part of her appeal, right? Your frustration notwithstanding, case closed.
The country is run by the top 10%, the affluent professionals who dominate Washington, New York, and California. Since they control everything, how exactly would Warren rein them in?
I fervently hope that Ms Warren will not run for president, not now, not ever. As a senator she can accomplish a great deal more, and over a far longer period of time, than she could as a president, particularly since the Republicans would undoubtedly hamstring her the way they've obstructed Obama.
4
While I believe that THE long term issue for the world, not just the US, is climate (nothing else will matter if climate can't be addressed), the next US election will, if we are to remain a viable democratic nation, be about reviving the middle class and containing the bloated military/security apparatus. I do not believe Clinton has credibility in the eyes of the voters on either, and I do not believe she can develop same. Our nation desperately needs passionate leadership, but passion alone is not enough. We need courage, will and intelligence to take on the vested interests whose agenda runs counter to the interests of the nation as a whole, and one who is articulate enough to make the case in a way that the voters understand the stark choice before us. I believe that Warren is capable of becoming such a candidate - that is, provided the electorate is capable of listening, and understanding. That last part worries me.
8
Just remember if you elect Hillary Clinton you will get a woman who has never cared much about women. A dynasty who believe they are America's Peron Family. A darker version of "House of Cards."
8
Finally, a rationale against Elizabeth Warren running. She's a wonderful advocate against big business, but she lacks experience on the global stage. Yes, the Clintons have baggage, but Hillary Clinton brings experience to the position. Doesn't that account for something? Obama will leave the White House with a string of accomplishments after coming in green and stumbling around. That's great, but this time around I'd like someone who can hit the ground running. Hillary is the one.
37
Hillary is accomplished and talented, and well-equipped to be president. That said, I think she's the only person on the planet the Republicans hate more than they hate Obama. And they don't hate her for her policies, they hate her with the same irrational passion - every fiber of their being - that they have reserved for our country's first black president. She may hit the ground running, but the Republicans will do everything they can to trip her and make her fall. I haven't yet seen that same base, instinctual hatred for Elizabeth Warren, and it makes me think she'd have a better ability to get things done.
In principle I'd rather not give Crazy Town, USA that sort of veto, but if there's someone who can get the job done without inspiring the kind of hate that Hillary (unfairly) inspires in the right, then she would be a better choice.
In principle I'd rather not give Crazy Town, USA that sort of veto, but if there's someone who can get the job done without inspiring the kind of hate that Hillary (unfairly) inspires in the right, then she would be a better choice.
1
Many of us have experienced Hilary's experience and are tired of it but don't want the barbarians either. Warren, Webb, Dean are all far more palatable for me and would seem less like a re-run of the Rose Law firm billing business et alia.
Hmm. Does "hitting the ground running" include the self-inflicted private e-mail account blunder? What other mistakes can we look forward to during a Hillary "2" campaign?
The past does not determine the future. If Elizabeth turned her effort to running for President I'm sure she could do better than this analysis gives her credit for. I've been following her work since the late 90s and am ready willing and able to work and vote for Elizabeth Warren in whatever endeavor she chooses.
7
But Hillary Clinton is no Hillary Clinton.
6
Mrs. Clinton has made a career of mendacity. If Senator Warren were to run, her campaign theme song would have to be "One-note Samba." Like the Yankees, the Democratic Party suffers from an aging bench and a subpar farm system.
It's time to nominate a biracial Floridiian with northeastern and midwestern roots, a history of leadership and courage, and an engaging personality: Derek Jeter.
It's time to nominate a biracial Floridiian with northeastern and midwestern roots, a history of leadership and courage, and an engaging personality: Derek Jeter.
9
Turnout might increase
1
"Elizabeth Warren Is No Barack Obama"
You say that like that's a bad thing!
In fact, Elizabeth Warren would be far more willing to take the fight to the Republicans than *EITHER* Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton and that's a great thing, precisely what our party has needed since Bill Clinton (and NAFTA, Welfare "reform", the ending of Glass-Steagall, and all of his other sell-outs to moneyed interests). I know that if she were to run, she would have my NH Presidential Primary vote over Hillary Clinton on the day she announced.
You say that like that's a bad thing!
In fact, Elizabeth Warren would be far more willing to take the fight to the Republicans than *EITHER* Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton and that's a great thing, precisely what our party has needed since Bill Clinton (and NAFTA, Welfare "reform", the ending of Glass-Steagall, and all of his other sell-outs to moneyed interests). I know that if she were to run, she would have my NH Presidential Primary vote over Hillary Clinton on the day she announced.
10
Yeah, she will fight everyone over everything, without any natural constituency. I wonder how that will turn out?
Goodness! Some of the commenters on this board write as if HRC could possibly do more for Wall Street than Obama has done.
What foolishness.
What foolishness.
1
The writer asserts:
"the liberal coalition has struggled to win the Democratic nomination. Instead, candidates like Bill Clinton or Walter Mondale, who held the support of the party’s establishment, prevailed by winning the relatively conservative, working-class wing of the party — the voters tied to the Democrats by socioeconomic status and interest group or traditional allegiances, not idealism. You might think of a union worker in West Virginia, the Catholic who was a Democrat because of Kennedy, or a conservative black Protestant. But it’s probably a broader category, as well, including the many Americans who simply see Democrats as working for the little guy, without harboring great attachment to the ambitions of liberal activists."
Yet, Elizabeth Warren is a champion of the little guy. Thus, she would energize the traditional democrats too, not just the progressives. Elizabeth Warren is the candidate America demands. Hillary Clinton is simply more of the same and Americans want more!!
"the liberal coalition has struggled to win the Democratic nomination. Instead, candidates like Bill Clinton or Walter Mondale, who held the support of the party’s establishment, prevailed by winning the relatively conservative, working-class wing of the party — the voters tied to the Democrats by socioeconomic status and interest group or traditional allegiances, not idealism. You might think of a union worker in West Virginia, the Catholic who was a Democrat because of Kennedy, or a conservative black Protestant. But it’s probably a broader category, as well, including the many Americans who simply see Democrats as working for the little guy, without harboring great attachment to the ambitions of liberal activists."
Yet, Elizabeth Warren is a champion of the little guy. Thus, she would energize the traditional democrats too, not just the progressives. Elizabeth Warren is the candidate America demands. Hillary Clinton is simply more of the same and Americans want more!!
6
"The enthusiasm for Ms. Warren’s candidacy on the left is real, but it probably doesn’t compare with the support for Mr. Obama. "
Nate Cohn wrote this he has little faith in the best thing in Americans. If we can give Obama so much support because we mis-believed he had "ordinary" people in mind, then imagine how much support we would give Warren considering that she is the real thing.
Nate Cohn wrote this he has little faith in the best thing in Americans. If we can give Obama so much support because we mis-believed he had "ordinary" people in mind, then imagine how much support we would give Warren considering that she is the real thing.
3
Of course Warren is no Obama, she actually stands for things rather than just saying pretty words while feeding the uber rich the wealth of the nation.
14
Hillary will be the next President. The US owes her the Presidency for standing by her man and keeping her family together. She showed great strength and her daughter had the benefit of two parents. If more wives were as strong as Hillary the divorce rate would fall to historic lows.
We owe her the Oval Office.
We owe her the Oval Office.
1
I can only hope your tongue is firmly in cheek.
No one OWES ANYONE the Presidency. Both parties need to expand their horizons and find a candidate who serves the people, not their egos.
2
Clinton as the inevitable candidate? Give Democrat voters some credit for considering the candidates individually. If you want inevitable candidates that have "earned" their turn, you should look at the other party.
If Warren was the nominee, just about any of the current Republican candidates would win-she could not prevail in a general election
Warren, like Obama, with a combination of inexperience and arrogance, will lead to a further gridlock for the government and the Nation as a whole
Warren, like Obama, with a combination of inexperience and arrogance, will lead to a further gridlock for the government and the Nation as a whole
6
Despite how this article slices and parses the electorate (seems rather "triangulating", but I digress) there is a genuine and deeply felt outrage by the majority of the American people that our economy and system of government is fully rigged against our best interests and toward the insatiable demands of the 1%.
Whomever runs and wins as President must not only articulate this anger into a positive and unifying message- but actually govern on it as well. Elizabeth Warren can certainly do that- she is one of the extremely few political leaders of either party who acts and speaks with forceful integrity, and does not bow worshipfully in front of the financial industry.
Even with her impressively diverse and legitimate experience, Hillary Clinton must demonstrate to the American electorate that her goals are toward the improvement and stability of the middle class. Six figure speeches to firms that crashed our economy give me pause.
However, the choice between parties is crystal clear- Republicans are erratic, sabotaging, incapable of governing, and come off like sociopaths.
Whomever runs and wins as President must not only articulate this anger into a positive and unifying message- but actually govern on it as well. Elizabeth Warren can certainly do that- she is one of the extremely few political leaders of either party who acts and speaks with forceful integrity, and does not bow worshipfully in front of the financial industry.
Even with her impressively diverse and legitimate experience, Hillary Clinton must demonstrate to the American electorate that her goals are toward the improvement and stability of the middle class. Six figure speeches to firms that crashed our economy give me pause.
However, the choice between parties is crystal clear- Republicans are erratic, sabotaging, incapable of governing, and come off like sociopaths.
8
The arc of Obama's candidacy in 2007-8 is interesting. He incubated for a very short time and then burst out in the manner described here. However, as the primaries slogged on, his appeal clearly waned, and Hillary's relative experience and knowledge caused voters to look again. The only problem was that by then it was too late.
The Obama ambush worked, but only barely.
The Obama ambush worked, but only barely.
Didn't help matters that the press was squarely in his corner no questions asked of the candidate, no hardball questions anyway. He was young, energetic, eloquent and he wasn't Bush. That's why he won. Forget his lack of voting record or experience that didn't mean anything to the voter or the MSM.
NYT continues to pretend that Democrats are looking for someone other than Hillary despite all evidence to the contrary. Faux scandals sell only on Faux Noise. Senator Warren wisely realizes she has a lot to learn before assuming the presidential mantle. NYT fortunately is becoming less than believable in their histrionic political reporting with a bright red tinge. Slap down that dog food as many times as you like, but the dogs are not having it.
2
"NYT continues to pretend that Democrats are looking for someone other than Hillary all evidence to the contrary"
That says more about the Democrats than NYT. I don't know what the Democrats believe in any more.
That says more about the Democrats than NYT. I don't know what the Democrats believe in any more.
She is a neophyte and does not posses the charterer and experience to be a President of anything. While she has strong opinions on economic issues (that I mainly agree with), she would be better serve as someone in Treasury or even maybe at the Fed Reserve. But President? Please........
2
Of course Ms. warren has experience. She is A senator with committee experiences and she has definite opinions about our foreign policy, including economic policy. The candidate is the visionary and voters need to take a hard look at the cabinet and advisors that they surround themselves with. Jeb Bush has just Hired global conservative Christian attorney Jordan Sekulov as his top advisor. Scott Walker considers his facing off with Wisconsin teachers and other union workers as proof he can handle ISIL. So why all of this GOP support for candidates who only have experience as a state governor? Most of these people are too busy traveling garnering support from private interests instead of taking care of their constituents at home. They and their state legislatures has been doing a bang up job of destroying their states' economies however.
2
Does anyone really think Elizabeth Warren would win a single Red State over? Not a chance. I can hear all the tacky Taxachusetts jokes being recycled again. Besides presidential candidates from Massachusetts do very poorly in the general election. Kennedy barely squeaked by Nixon. Kerry and Dukakis crashed and burned big time. Adams father and son were disappointments. Why doesn't Elizabeth Warren do herself a favor by declaring she's not running for President this time around? She should at least stay in the Senate for now and get some more legislative experience.
She has clearly said that she is not running for President. Why do you suggest otherwise ? It is the media that keeps this canard afloat.
2
Mitt was yet another Massachusetts bust for a presidential election.
I hate this kind of cynical political reporting that turns an election into a horse race and makes a candidate's record and views incidental to her chances for winning. Unfortunately, for every story that actually delves into what matters, we get 10 of these. Shame on the Times for wasting so much ink on this kind of reporting.
10
If I had the opportunity to vote for ELizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders, against Hillary Clinton, I would absolutely do so. I am not interested in risking losing the White House to the $2 Billion in Swift Boating that's going to be used against HC as it was to great effect against John Kerry.
8
I share a lot of admiration for Warren and her courage to take on the entire political-financial rigged game that our elections and institutiins are increasingly part of. But I do not think she is presidential material, nor apparently does she seek to be. She is brilliant in her self-appointed role of keeping other people's feet to the fire, but that is not the same thing as being a take-charge manager and leader of the free world. I hope her supporters eventually figure that out.
48
So what is required of someone to be "presidential material" by your standard? Must one be a member of the "entire political-financial rigged game"-- because that gets the rest of the citizenry in this country exactly nothing. We need someone just like Elizabeth Warren if not Elizabeth Warren herself precisely because she is not afraid to call the system "rigged" and fights to change it. And no we won't "eventually figure that out"-- we can do a whole heck of a lot better than someone who is a democrat in name only.
It's time for the New York Times to take its blinders off in its blind allegiance to Mrs. Clinton. I'm a likely Democratic voter, and I will not vote for her. She is too much a part of the "establishment," a trait that is ironically touted here as a reason behind why she'll get the nomination. And she comes with way-y-y too much baggage, as well as hypocrisy. Consider this quote from this morning's Washington Post newspaper by columnist Dana Milbank, talking about why Democrats like me are unenthused about her candidacy: "And so the Democratic faithful are more or less resigned to Clinton drawing little primary opposition, and hoping that the disastrous launch of her candidacy doesn’t get worse. There’s potential it will, because, as Amy Chozick of the New York Times noted, Clinton’s efforts this week to commemorate the anniversary of her 1995 women’s rights speech in Beijing are now being undermined by the discovery that the Clinton Foundation accepted money from Middle Eastern countries known for violence and discrimination against women." She is not my candidate, and I wish the NYT would give the time of day to other people so that we actually have a competitive primary process that results in a stronger candidate.
17
Elizabeth Warren gets it and does not live in a bubble. HRC doesn't get it and lives in a bubble. We'll end up with HRC.
7
Run, Senator Warren, Run. Ms. Clinton, as my Senator from New York, did the convenient and foolish thing by voting for the Iraq War debacle. Outside of voting to send New Yorkers to their death in Iraq, her tenure was a series of useless photo opportunities. Her lack of leadership and accomplishments in her two public positions (U.S. Senator & Secretary of State) shows what little she can bring to the presidency. Past performance does relate to future performance in politics (see George W. Bush).
4
I find it difficult to imagine Ms. Warren entering the presidential race at this point in her career; she is seated in a very influential position to address those issues she seems to hold most dear - finance and addressing Wall Street malfeasance. I can imagine she relishes the opportunity to not just "tweak the noses" of these Wall Street crooks, but to actually participate in defining reform tactics and policy to speak to correcting our financial, economical and social ills. The VP chair would very likely not be a strong launching platform for these issues, and Ms. Warren would lose the ability to play a role much like her predecessor, Edward Kennedy. And she certainly does not seem to be wired for "second banana", especially to a dictatorial personality as that possessed by Mrs. Clinton. Why she would expose herself to the circus of presidential politics when she can be an actual force for that which she believes, and can actually get something done for this country, for once, is beyond me. I hope she continues in her current role, much as I would enjoy her presidency - the time is just not right for that role. Let's demand that Mrs. Clinton announce her VP partner early, to give us hope for future leadership. That the entire VP selection is some secret maneuvering is another burr under my saddle, for another time.
10
Warren may be far and away the better candidate, but for the US voters this is mostly a popularity or novelty contest within the Party. Nationally, even the Democrats are more "conservative" than one would hope. Warren has much less known baggage, but much less name recognition across the country outside of those who follow politics.
Obama's "novelty" value as black was a huge advantage for him but Warren has no such base of support. Clinton will have whatever Jewish support there will be among Democrats, while Warren might struggle for their support without kowtowing to Israel, which is uncertain she would do.
Warren's position on Wall street banking is her strong suit but will have that mob doubling down on their financial support for the republicans or Clinton who is more or less "one of them".
Though she appears superficially to be a far better candidate to represent those most in need of a voice, I'm afraid America is not ready for that kind of freedom.
Like it or not, we will be getting Clinton, or someone far worse from the republicans.Far worse. With Clinton, there will always be a sideshow. With the republican candidate whoever it is, we'll likely be getting a freak show.
Obama's "novelty" value as black was a huge advantage for him but Warren has no such base of support. Clinton will have whatever Jewish support there will be among Democrats, while Warren might struggle for their support without kowtowing to Israel, which is uncertain she would do.
Warren's position on Wall street banking is her strong suit but will have that mob doubling down on their financial support for the republicans or Clinton who is more or less "one of them".
Though she appears superficially to be a far better candidate to represent those most in need of a voice, I'm afraid America is not ready for that kind of freedom.
Like it or not, we will be getting Clinton, or someone far worse from the republicans.Far worse. With Clinton, there will always be a sideshow. With the republican candidate whoever it is, we'll likely be getting a freak show.
97
So now it has come to this - the side show vs. the freak show. How far this country has fallen in my lifetime leaves me near speechless.
1
"Nationally, even the Democrats are more "conservative" than one would hope."
Doesn't that imply that you and Sen. Warren are more liberal than the majority of voters would hope? Perhaps rather than not being "ready" for your brand of politics America has a better sense of what would be good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't that imply that you and Sen. Warren are more liberal than the majority of voters would hope? Perhaps rather than not being "ready" for your brand of politics America has a better sense of what would be good for the country as a whole.
"America has a better sense " ? Doesn't seem to have proven true. Two disastrous terms of Bush definitely showed poor if not warped judgement for sure . A middle class voting against their own economic self interest time and again. No, that's not better sense. More like intellectual laziness over important political issues issues, or in the case of the certain geographic regions, collective stupidity.
Even when a President tries to help them their ignorance and/or racism blinds them. Guess we see the world very differently.
Even when a President tries to help them their ignorance and/or racism blinds them. Guess we see the world very differently.
1
Mr. Cohn's analysis may be correct, but it is depressing to hear the reasons why Warren is a non-contender. All the reasons are horse-race superficialities. None of the reasons are substantial.
Clinton will triangulate to her nomination, making numerous deals with the devil along the way.
This is American democracy™.
It's sad.
Clinton will triangulate to her nomination, making numerous deals with the devil along the way.
This is American democracy™.
It's sad.
5
Hillary can not win in a general election. If the party doesn't find a good, electable alternative, Republicans will take the presidency again, a nightmare to consider, but true nonetheless. If Ms. Clinton is the patriot she claims to be, she would bow out now and save the country from the possibility of another catastrophe, like going to war with yet another Middle Eastern nation, Iran for instance.
Jim Webb is considering a run. No one can know if he has a chance in a general election, but he is a far better choice than any Republican I can imagine. Hillary has less than a zero chance of becoming our 45th president. I respect her, would certainly vote for her, but I know my vote would be wasted. I can not imagine what further harm another Republican president would bring about, but I have no doubt it would be horrible.
Jim Webb is considering a run. No one can know if he has a chance in a general election, but he is a far better choice than any Republican I can imagine. Hillary has less than a zero chance of becoming our 45th president. I respect her, would certainly vote for her, but I know my vote would be wasted. I can not imagine what further harm another Republican president would bring about, but I have no doubt it would be horrible.
1
Jim Webb is a much better, more experienced candidate than Warren. Is yet another inexperienced, idealistic Senator that panders to the far left the best that the Democrats can do? Ugh.
2
I didn't see the word "Hispanic" or "Latin" anywhere in this column. Maybe this large and growing block of increasingly engaged voters is not yet large enough to offset Mrs. Clinton's perceived (by Mr. Cohen) advantage with black voters, but the fact that this (up to now considered crucial to victory demographic) did not make the writer's radar screen, should serve to call his entire analysis into question. It does for me.
5
I wish you would discuss the fact that there are plenty of liberal women who are not happy to have Hillary Clinton running for president. I do not want Hillary Clinton as my first woman president. Lots of reasons, but mostly that I just don't like her. I think she's just another rich powerful person trying to get richer and more powerful. Maybe long ago she was a true reformer but now? Looking for a chance to settle some scores and up her post-presidency speaking fee. She should enjoy her good fortune and her grandchild and let someone else take a shot. I had Clinton fatigue long ago. Martin O'Malley would be a good candidate.
2
From what I've seen of Elizabeth Warren, she probably just wants to be left alone, left out of the press - unless it's something specific to her job as United States Senator. And that's why we love Elizabeth Warren.
6
I agree. She is an admirable person of integrity and I see her as becoming one of the great senators, perhaps the best place for her voice, policies, skills, and belief in democracy. An important countervoice to the ignorant, vicious voices of many of her current colleagues.
Best of all would be if the voters who send the scary know nothings to represent them would wake up and aim higher!
Best of all would be if the voters who send the scary know nothings to represent them would wake up and aim higher!
2
What a ridiculously crafted article; no doubt bought and sold for by the knee-jerking Clinton supporters. Give it a rest. You have already chunked the numbers and made it clear that Warren wouldn't win. So much for core Democratic values. That said, I envision a great primary, where, at the very least, Hillary, is challenged on the domestic front. I, too, feels she is too aligned with Wall Street and big banks....as were the two president before her. With little oversight I might add. Would love to see the "pot stirred" up with
Elizabeth Warren candidacy. I believe her, however, that it will NOT happen. so everyone can relax......
Elizabeth Warren candidacy. I believe her, however, that it will NOT happen. so everyone can relax......
5
She can't even get legislation past Chuck Schumer but she's going to totally nail down 270 electoral votes. Sure she is.
3
This election is about ideas. I believe the key idea is having a woman president for the first time. Hillary Clinton can make this happen.
"Man is not a circle with a single center, but an ellipse with two foci. One is facts and the other is ideas." (Victor Hugo, Les Miserables)
The idea of having a woman president, is, I believe very powerful. Women think differently. They tend to focus on the home, the family, children, education, and emotions. Women tend to be interested in compromise and diplomacy, which is what politics is supposed to be about.
Hillary Clinton may be flawed, but she is woman and she can win.
Run Hillary, run!
"Man is not a circle with a single center, but an ellipse with two foci. One is facts and the other is ideas." (Victor Hugo, Les Miserables)
The idea of having a woman president, is, I believe very powerful. Women think differently. They tend to focus on the home, the family, children, education, and emotions. Women tend to be interested in compromise and diplomacy, which is what politics is supposed to be about.
Hillary Clinton may be flawed, but she is woman and she can win.
Run Hillary, run!
1
What the Democrats fail to realize is that Elizabeth Warren will not get the votes of centrist, independent voters like me in the general election. Nor will Hillary Clinton. The party is in sad shape in 2016 with no viable candidates who can garner a majority of independent voters needed to win the general election. How did this happen?
2
Let me start by saying I like Senator Warren. A progressive voice is needed in the senate. However, the bottom line is she is not presidential material. I have too often caught her failing to understand issues that she professes to be an expert on. She is a a shrewd politician in that she knows that Wall Street is an easy villain to pick on in order to gain notoriety, but why is it news that Wall Street is driven a culture of greed. There isn't anymore greed on wall street today than there was in 1900. Banks didn't cause the financial crisis. What caused the financial crisis was a failed mortgage policy that permitted loans for homes that people couldn't afford. Once the housing bubble burst we all suffered. Why isn't she commenting in the fact that the president is pushing to make FHA loans easier to get thus repeating the cycle of bad mortgages which started the crisis instead of playing stealing from the GOP playbook of fear mongering and us versus them finger pointing?
12
Actually banks lost all self-discipline when they stopped holding mortgages in their own portfolios and sold them to Wall Street bundlers for resale to a naive public instead. The were forced to do this by monetary policy that creates interest rate risk.
5
What a perceptive take - thank you. And I agree with you about the mortgage crisis, which was indeed caused by overenthusiastic Clinton and Bush initiatives to expand the possibilities for homeownership. The populist approach of 'big, bad banks' is an easy win, but it isn't always rooted in reality.
That said, I would like to see an alternative to Hilary Clinton emerge. I just don't think Warren is it.
That said, I would like to see an alternative to Hilary Clinton emerge. I just don't think Warren is it.
1
Who is greedier, those sitting in the Capitol Dome or those on Wall Street?
I'd lay my odds on the former.
I'd lay my odds on the former.
Elizabeth Warren is no Barack Obama? Did I read that right? On the contrary, the similarities between Warren and Obama are positively eerie. Isn't Elizabeh Warren another inexperienced freshman Senator who the mainstream media is falling in love with as an antidote to Hillary Clinton? (This is the same mainstream media who abandoned Hillary Clinton enmasse in 2008 because they were began swooning over another political neophyte named Barack Obama) Like Obama, Elizabeth Warren has no foreign policy expertise and doesn't understand how the world beyond her base works. And. saddest of all,Elizabeth Warren has no legislative achievements in the Senate that she can hope to run on. Elizabeth Warren is nothing but another political lightweight and that's why she'll never have my vote.
11
"Elizabeth Warren has no foreign policy expertise and doesn't understand how the world beyond her base works. And. saddest of all, Elizabeth Warren has no legislative achievements in the Senate that she can hope to run on. "
In other words, Senator Warren is identical to Hillary Clinton. Don't mistake activity for actual accomplishment!
In other words, Senator Warren is identical to Hillary Clinton. Don't mistake activity for actual accomplishment!
2
Don't forget she lied about being a Cherokee Indian to get into Harvard. Something she admitted to being a fake.
1
Democrats should be more skeptical of inexperienced candidates backed by dark money after the Obama experience.
1
I know she's not running, she's said so repeatedly. But I wish she would.
8
Why?
You should read the comment by Sharon5101.
You should read the comment by Sharon5101.
It is ludicrous to think that Mrs. Warren could ever be president of the United States. She's a northeast liberal with an arrogant, professorial manner that simply will not excite the independent voters needed to win elections.
The 2016 election will be all about turnout. Republicans can't wait to go to the polls. Complete control of government is within reach. They LOVE the idea of facing Hillary. She will turn out the republican voters while keeping the young democrats (essential to a dem victory), who are not excited by this career Washington insider with a verifiable history of scandal and hypocracy, home.
The only candidate the right would like to face more is the far left Warren.
Warren is the 'none of the above' choice for Democrats.
The 2016 election will be all about turnout. Republicans can't wait to go to the polls. Complete control of government is within reach. They LOVE the idea of facing Hillary. She will turn out the republican voters while keeping the young democrats (essential to a dem victory), who are not excited by this career Washington insider with a verifiable history of scandal and hypocracy, home.
The only candidate the right would like to face more is the far left Warren.
Warren is the 'none of the above' choice for Democrats.
4
You claim Warren is arrogant. Really? Is that because she is really, really smart coupled with the fact that she is a woman? Arrogant?! Do you know Bill Clinton and the republican wannabes like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Rick Perry. THose fellows (save for Clinton) are dumb as dirt and arrogant--truly a deadly combination. You have fallen into the sexist trap by calling a strong, brilliant (yes Harvard Law Prof) arrogant because she can argue and speak rings around most anyone...including you I would guess. Try to get with the program and leave all of those sexist labels behind. You might learn something in the process.
1
I think it is time to stop choosing candidates simply based on "supposed" winnability formulas, fund raising abilities, etc. If the Democrats were to field a politician who stands up for the interests of the "common man/woman", not the oligarchs, I think many political pundits might be surprised. I would vote in a heartbeat for Bernie Sanders, who has a long track record in politics, or Elizabeth Warren.
If the race comes down to Clinton and Bush, we might as well start a monarchy. Perhaps we should just cut to the chase and have a King Koch.
If the race comes down to Clinton and Bush, we might as well start a monarchy. Perhaps we should just cut to the chase and have a King Koch.
19
Sanders does indeed have a long track record in politics, not all of it admirable. I find him to be a blowhard, and have a standing policy of 'muting' anyone who publishes those jejeune Bernie Sanders memes on Facebook.
I love Warren, but it has to be Hillary, the evil Republicans must not get the Presidency.
5
As a Dem, Hilary is destined to fail sorry. In a general election, she won't garner the centrist votes. You should be hoping for some still unnamed candidate to throw their hat in the ring as the only hope to keep the white house.
1
'Here’s the easiest way to think about this: I don’t think Ms. Warren would have been able to beat Mrs. Clinton in 2008."
Nobody had even heard of Warren in 2008, so of course she could not have won. The Democratic party is cramming the "inevitable" nominee label down the public's throat--probably in an effort to save spending on primary campaigns--but we are too smart to fall in line.
Shame on the NYT's for perpetuating the Democratic party talking points with a lot of "likely" and "probablys" thrown in to give the columnist cover should Clinton not be nominated.
Nobody had even heard of Warren in 2008, so of course she could not have won. The Democratic party is cramming the "inevitable" nominee label down the public's throat--probably in an effort to save spending on primary campaigns--but we are too smart to fall in line.
Shame on the NYT's for perpetuating the Democratic party talking points with a lot of "likely" and "probablys" thrown in to give the columnist cover should Clinton not be nominated.
2
I think you underestimate voter fatigue. James Carville unintentionally made the case for despair in his rant yesterday against the various -gates, Benghazi and the current email scandal. He said these attacks had been going on for 20 years and would "never end." Talk about a backhanded selling point. I dread the campaign.
2
This article might be seriously underestimating the effect of voter fatigue. How many of us are sick and tired of voting AGAINST rather than voting FOR a candidate? OK, maybe Elizabeth Warren is not the one for the job, who else? So, according to this NYT article, our choice is Hillary or Hillary? What about those of us who just don't like the woman and what she stands for?
There is a very real danger if the Democrats do not find a couple of bona fide alternatives to throw out there and give the electorate (at least) the illusion of choice, that the Republicans will sneak in through the back door due to low voter turn out.
It's a very sad state of affairs when you walk into a restaurant and have a choice of meatloaf only. Clinton again? Really? Is that the best we can do?
Sad.
There is a very real danger if the Democrats do not find a couple of bona fide alternatives to throw out there and give the electorate (at least) the illusion of choice, that the Republicans will sneak in through the back door due to low voter turn out.
It's a very sad state of affairs when you walk into a restaurant and have a choice of meatloaf only. Clinton again? Really? Is that the best we can do?
Sad.
8
Each election is different. The US has an 8-year cycle in presidential elections and Democrats are quite likely to lose. Wages have been stagnant while Obama, dominated by Citigroup, has emphasized policies that favor profits and the market. The issue will be inegalitarianism and crony capitalism (Citigroup) with emphasis on Bill's deregulation in 1999 and 2000. Hillary has zero chance, while Warren is at least identified with being right on the Republican issues.
The Democratic press (including the NYT) has totally distorted coverage of the Republican race. Christie is the odds-on favorite and is running a strong campaign. but is never mentioned favorably and is just smeared. Hence, he has no name recognition except on things such as the bridge.
The censorship will break down when the Pope comes in on the eve of Iowa to support the Irish-Italian Catholic working class boy and to give him a let and let live line on cultural issues and speaks on economic justice. Christie is highly likely to have a pension deal with the teachers to show he knows how to negotiate and achieve things. Then the Democratic censorship collapses.
As Bush (the 1976 Tom Connally of 2016) collapses and his votes shift to Christie, as Christie starts getting publicity, he will be up on Clinton by 8-10 points. Hillary will come crashing down. Only Warren is there to be nominated. She has carefully staked out anti-Clinton positions on every issue and has damned Citigroup power by name.
The Democratic press (including the NYT) has totally distorted coverage of the Republican race. Christie is the odds-on favorite and is running a strong campaign. but is never mentioned favorably and is just smeared. Hence, he has no name recognition except on things such as the bridge.
The censorship will break down when the Pope comes in on the eve of Iowa to support the Irish-Italian Catholic working class boy and to give him a let and let live line on cultural issues and speaks on economic justice. Christie is highly likely to have a pension deal with the teachers to show he knows how to negotiate and achieve things. Then the Democratic censorship collapses.
As Bush (the 1976 Tom Connally of 2016) collapses and his votes shift to Christie, as Christie starts getting publicity, he will be up on Clinton by 8-10 points. Hillary will come crashing down. Only Warren is there to be nominated. She has carefully staked out anti-Clinton positions on every issue and has damned Citigroup power by name.
3
It takes serious masochism to elect a blustering slob like Christie to any public office.
Whether or not Warren wants to run for President, if she has any integrity as the fresh voice peole hope she is, she would be all over Clinton for the email scandal. What Clinton did was wrong and the way she's handling it shows a typical disregard for the intelligence of the public.
2
Clinton may well win the primary, but if she is the nominee and Bush is the GOP nominee we'll see the lowest voter turnout in decades, and Bush will win. Talk about voter fatigue! And low turnout always breaks Republican.
10
Why should we support an Elizabeth Warren presidential candidacy, even if we don’t like her views? See http://worksnewage.blogspot.com/2014/12/elizabeth-warren-on-jobs-worthwh....
1
I am strongly liberal and I strongly support Hillary Clinton for president; she has the political skills and experience to win the presidency and do a great job as president.
We must elect a Democrat this time, because this country cannot afford another Republican presidency.
I love Elizabeth Warren but I think she is in the exact place where she can do the most good, the U.S. Senate, where being uncompromisingly liberal can be seen as a plus. Over the years, she could be a pillar of strength for the liberal viewpoint there and would be most like a Teddy Kennedy in the senate -- and that would be wonderful. I do not see any evidence that Elizabeth Warren has the political skills required to do well as a president.
We must elect a Democrat this time, because this country cannot afford another Republican presidency.
I love Elizabeth Warren but I think she is in the exact place where she can do the most good, the U.S. Senate, where being uncompromisingly liberal can be seen as a plus. Over the years, she could be a pillar of strength for the liberal viewpoint there and would be most like a Teddy Kennedy in the senate -- and that would be wonderful. I do not see any evidence that Elizabeth Warren has the political skills required to do well as a president.
25
But what do you mean by 'do well as a president?' Do you merely mean that Hillary will be better than her Republican opponent? Well -- sure. But Hillary Clinton has long since demonstrated that she will continue to aid and abet the corporate takeover of our republic, just as every president since 1980 has. If this is what it means to 'do well', then we can be assured that she will. Perhaps you and I have differing definitions of this, however.
2
I think Elizabeth Warren is sufficiently self-aware that she knows a national political run would corrupt her message and her perceived integrity. Beyond that, she has no foreign policy experience that I am aware of.
I understand that a two-woman horse race appeals to the media, but it is really tiring reading these non-stories about a Warren presidential run. I rather wish the Times could have restrained itself.
I understand that a two-woman horse race appeals to the media, but it is really tiring reading these non-stories about a Warren presidential run. I rather wish the Times could have restrained itself.
14
There are a lot of comments about Warren's lack of foreign policy experience. I don't see this as a negative for the Democratic nominee as most of the likely Republican candidates also lack foreign policy experience (e.g., Christie, Walker, Bush, etc...).
Senator Elizabeth Warren has found a special niche in American politics post Wall Street exuberance debacle of 2009. However, it is premature to compete with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic party's nomination.
Let Hillary Clinton take the plunge first and test the political waters for a female presidential candidate. I'm sure Senator Warren's team will learn invaluable lessons from Hillary's eventual success or failure.
Let Hillary Clinton take the plunge first and test the political waters for a female presidential candidate. I'm sure Senator Warren's team will learn invaluable lessons from Hillary's eventual success or failure.
6
Elizabeth Warren is popular because she is *already* representing us, and she's one of the very few politicians willing to push back against the corporate and financial world that is bleeding the middle class dry.
Republicans have a visceral, irrational hatred of uppity woman Clinton, just like they have an irrational, visceral hatred of uppity black Obama, but they have a very rational hatred of Elizabeth Warren - not because she's a woman, but because she's taking on their paymasters. That seems to me to be a very good reason to vote for her, and to root for her success.
Republicans have a visceral, irrational hatred of uppity woman Clinton, just like they have an irrational, visceral hatred of uppity black Obama, but they have a very rational hatred of Elizabeth Warren - not because she's a woman, but because she's taking on their paymasters. That seems to me to be a very good reason to vote for her, and to root for her success.
163
As much as I admired Hillary and had planned to vote for her she jsut has too much baggage now. The latest being her e-mail problems, I find it highly suspect that no one knew about it or that she didn't use her officical e-mail address to send possibly classified information. I think she has become too entrenched in the machinery that is Washington. I don't know too much about Warren but I think I may be sitting out this election, it would be my first since I was eligible to vote when I was 18.
4
Speaking as a Republican who voted for Obama - and would consider voting for Clinton - your statement drips with the 'othering' of those with whom you disagree that is so prominent in today's American political discourse. I have a 'irrational, visceral hatred' of no one, and your assumption that I do is pretty shameful.
It turns out that that Obama and Hillary emailed one another while she was Sec. of State, so Obama was not exactly telling the truth when he said he was unaware Hillary was using a private email address. http://tinyurl.com/pjnqhsc
Did no one at The New York Times exchange emails with Sec. Clinton is all her years at the State Dept.?
Did no senators?
Give me a break.
Chuck Hagel, as Sec. of Defense -- from Feb. 2013 to Feb. 2015 -- also did not use a government email account. http://tinyurl.com/o42veml
Do I need mention Chuck Hagel is a Republican?
Did no one at The New York Times exchange emails with Sec. Clinton is all her years at the State Dept.?
Did no senators?
Give me a break.
Chuck Hagel, as Sec. of Defense -- from Feb. 2013 to Feb. 2015 -- also did not use a government email account. http://tinyurl.com/o42veml
Do I need mention Chuck Hagel is a Republican?
2
The reason why progressive candidates currently can't win a presidential nomination is simple: money. The prevailing political scene prevents anyone with a true desire to reform Wall Street from serious consideration for the presidency, much less winning. The problem is that corporations control the range of choices.
21
Identity politics gave us Barack Obama - who, while he is an intelligent and I think a pretty decent guy, has not been a very good president. (I voted for him twice, both times without much enthusiasm but absolutely against the opposition.)
A telling line in this analysis is: 'Much of Mr. Obama’s early support came from a predominantly white, liberal coalition'. Eager to be able to pat themselves on the back for voting for 'the first black president', they jumped on Obama as a symbol, rather than as an actual person, and didn't look far past Biden's notorious observation that Obama was 'the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy' who made all the right progressivish noises. It helped he had very little record to gainsay their projections. (The devil has proven to be in the details.) 1500 characters does not suffice for a full analysis. But having seen the prospect of Warren becoming another 'symbol' candidate - another comparative tabula rasa on whom true believers can scrawl all their hopes and dreams for 'the first woman president' - I am relieved to see it subside a bit.
A telling line in this analysis is: 'Much of Mr. Obama’s early support came from a predominantly white, liberal coalition'. Eager to be able to pat themselves on the back for voting for 'the first black president', they jumped on Obama as a symbol, rather than as an actual person, and didn't look far past Biden's notorious observation that Obama was 'the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy' who made all the right progressivish noises. It helped he had very little record to gainsay their projections. (The devil has proven to be in the details.) 1500 characters does not suffice for a full analysis. But having seen the prospect of Warren becoming another 'symbol' candidate - another comparative tabula rasa on whom true believers can scrawl all their hopes and dreams for 'the first woman president' - I am relieved to see it subside a bit.
16
Lack of voting record and experience gave us Obama, people and the press didn't do their homework when he declared his run for the presidency, I pity those who actually believed all fo those beautiful catch phrases he put forth and his eloquent speeches, I was not fooled. NEver put his name to any meanignful legislation or vote on anything, 150+ "just present" votes didn't cut it for me for a future President of the United States, ignorance gave us Obama and we are seeing his inexperience daily. More's the pity for the rest of us who want a candidate who will put a stop to the madness that is Wall Street, the PAC's calling the shots, the foreign PACS dictating our foreign policy and the candidate who will stop at nothing to obtain the highest office in the land. That candidate does not exist except in our imagination. We need someone willing to work with both sides of the aisle and will put a stop to the greed of both parties and who is not beholden to special interest money. Looks like we're going to have to wait a long time for that person to come along.
6
The real pathos is, as bad as things get when push gets to shove Americans will habitually choose the "lesser of two evils" only to regret it later. Knowing that the 2016 Presidential Election will be between the "dynastic" clans of Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton is an exercise in futility of a most sorrowful nature. Seriously, is this the best we can come up with, two "retreaded" Beltway hacks with about as much "soul and inspiration" between them as a loaf of stale Wonder Bread? No wonder "truth, justice and the American way" is nothing but swill.
9
Ms Warren, a dream candidate,
But Hillary does seem our fate,
A centrist and hawk
Despite soothing talk,
Yet all Repub nominees grate!
But Hillary does seem our fate,
A centrist and hawk
Despite soothing talk,
Yet all Repub nominees grate!
4
For once, your rhyming actually makes sense.
Here's my suggestion to the Democrats; find someone who has executive, rather than legislative experience. I admire President Obama, and he has done well considering that he had to deal with the especially irrational Republicans. His legislative team, Reid and Pelosi, have been little help to him throughout his administration. Had President Obama possessed a few years of experience as a governor, he would be even more successful and would not have as hard a time as President.
Here's my suggestion to the Democrats; find someone who has executive, rather than legislative experience. I admire President Obama, and he has done well considering that he had to deal with the especially irrational Republicans. His legislative team, Reid and Pelosi, have been little help to him throughout his administration. Had President Obama possessed a few years of experience as a governor, he would be even more successful and would not have as hard a time as President.
2
The liberals' starry-eyed infatuation with Senator Warren betrays the sort of naivete that would doom the Democrats in a presidential election in which the fundamentals favor them to win. Instead of going with their already clear winner, they are going to start looking for "ideological purity" or "liberal bona fides", which they believe Clinton lacks. The result might be a tragic but unnecessary Ralph Nader redux fiasco. In brief, the liberals are, at the moment, characteristically looking the proverbial gift horse in the mouth.
Fortunately for the Dems, Ms. Warren is sharp and not as self-absorbed as would be politicians with half her potential to believe that she can possibly win against Clinton. Nate Cohn's analysis is right on the money and Ms. Warren would be the first to acknowledge it. Therefore, she won't run this time, but might 4 years later if the Dems should come up short. Or she'll just stay in the senate and retire as one the most effective senators the deliberative body has ever known, which is probably where her ambition currently and rightly lies...
Fortunately for the Dems, Ms. Warren is sharp and not as self-absorbed as would be politicians with half her potential to believe that she can possibly win against Clinton. Nate Cohn's analysis is right on the money and Ms. Warren would be the first to acknowledge it. Therefore, she won't run this time, but might 4 years later if the Dems should come up short. Or she'll just stay in the senate and retire as one the most effective senators the deliberative body has ever known, which is probably where her ambition currently and rightly lies...
38
Hillary, a 'clear winner'? Unlike Obama, she is a poor campaigner who makes a gaffe every other day. Unlike Obama, she is well into her golden years.
If the GOP puts up a good candidate, they will have the edge.
If the GOP puts up a good candidate, they will have the edge.
1
Many great candidates ran against Obama and he beat them all handily. Hillary came the closest.
But Hillary is a "clear winner" when she is matched against all the prospective Republicans. That is not something one can say about Ms. Warren...
But Hillary is a "clear winner" when she is matched against all the prospective Republicans. That is not something one can say about Ms. Warren...
if you're right, then you might as well kiss the millenials' vote goodbye right now. They are already disillusioned by the Obama who they campaigned for and the Obama who is governing... More of the same warmed over, neo-liberal policies aren't going to get the job done.
The most effective presidents have correspondingly powerful allies in Congress. Contrary to what some other commentators here have said, if Senator Warren looks short in her list of accomplishments in the Senate, I would advise this: take a look at the 54 cretins holding control of that chamber.
Democrats need to shore up their spine, period, but most especially in Congress. It's time they took back the legislative branch from the party trying to gerrymander themselves into permanent power. If House districts were also weighted by population density, right-wingers would have no chance. Currently, however, 1,000 voters in a rural, safe Republican district get the same 1 representative as 5,000 voters in an urban, Democratic district get.
While the Democrats definitely need more prospects for strong presidential candidates, Senator Warren could be far more effective in the near future as Majority Leader, with Bernie Sanders and Patty Murray in the No. 2 and 3 spots. Here's hoping...
Democrats need to shore up their spine, period, but most especially in Congress. It's time they took back the legislative branch from the party trying to gerrymander themselves into permanent power. If House districts were also weighted by population density, right-wingers would have no chance. Currently, however, 1,000 voters in a rural, safe Republican district get the same 1 representative as 5,000 voters in an urban, Democratic district get.
While the Democrats definitely need more prospects for strong presidential candidates, Senator Warren could be far more effective in the near future as Majority Leader, with Bernie Sanders and Patty Murray in the No. 2 and 3 spots. Here's hoping...
4
I have voted for Senator Warren twice and like her liberal views on financial and tax reform. I have no passion for Mrs. Cllinton, although I assume she will be head and shoulders above any GOP candidate.
But, although I much prefer her to Mrs. Clinton, I fear Mrs. Warren's "nanny state" personal style make her an unlikely popular national figure.
Moreover, the Democrats lose without a centrist candidate--as do the Republicans--and Hillary has that sport. Liberals need to keep the pressure on her, particularly in foreign policy where we need to shift away from failed internationalism to a more America-first realism.
But, although I much prefer her to Mrs. Clinton, I fear Mrs. Warren's "nanny state" personal style make her an unlikely popular national figure.
Moreover, the Democrats lose without a centrist candidate--as do the Republicans--and Hillary has that sport. Liberals need to keep the pressure on her, particularly in foreign policy where we need to shift away from failed internationalism to a more America-first realism.
10
The issue is not about getting a Democrat elected as president. The issue is to put forth the best person as candidate. Elizabeth Warren clearly has the lead, as an outstanding person, who is willing, able and ready to fight the fight for the common people of the USA and not just out for personal gain, as Mrs. Clinton appears to be.
7
This phrase raises the hair on my neck every time I read or hear it: “inevitable” Democratic nominee. If I were to cast a vote for Mrs. Clinton it would be because the other candidates on the ballot were too hideous to contemplate as POTUS. Frankly, I am tired of voting for the least horrible candidate.
President Obama represented a center-left candidate who offered something different than the Bush/Clinton template. I am proud to have voted for him. The fact that he stayed cool under the worst conditions and steered the nation back into calmer waters is amazing, much to the chagrin of a vocal minority.
While I do find Ms. Warren appealing on some levels, I think she is not centrist enough. I personally do not want more wasted years over partisan fights by either the right or left. We need to pull the center together and make progress on important issues like infrastructure repair/improvement, sustainable industries and jobs, tax and election funding reforms, real education improvements, conservation of water resources, better interactions between different groups and such. We've allowed ourselves to be divided, time to unite and make the country better for all.
President Obama represented a center-left candidate who offered something different than the Bush/Clinton template. I am proud to have voted for him. The fact that he stayed cool under the worst conditions and steered the nation back into calmer waters is amazing, much to the chagrin of a vocal minority.
While I do find Ms. Warren appealing on some levels, I think she is not centrist enough. I personally do not want more wasted years over partisan fights by either the right or left. We need to pull the center together and make progress on important issues like infrastructure repair/improvement, sustainable industries and jobs, tax and election funding reforms, real education improvements, conservation of water resources, better interactions between different groups and such. We've allowed ourselves to be divided, time to unite and make the country better for all.
2
Elizabeth Warren is progressive/liberal on a number of issues, but on others, especially foreign/military policy, she is not.
Mrs. Clinton will probably win the Democratic nomination for the presidency, but will be pitted against the enormous wealth and power of the Republican Party.
With voter suppression probably coming into play in many states, and the penchant for voters to vote against their own self-interests, a far right-wing government is quite likely in the U.S.
Mrs. Clinton will probably win the Democratic nomination for the presidency, but will be pitted against the enormous wealth and power of the Republican Party.
With voter suppression probably coming into play in many states, and the penchant for voters to vote against their own self-interests, a far right-wing government is quite likely in the U.S.
9
The United States had a population of 318 million in 2014. Of that numberv 235 million were of voting age of which 54.9% might participate in a national election. In all those 54% of 235 million the Democrats and Republicans cannot come up with any candidate with a surname other than Bush or Clinton. Simply amazing.
In the upcoming primary in my state I'll vote for any candidate that does not have one of these last names. If it comes to a general election In Nicember 2016 with Clinton vs Bush I won't bother going to the polls. In fact if George the Third (of Great Brittain) were running as an independent I'd vote for him.
In the upcoming primary in my state I'll vote for any candidate that does not have one of these last names. If it comes to a general election In Nicember 2016 with Clinton vs Bush I won't bother going to the polls. In fact if George the Third (of Great Brittain) were running as an independent I'd vote for him.
7
Well, what percent of that 235 million has heard of Elizabeth Warren? About 2% would be my guess. Whereas at least 60-70% have heard of Hillary Clinton.
Teddy Roosevelt, wildly popular as he was, lost to Wilson because Roosevelt had no organization. Some think Warren is better than Clinton. But winning is everything and Warren cannot win. Hilary has only a 50 50 chance of winning. But think of a GOP presidency. Yikes!
15
As Ms. Clinton's husband once said, "it's the economy, stupid." Elizabeth Warren's opening is her primary focus: economics and economic justice, an area that is of vital importance to a middle-class still ravaged by the excesses of the American Oligarchs that both Clinton and Bush are beholden to. Focus on taming out-of-control corporations, including and especially banks, and Sen. Warren would become President Warren.
51
The United States isn't France. Huge monopolistic corporations own the media outlets. They will spin and spin and spin until they crush Elizabeth Warren. She's a kitten blinking at an oncoming freight train.
They cannot afford to let her win. As simple as that. If people want Jeb Bush as our next president, go ahead with the Elizabeth Warren campaign. After another eight years of a Bush we'll be Fiefdoms where the majority of us are serfs barely eking by.
They cannot afford to let her win. As simple as that. If people want Jeb Bush as our next president, go ahead with the Elizabeth Warren campaign. After another eight years of a Bush we'll be Fiefdoms where the majority of us are serfs barely eking by.
1
Very interesting assessment. Watching the rise of Elizabeth Warren in our state suggests several things. She has not had real authority or management experience. Hilary Clinton is seasoned far beyond that. Senator Warren also has corporate ties, which is where her wealth came from, and where she can seem elitist to many factions of the Democratic party - especially those in Western "blueish" states. Reading the speeches of both, one finds Senator Warren rests mainly on attack, Hilary Clinton has shifted fundamentally to building the future.
Leaders and managers of large organizations need visceral credibility to sustain trust. Hilary Clinton skis close the edges, and sometimes goes over the embankment, but Senator Warren lacks real depth and stays mainly on a narrow path, using anger to break through the media clutter.
Leaders and managers of large organizations need visceral credibility to sustain trust. Hilary Clinton skis close the edges, and sometimes goes over the embankment, but Senator Warren lacks real depth and stays mainly on a narrow path, using anger to break through the media clutter.
14
You're citing Warren's corporate ties? Who received more dollars from the healthcare lobbies than anyone else in the Democratic party during the creation of the ACA? Hillary Clinton did. As far as her management experience, she failed the biggest test of leadership she faced - the Iraq war vote. She did the politically expedient thing at the time. What is this "depth" that you're referring to? Hillary Clinton is the epitome of a "machine" candidate. It's her turn.
3
I just finished Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle." Published in 1906, and almost everything still relevant as so little has changed. Especially pertinent was the link/ownership of the political parties by the business trusts.
Considering a choice of Hilary vs any of the foul Republicans, I see no real choice. It's possible the republican might be that repulsive to me that I cast a vote against him. But more likely, on Election Day I'll be on my bicycle on a century ride contemplating the opportunities of untold generations that were lost to greed.
Considering a choice of Hilary vs any of the foul Republicans, I see no real choice. It's possible the republican might be that repulsive to me that I cast a vote against him. But more likely, on Election Day I'll be on my bicycle on a century ride contemplating the opportunities of untold generations that were lost to greed.
15
Thus ceding the Supreme Court to the Republicans while you envision yourself pure and above it all.
34
No vote, no complaining. I'm sure you've heard that rule.
3
You're the one ceding the SCOTUS if you truly believe that Senator Warren has a better chance to win the presidency in 2016 than Senator/Secretary/First Lady Clinton...
2
When assessing Elizabeth Warrens possible disadvantages as a candidate it seems unwise to overlook the simple matter of name recognition. Early polling in 2007 leaned heavily in Mrs.Clinton's favor, due in large part to the same factors that now would challenge Warren.
Unlike the Republicons in the usual baker's dozen of candidates, Democrats still enjoy distinct electoral map advantages along with a certain and sure demographic momentum. Democrats should encourage and embrace the benefits of attention, time and diversity of views that an expanded pool of hopefuls will bring. Seeking to preemptively project an eventual winner at this stage is folly, unless you are Mrs.Clinton.
Unlike the Republicons in the usual baker's dozen of candidates, Democrats still enjoy distinct electoral map advantages along with a certain and sure demographic momentum. Democrats should encourage and embrace the benefits of attention, time and diversity of views that an expanded pool of hopefuls will bring. Seeking to preemptively project an eventual winner at this stage is folly, unless you are Mrs.Clinton.
2
Personally, I am not for candidates Clinton or Warren. Candidates shouldn't be considered because they are "inevitable" or potentially the first woman president. They should be nominated because they have good ideas, a foreign policy that best serves our country, experience, truthfulness, are ethical, don't have ties to big business and have the ability to reach out to connect with potential voters on a personal level. The Democratic Party needs to be bold and break away from the tired old mold. The best potential candidate that has my heart and mind is Bernie Sanders.
45
In your dreams! And he could not possibly win.
Two problems with Sanders, though: less known nationally than Warren, and likely too old.
Sen.Sanders is hardworking, ethical, progressive, effective. He is honorable and admiral. Sadly, he's too old to begin eight grueling Presidential years.
1
Seemingly a comprehensive analysis. Yet, elections are not won or lost with all those additive factors. The excitement and the spirit the parties bring to the competition say the last word! Obama's youthful, hopeful, soaring rhetoric and promising a better future won him the election.
Warren has sizzling, crackling energy, she looks and acts mid-forties, and suggests supreme confidence and indefatigable populism. American people at this time have grave doubts about the governments role in our public life. They are hungry for genuine trustworthy voice, fresh face and honest confidence.
People's belief is Warren wants to be president to rescue the hijacked American middle class values, and Hillary Clinton wants to be president to glorify and justify Hillary, and establish a dynasty reeking sleaze and unbridled ambition.
Alas, there is no one in the Republican side who could make the rogue congress stop and listen to reason and put the country ahead of their ISIS like dogma, and racist treatment of a president 56 million of us voted in. They continue damaging the country; a three-month senator who probably hasn't figured his way to cafeteria from a southern state thinks statesmanship is to sabotage something the Black president is about to do and get credit for.
Warren has sizzling, crackling energy, she looks and acts mid-forties, and suggests supreme confidence and indefatigable populism. American people at this time have grave doubts about the governments role in our public life. They are hungry for genuine trustworthy voice, fresh face and honest confidence.
People's belief is Warren wants to be president to rescue the hijacked American middle class values, and Hillary Clinton wants to be president to glorify and justify Hillary, and establish a dynasty reeking sleaze and unbridled ambition.
Alas, there is no one in the Republican side who could make the rogue congress stop and listen to reason and put the country ahead of their ISIS like dogma, and racist treatment of a president 56 million of us voted in. They continue damaging the country; a three-month senator who probably hasn't figured his way to cafeteria from a southern state thinks statesmanship is to sabotage something the Black president is about to do and get credit for.
199
Very well said! Bravo!
2
Re: "Obama's youthful, hopeful, soaring rhetoric and promising a better future won him the election."
Obama was an electrifying campaigner but like many politicians he promised more than he could deliver. Promises, promises about a better future that isn't on the horizon. And I'm not alluding to the recent improvement to the economy but the long term future for average citizens.
Obama was an electrifying campaigner but like many politicians he promised more than he could deliver. Promises, promises about a better future that isn't on the horizon. And I'm not alluding to the recent improvement to the economy but the long term future for average citizens.
3
Yes, it is clear that you are not referring to the economy that rebounded from the crashed-and-burned stage to almost normally functioning one.. No, we cannot credit Mr. Obama for all of the recovery: some of it is cyclical. But if the right measures were not put in place in the right time we could have found ourselves in a deep and scary recession. And we did not.
What you have in mind is not difficult to understand. The pie is not sliced with economic fairness in mind. That is strictly due to the previously tweaked economic institutions: when the administration in power sets the scales (read it as economic institutions) in their favor, mere change of political party in power cannot fix the underlying maladies. Think of all the banking, tax, and the wall street regulations Republicans put in place and Democrats never had enough of a majority to fix them.
A health care bill, however it has been repealed close to five dozen times by the House of Representatives! This should tell you something. The wealth owners are fighting back!
What you have in mind is not difficult to understand. The pie is not sliced with economic fairness in mind. That is strictly due to the previously tweaked economic institutions: when the administration in power sets the scales (read it as economic institutions) in their favor, mere change of political party in power cannot fix the underlying maladies. Think of all the banking, tax, and the wall street regulations Republicans put in place and Democrats never had enough of a majority to fix them.
A health care bill, however it has been repealed close to five dozen times by the House of Representatives! This should tell you something. The wealth owners are fighting back!
2
Sen. Warren has stated repeated that she's not running. Why do so many not believe her?
For what it's worth, I'm proud to have her as one of my senators. I don't want her to run for President. She is a powerful voice in the Senate. I fear a run for president would undercut that. If she chose to run I think she would have trouble building a coalition, would lose the primary badly, and that the loss would undercut the influence she has now.
For what it's worth, I'm proud to have her as one of my senators. I don't want her to run for President. She is a powerful voice in the Senate. I fear a run for president would undercut that. If she chose to run I think she would have trouble building a coalition, would lose the primary badly, and that the loss would undercut the influence she has now.
107
Did Ted Kennedy lose influence in the senate, in the wake of his 1980 run against Jimmy Carter?
I think it would be a mistake for Elizabeth Warren to not run this time round. Running for office would allow her to test her candidacy, ability and message and then fine tune it if she does not succeed this time. The experience gained from running a campaign would be far more valuable than the safe choice of staying out of the picture. I'm also fairly certain that if Hillary made the wise choice to step down in favor of Warren, that would be good for the Democratic party and for the nation. Here's why. A Clinton campaign will run into pre-existing issues that will lose her a good chunk of voters even a year before the polls. The well-oiled machinery of "conservative" media will swing into effect and all but destroy her credibility by making use of real issues related to the Clintons - the Lewinsky scandal, the impeachment, Benghazi and e-mail-gate. Having all of those issue brought back into the limelight will be regressive for the national debate and draw attention away from real problems like unemployment, taxation and rogue banks/industry.
Instead of running for President, Hillary should nominate Warren and deploy her considerable resources in helping Warren win. That would be the better choice on her part.
Instead of running for President, Hillary should nominate Warren and deploy her considerable resources in helping Warren win. That would be the better choice on her part.
78
So the Democrats should let the Republicans set the agenda, focus on the issues that the Republicans think are relevant and even let them pick the Democratic candidate.
I hope not.
I hope not.
2
@Mike Edwards - I think the democrats should pick someone who has a realistic chance in the polls. Personally, I think Hillary does not. And where did you get the idea that Warren would be picked by Republicans? If anything, she is their nemesis.
@Peace - I do think the GOP would consider Warren a much easier opponent. She has less name recognition, a relatively small number of core supporters, and can be easily attacked for lack of experience. The number of people who obsess about the sins of the financial industry is much smaller than you suppose, while millions of voters earn their living in the financial industry.
Mrs. Warren's economic policies are excellent.
However she has no chance of winning the general election given her lack of foreign policy experience and her limited Senate experience.
I would like to know more about Mrs. Clinton's views on foreign policy and economic policy including regulation of the financial sector and the need for fiscal stimulus.
I would like to ask the other candidates in both parties the same questions.
Perhaps the Times could ask the candidates these questions.
However she has no chance of winning the general election given her lack of foreign policy experience and her limited Senate experience.
I would like to know more about Mrs. Clinton's views on foreign policy and economic policy including regulation of the financial sector and the need for fiscal stimulus.
I would like to ask the other candidates in both parties the same questions.
Perhaps the Times could ask the candidates these questions.
2
A lack of foreign policy experience should still make her competitive against Hillary Clinton, given that the latter has experience, but no demonstrated ability during her tenure as Secretary of State. Even Hillary criticized the foreign policy of the Obama administration, shortly after her exit from the State Department. Ever since Richard Holbrooke died, Hillary could not find the US on a map.
7
A lack of Senate experience and foreign polic experience didn't hurt Obama did it? We are paying for that now. No real immigration reform, certainly no tax reform and never will we have campaign reform. Promises, promises.
1
I don't see Hillary Clinton can use her foreign policy experience as a trump card, given that she voted to authorize the Iraq invasion.
5
This article is based on a highly questionable presumption of comparisons; between potential candidates and time frames. No Ms. Warren isn't President Obama and 2008 isn't 2015 or 2016. The real question facing progressives and the Democratic National Party isn't whether Ms. Warren could generate enough support to win in the primaries but why, given this is Ms. Clinton's potential second attempt at the Presidency, are a growing number of progressive votes less than enthusiastic about her presumption nomination.
The last election should have placed leaders of the Democratic Party of the crucial necessity of providing both candidates and a political agenda which will energize their base to vote. Ms. Clinton's presumptive anointing as the Democratic Presidential nominee to date has generated more polarization then voter activation.
The last election should have placed leaders of the Democratic Party of the crucial necessity of providing both candidates and a political agenda which will energize their base to vote. Ms. Clinton's presumptive anointing as the Democratic Presidential nominee to date has generated more polarization then voter activation.
73
Dems need to wake up to cold reality: its front runner is an also-ran. Now is the time for the party to turn to the candidate with the energy and the ideas. That is Elizabeth Warren.
187
Hopefully, the Democrats will realize that anyone could win against any possible Republican challenger. If the Democrats get over their inferiority complex. they will hopefully try to run someone who truly represents Democratic values instead of running a slam-dunk candidate.
3
The writer of this article has omitted several elements that were present for Mr. Obama and which were important components of his success in 2008.
1) the fawning support of the mainstream media.
2) the endorsement of Oprah Winfrey - who at the time had far more influence than she wields now.
3) the financial crisis that had struck the US economy 2 months prior to the 2008 election and which had tarred the then-sitting Republican president George W. Bush and the Republican "brand"
4) Mr. Obama was a top-notch campaigner - unfortunately, his inexperience and his lack of judgment have undermined his Presidency. He is better at golfing than at governing - which was not apparent at the time.
5) People will be suffering from buyer's remorse about any new unproven candidate - the naivety that Candidate Obama was able to tap into is in shorter supply today.
1) the fawning support of the mainstream media.
2) the endorsement of Oprah Winfrey - who at the time had far more influence than she wields now.
3) the financial crisis that had struck the US economy 2 months prior to the 2008 election and which had tarred the then-sitting Republican president George W. Bush and the Republican "brand"
4) Mr. Obama was a top-notch campaigner - unfortunately, his inexperience and his lack of judgment have undermined his Presidency. He is better at golfing than at governing - which was not apparent at the time.
5) People will be suffering from buyer's remorse about any new unproven candidate - the naivety that Candidate Obama was able to tap into is in shorter supply today.
42
"The financial crisis that had struck the economy two months prior to the 2008 election"
Are we still in that crisis? Given that the Dow is over 18,000 and unemployment at 5.5%, there are grounds for thinking that we are not.
Could be, then, that Oprah made a pretty good call.
Are we still in that crisis? Given that the Dow is over 18,000 and unemployment at 5.5%, there are grounds for thinking that we are not.
Could be, then, that Oprah made a pretty good call.
41
Alex ~ I think the NYT should recommend your comment!
4
Don't base economic success on the stock market. We've seen that nightmare before. Also, do you truly believe the UE rate is at 5.5%?
2
People seem to think that people can "learn on the job" to be President. From an experience point of view, Elizabeth Warren is less qualified than Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, or any of the republican governors (who I also don't like, BTW).
The press has hyped Elizabeth Warren and have refused to examine her critically. Further, Elizabeth Warren hasn't really accomplished much in her area of expertise! Why should we entrust her with more responsibility when she has failed to deliver on the promises she has already made?
The press has hyped Elizabeth Warren and have refused to examine her critically. Further, Elizabeth Warren hasn't really accomplished much in her area of expertise! Why should we entrust her with more responsibility when she has failed to deliver on the promises she has already made?
22
I take your point about experience, but I am an independent and would never consider voting for Huckabee or Walker. They are too conservative, and I don't see an ultraconservative winning in 2016. The GOP might even do something really stupid and include David Petraeus in the mix. The party's win in fall 2014 gave them false confidence, They need to think in terms of who turns out for presidential elections.
10
surges--
Absolutely agree. While we libs may back Warren today---primarily in the hope of moving the Dem platform to the left---many of us would not vote for Warren if she had a serious chance to win the presidency. That is too serious an office for someone inexperienced.
Look what has happened in our zeal to have an outsider in office. People who never held national office (governors such as Reagan, Carter and Bush)have had a good deal of difficulty handling national and world politics. There are exceptions (Bill Clinton) but electing somone with no national experience is an enormous risk. One of these days we may pay a big price for wanting the outsider in office.
Absolutely agree. While we libs may back Warren today---primarily in the hope of moving the Dem platform to the left---many of us would not vote for Warren if she had a serious chance to win the presidency. That is too serious an office for someone inexperienced.
Look what has happened in our zeal to have an outsider in office. People who never held national office (governors such as Reagan, Carter and Bush)have had a good deal of difficulty handling national and world politics. There are exceptions (Bill Clinton) but electing somone with no national experience is an enormous risk. One of these days we may pay a big price for wanting the outsider in office.
14
Obama re-dux, the press latched on to Obama like he was the second coming and never bothered to actually see his lack of experience. I watched every debate and they lobbed so many softballs his way while pressing Hillary on every response she gave. And yet the voters ate it up and handed Obama his first and then second victory. Unbelievable. And as others have stated the dow at an all time high and unemployment at 5.5% great numbers but Obama didn't create those jobs nor did he propel the Dow but you can't tell that to the left, so we are stuck with an idealogy of perhaps having the firs female to win the Presidency based on what exactly?
4
That any progressive, Warren or Bernie Sanders, would struggle to build a coalition, is not a reason not to try.
The purpose of a progressive candidate is to make sensible policy suggestions that are coherent and aren't simply political expedients.
If we end up with Hillary, triangulation and expediency will rule the day, America's economic inequality will intensify, and our national spiral downward in stature will accelerate.
The purpose of a progressive candidate is to make sensible policy suggestions that are coherent and aren't simply political expedients.
If we end up with Hillary, triangulation and expediency will rule the day, America's economic inequality will intensify, and our national spiral downward in stature will accelerate.
282
I see very little difference between Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton. Same, with different "hats"! Bernie Sanders would be good for the country. But, I do not believe in miracles! The country has to get it right!
2
I would prefer Warren over Hiliary Clinton, but then I will need to be reassured that Warren is not also a hawk, who gives knee jerk support to our military defense complex and what amounts to our structure of oligarchy in foreign policy based on fossil fuels. So far I prefer Bernie Sanders. I am sick of the talk of coronations. We do not need families entrenched in power, any more than we need to have kings and queens. This is not a small matter. With the energy structure of our world economy facing huge change, we need someone willing to look beyond fossil fuels and get this country up to date with renewables, modern transit and communication for the public. Without some investment, we will be left out in the cold while the rest of the world already has a leg up because they have invested heavily in renewables starting a decade ago.
98
That sort of talk is what I refer to Ralph Nader Redux or a recipe for disaster that would for sure put a Republican in the White House, thus ceding the SCOTUS to push the right-wing agenda for years to come. The latter thought alone should make you or any progressive value the ability to win (Clinton) over "ideological purity' (Warren, Sanders)!
1
Elizabeth Warren is no Hillary Clinton. Sen. Warren speaks truth to Wall Street power and she understands the rage middle-class and working-class Americas have for the excesses of the big banks. She taps into that rage by speaking clearly and truthfully about the pain and suffering that the 0.1% have inflicted on the rest of the population. That deep-felt anger is a powerful emotion that Hillary Clinton does not understand and does not possess. Americans feel fleeced and exploited by the kleptocracy that Mrs. Clinton is a part of and that she has embraced. Elizabeth Warren presents a fresh face; she speaks the truth without couching her words and she does not come across as just another politician opportunist that will spout any falsehood to get votes.
I believe Mr. Cohn greatly underestimates the anger that Americans have for the wrongs committed by financial the industry. Nate Cohn doesn't understand that Warren is a centrist progressive by historical American standards. She would take down any of the right wing Republican charlatans in national debates. Americans still respect honesty wrapped in passion. Elizabeth Warren could defeat Mrs. Clinton and any of the occupants of the Republican clown car.
I believe Mr. Cohn greatly underestimates the anger that Americans have for the wrongs committed by financial the industry. Nate Cohn doesn't understand that Warren is a centrist progressive by historical American standards. She would take down any of the right wing Republican charlatans in national debates. Americans still respect honesty wrapped in passion. Elizabeth Warren could defeat Mrs. Clinton and any of the occupants of the Republican clown car.
450
Speaking truth to power does not necessarily make one a good leader once you are the one in power.
4
Senator Warren is a modern day Norman Thomas, and he almost won!
Even if she raises the funds for the campaign, it could backfire! Is she ready? Let us see what the rest of the Democrats say. The party has to make it right. Nobody wants Bush dynasty, or Rubio,etc. . Unfortunately, the good candidates are independent.
1
I found the lack of analysis of the economy and the concentration of capital as a potential rallying point for a new center-driven politics to be odd. Our country has been captured by oligarchs and is in a potential economic death spiral for the previously middle class citizen. It should not be difficult to wrest control from the right-wing values ideologues by clearly demonstrating that their politics are driving the country to economic ruin.
234
"It should not be difficult to wrest control from the right-wing values ideologues by clearly demonstrating that their politics are driving the country to economic ruin." I have to take issue with this perspective, as reality trumps opinion.
As long as the Democrats remain disorganized, hypocritical and all too often not willing to actually go and cast a vote, they will lose elections to those with religious fervor and an undying belief that they are "right" who do show up for even the smallest elections.
As long as the Democrats remain disorganized, hypocritical and all too often not willing to actually go and cast a vote, they will lose elections to those with religious fervor and an undying belief that they are "right" who do show up for even the smallest elections.
9
I agree with everything except that it "should not be difficult." Ideologues tend to be impervious to reason, and the extent of the current right/left animus shouldn't be underestimated. It has people really dug in.
1
I think Elizabeth Warren is very content in her current role as one of the Democratic Party's most trusted voices on economic issues, Wall Street and banking reform, and as someone who is viewed with great credibility by the middle class. By specializing, instead of feverishly trying to learn foreign policy through mammoth briefing books or wading more deeply into social issues, she maximizes her impact. Voters trust her, in part, because they don't see her as someone who came to DC, as the old line goes, to do good before doing well (for herself). She wonderfully gives a sincere impression of not wanting to join DC's permanent lobbyist-consultant-other lucrative venture class after retiring from the Senate. One intriguing question, however, is if Hillary Clinton, who has nervously courted her support in recent months, were to offer her the vice presidential slot on the ticket, would she take it? Other political analysts on other sites have pointed out Ms. Warren's frustrations with the legislature's inertia and even counterproductive nature. Could she do more as veep? Would she welcome a chance to take a shot at serious reforms in the areas in which she is most versed and passionate if given the opportunity? It would take some real guts for the Clintons to decide on Warren, but it would induce the party to become more excited about their restoration. And it might also be more likely lead to a "surge" among women voters for Dems all the way down the ballot in 2016.
132
Matt-
Afraid that a ticket of two northeastern females is not balanced enough to win a national election.
In addition, if Warren ran with one of Walmarts and Wall Streets biggest supporters, she would immediately lose the credibility that had originally made her popular. It is better that Warren remains in the senate, and prevents Hilary from moving as far to the cener-right as she would like to do.
Afraid that a ticket of two northeastern females is not balanced enough to win a national election.
In addition, if Warren ran with one of Walmarts and Wall Streets biggest supporters, she would immediately lose the credibility that had originally made her popular. It is better that Warren remains in the senate, and prevents Hilary from moving as far to the cener-right as she would like to do.
10
After living in MA for the past 20 years, all I can say is I most certainly would not vote for Warren: For example - she claims she is an advocate for the poor and the middle class, but she refused to sign the Harvard student petition sking Harvard to pay better wages to their Maintenance and Housekeeping staff. Also, it remains an unsettled issue whether or not she was truthful about her 'aboriginal status' to obtain affirmative action status.
She is not known as a team player which is one of Obama's biggest downfalls.
She is not known as a team player which is one of Obama's biggest downfalls.
7
She already had been hired when she truthfully answered a question as to whether she had any Native American ancestry. Anyone who knows any Oklahoma history knows that it would not be unusual. To say she tried to claim some "affirmative action" advantage, given that she already was a member of the Harvard faculty, simply is another Republican imaginary tale that has been repeated so often that is believed by people who don't bother to check what actually happened
37
Guess what America....the world is not afraid of the U.S. We waste billions of dollars on giving military aid to Egypt, Pakistan, Etc for what reason. Do you think they respect us? No, they use The United States for the money. And this is smart foreign policy. It is the 21 st century and our foreign policy needs to evolve not devolve.
Warren like Obama would not assume the past foreign policy practices works in today's world. They don't and never will again. Politicians like John McCain and Lindsey Grahm are relics.
We need to focus on the citizens of the US first and foremost. Stop sending our tax dollars abroad to countries who could care less about democracy.
Elect a president who does care how our tax dollars are spent.