Skip to main content

"[I]t's becoming increasingly clear that [Clinton] would face an easier path to the White House than anyone since Eisenhower, and maybe even since Thomas Jefferson," says Kos and well, he's not alone. "If I've talked to a Democrat who doesn't want her to run, I can't remember it," James Carville told the Daily Beast a couple of weeks ago. "The classic thing to say about presidential elections is that Democrats are looking to fall in love and that Republicans fall in line. This time, it's the Democrats who are falling in line, and the Republicans are looking for somebody to fall in love with."

So the very serious members of the Washington echo chamber say Hillary Clinton will be the next nominee; many people involved in the Netroots believe and want Clinton will be the next nominee; heck, even the polling says Hillary Clinton will likely be the next nominee.

So why should Senator Warren find it impossible to pass up running for President in 2016?

Because I've got her back.

Follow me over the fold.

1. It's Warren's time. Obama was dealt a tough hand. The economy and housing market were in utter meltdown, Detroit was on the verge of collapse, American manufacturing was getting hammered and we were fighting two wars. I don't blame Obama for not being able to usher support for fundamental financial reforms. He was too busy fighting against slipping into another depression and the fact that we aren't in a depression is an accomplishment in itself. Indeed, maybe half measures were the best course of action just to get things running again.

It seems now that we're at the beginning of a long term growth cycle. American manufacturing is just starting to take off again and many companies are starting to in-source now that there are declining spreads between the cost of overseas and domestic labor. Now is the time to make fundamental changes to the financial system to protect against bubbles for the next twenty years.

Warren is the best politician I've ever witnessed at explaining the economy and the banking system in terms everyone can understand, without glossing over complexities. She singlehandedly has shown me that a populist is just a person who needs to resort to an over-simplified vision of why things happen because they lack the abilities of persuasion to provide the whole truth. Warren's gift is her ability to create a compelling narrative that ties together complex themes.

Warren gives us a puncher's chance at real financial reforms. That ain't much but at least it's a start. Warren would also push the Department of Justice to target financial crimes with the same zeal they prosecute violent crimes. Can any of you imagine any other politician, Clinton included, who can provide that opportunity? Clinton wouldn't even promise to try to enact real changes in banking laws and at the Department of Justice, for fear of cutting off the spigot of banking donations.

2. I'm a hard working American. It's important for the sake of honesty that you know that part of this about holding a grudge. "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," Clinton told USA Today in an interview before the 2008 West Virginia primary. Clinton cited an AP poll which "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," Clinton said, and she was correct -- a pattern of Clinton, herself, using race baiting as an attempt to divide the primary electorate and eek out victory. I realize that politics is a contact sport and that all is fair in primaries. That doesn't mean I have to forget how she tried to leverage racial attacks like a Republican before the South Carolina primary to push the good people of West Virginia to the polls. I take solace in the fact that Clinton was wrong and that Obama appears to have built a coalition of the plurality of non-Caucasian "others" who should ensure the Democratic party retains the Presidency for the next generation.

I'm a hard working American. I'll say it proudly, brown skin and all. I don't have millions of dollars to fund a Superpac or sway over Superdelegates.

I have two hands, and they're good at knocking on doors. Two feet, and they're good at pounding pavement. I have a heart, and I'm ready to forcefully argue on your behalf.

And if it takes traveling a couple of hours to New Hampshire to knock on 100 doors, 1,000 doors, 10,000 doors to show Secretary Clinton how hard working of an American I am, so be it. Senator Warren, I've got your back.

How could you ever pass on 2016?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I will be sad to watch her (7+ / 0-)

    get swept aside by the combined Clinton-Obama campaigning machine.  Especially because I will be actively working to sweep her aside.  /sadpanda

    ...now if Clinton opts out, I'll be more open-minded.  

    Thankfully, there is no way Warren enters the race part-way into her very first term in public office.  That's more of a Palin thing to do.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 10:40:31 AM PDT

  •  Barack Obama wrote a book when young. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DaNang65, TooFolkGR

    When I read it the way for a Senate freshman became possible. He ran against Hillary Clinton and won.

    You may be right and I will vote for our candidate.

  •  Easily. The People of Massachusetts (13+ / 0-)

    want her to stay as Senator, and I think she wants to be the Sheriff of Wall Street in the Senate where hopefully she can spend a few decades making banksters sweat because Liz Warren will probably eventually become Banking Chair.

    Massachusetts would prefer to not to have to keep turning over our politicians.   There are plenty of great women.   Like Amy Klobacher from Minnesota.

    I agree with President Obama, our country's journey is not yet complete. We must continue the work that our forebearers at Seneca Falls started, and put the Equal Rights Amendment into our Constitution.

    by pistolSO on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 10:44:31 AM PDT

  •  If she ran an issue oriented campaign (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jrooth, TooFolkGR, science nerd

    that was not all  about how bad Hillary is (assuming Hillary runs),  it would be ok though I think it would be a mistake.

    The focus would be  about how she is challenging Clinton, not about the issues imo.

  •  Warren ran for the Senate (12+ / 0-)

    She didn't run to qualify for the next Presidential election. That's not who she is. She'll stay in office, let others duke it out, and run for re-election to the Senate in 2018.

    You have to be a bit crazy to want to be President; Elizabeth Warren is far too sane.

  •  Because Clinton has proven herself (3+ / 0-)

    I love Elizabeth Warren.  But Hillary Clinton has proven herself.  

    She will bring all sorts of constituencies with her that did not vote Democratic in 2012 and probably bring the House if Obama hasn't already brought it in 2014.  

    When you have an Ike-type candidate guaranteed to win, you don't overlook that.  You embrace it.  She will have all sorts of political capital.  

  •  Gee, I just went back and noticed (4+ / 0-)

    the pretty ugly Clinton-slamming in this diary.

    Isn't it a little early for us to be stabbing fellow Democrats in the back, folks? Especially since we have no notion whether Hillary Clinton is even going to toss her hat into the ring, or not.

  •  lets not get carried away with warren yet (9+ / 0-)

    she's been in the senate for a matter of weeks, and so far has done a good job of upbraiding witnesses during hearings. but aside from red meat for the blogosphere, i'm not sure what making nice speeches in committee sessions actually accomplishes.

    for 2016 to be someones "time," that person needs to be ready for the challenge. i dont know how much attention you paid to the MA senate election, but the plain fact is that warren was terrible as a candidate and, if it werent for initial the flurry of excitement and name recognition (and out of state dollars) that flooded in before she even hit the trail, i think elizabeth warren would be one of the most popular professors at harvard right now, and scott brown would be the senior senator from massachusetts.

    and, while in theory she will be a better progressive than clinton would be (i say "in theory" because i dont know that she's even cast a single vote, or sponsored a single bill yet), we really have no way of knowing what she is capable of accomplishing in a legislative setting, nevermind an executive role. remember when we thought barack obama was going to be the savior of the progressive left when he first came to the senate? well, hows chained CPI and the drone wars going? the public option is working out really well, too, right?

    let's just calm down a bit and admit that regardless of who you support, clinton, should she choose to run, is in a FAR better position to win in 2016 as things stand right now and for the foreseeable future.

    •  warren is ridiculous unqualified to be president (0+ / 0-)

      at this point. Let her get a least a senate term under her belt.

    •  true (0+ / 0-)

      she has yet to vote for senseless wars or bankruptcy debt peonage bills, the hallmark of a progressive record.

      •  She's yet to do much of anything (0+ / 0-)

        She's been a senator for all of about 10 weeks.  Hard to have accomplished anything, good or bad in that time, the way Congress works these days. Talk about a Warren presidency at this point is silly when we don't even know if she'll be an effective senator.

        •  being an effective senator is important (0+ / 0-)

          for being a senator. being an effective president takes a somewhat different skill set. that is one reason why most presidents have not been senators. obama has been a far more effective president than he was a senator, IMO. whether warren would be or not i have no idea, but i think it's the campaign that is the bigger stumbling block, to be honest. she's got a good narrative, though, and that counts for something.

          •  Point is (0+ / 0-)

            we have no idea whether she'll be an effective or even competent senator at this point. It's been about two months, give or take and the senate itself has accomplished almost nothing at that time. I hope she proves effective, but we actually have much basis to say whether she's effective at this point.

      •  you know who's a great progressive, too? (0+ / 0-)

        and i genuinely mean this: bernie sanders.

        HEY EVERYBODY 2016 IS BERNIE'S TIME!!!!!

        what i'm doing here is being realistic. i live in mass. i voted for warren. she was, and presumably will continue to be a terrible campaigner. she was utterly unlikable during the senate campaign, had an organization incapable of dealing with adversity, and basically repeated the same exact speech, complete with the same earnest head tilt, oh-so-earnest cadence, gestures, and even wording, for the duration of the campaign, no matter the audience or situation. it was maddening.

        hilary clinton, while not a progressive by most definitions, is inarguably the most accomplished former legislator in this country, and is head and shoulders above any comer, republican or democrat, man or woman, who could possibly decide to run in 2016. liz warren isnt going to win in texas -- or anywhere in the south. the map will look exactly the same for her as it did for obama, maybe worse. not so for clinton. her campaign would be a map-altering political event.

        i am talking about realities on the ground, not whose politics i like more. if hilary still wants it, she is going to crush the field in 2016. warren wont, and probably cant.

    •  I came away with a much different take. (0+ / 0-)

      Scott Brown was relatively popular up until the end of the election cycle, when he had fallen behind and was running scorched earth attack ads in a last minute attempt to get back in the race.

      Warren had name recognition among Dem primary voters, and that's probably the only way she cleared the primary. But she won the general against a well funded, better known and generally congenial opponent. And, as the first statewide woman candidate,Warren battled against and eventually triumphed over voter conceptions. That ain't easy, no matter how blue Massachusetts is.

      All of this is besides the point to an extent. Warren has a large enough donor base and name recognition to get her in the game. If she wants to run, she's going to get her fair shake to take Clinton down, regardless of how much institutional supports is already backing Clinton.

  •  I might (6+ / 0-)

    prefer Elizabeth Warren over Hillary, but honestly I think it is a little soon for her. This is her first elected office and she will only be a couple of years into it when she would have to begin running.

    Too bad she is not a couple of decades younger to give her more time to get some more experience as an elected official. However, she could still run in 2016 or 2020.

  •  You're being naive. (9+ / 0-)

    She needs to stay in the senate not only to pay her dues, but to generate relationships with the people she may need in the future to pass legislation. And unfortunately, to gather donors.

    Sequestration? GOP=Family Values, my ass.

    by blueoregon on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 11:00:07 AM PDT

  •  Hillary Clinton has earned the right... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan

    ...to be at the top of the ticket. This is coming from someone who could not have been more outraged at the embarrassment of a campaign she ran against Barack Obama and someone who is about has geeked at the thought of President Elizabeth Warren as I am President Hillary Clinton.

    Ms. Clinton has paid her dues and done the country proud as both Senator and Secretary of State. She'll have my vote and my energy in 2016. Ms. Warren will in 2024 ; )

    "Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
    -- Dr. Peter Venkman


    Join me, Anne C. Savage & LOLGOP at Eclectablog.com.

    by Eclectablog on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 11:03:21 AM PDT

  •  wasted effort (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    virginislandsguy

    she has no interest in running.

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 11:12:42 AM PDT

  •  She's be the first woman president *and* (0+ / 0-)

    the first native american president, which would be pretty cool.

  •  I take your point about Clinton (4+ / 0-)

    in 2008, who used the language of race-baiting during the early primaries.  Personally, I hold her responsible as the candidate, but believe it was her reliance on the operatives of her husband Bill Clinton, those like Mark Penn, who distorted her message and took over her campaign.  

    The language of race-baiting and triangulation is classic Bill Clinton - Dick Morris.  And Penn was a partner of Dick Morris and advised Bill Clinton in 1996, and Joe Lieberman in 2004.  After Penn left as Chief Strategist of the Hillary Clinton campaign and Hillary loyalists took over (like Mandy Grunwald) there was a tonal shift from the campaign itself.   Too late, and after too much damage was done, I believe.  Bill Clinton tried to run Hillary's campaign and he f-ed it up.  I was very critical of Hillary's campaign and the race baiting aspect of it.  

    But I believe she has redeemed herself, on her own, without the messy paws of DLC Bill Clinton.  I loved that she didn't tell Bill about Bin Laden, because she was SoS and he was just an ex-President.  

    I am a huge fan of Warren's, I live in Mass and want her to be this generations Ted Kennedy, the Lioness of the Senate.  I understand your support of Warren and your wariness of Clinton.  I, myself, believe Hillary has come into her own.  And I would be proud to vote for her, even as much as I love Joe Biden for his early and honest support of marriage equity.

    But what a great thing in American politics that we can now discuss at least two excellent possibilities for our party's Presidential candidates who are women who have, by real accomplishment and brains, earned our praise.

    "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of the United States of America -9.75 -6.87

    by Uncle Moji on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 11:18:59 AM PDT

    •  I remember things differently. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uncle Moji

      It seemed to me like the dog whistling followed the contours of the primaries. Clinton pushed the line of attack before South Carolina early in the process to see if she could know Obama out. And when that wasn't successful, she resorted to the attacks very late, after all the other states were gone and only WV and Kentucky remained, because the electorates of the two states are at least partially responsive to the tactics.

      I think there is a positive you can draw out of it. Clinton wants to be President more than anyone alive. She's an admirable fighter and we've at times had problems with Obama forcefully making his case.

      It's just not for me (and won't be for me.) I completely agree with your point about having two excellent women Presidential candidates. I don't think I would have ever anticipated this only decade ago.

  •  cool idea but she'll say no (0+ / 0-)

    If HRC doesn't run there will be Gillibrand and Biden. However if the Zeitgeist changes all bets are off. But baring a paradigm shift progressive wave in 2014 she'll stay where she is.

    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

    by jgnyc on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 11:25:51 AM PDT

  •  What if Smilin' Joe Biden got the 2016 nod (0+ / 0-)

    and Senator Warren were his VP running mate? There are legitimate questions about her limited political experience, but four or eight years as a dynamic number two could well clean that up.

    I'll vote for Mrs. Clinton should she win the nomination, but I'll be holding my nose over AUMF, the cluster bomb treaty, and more sacrifices to a fresh(wo)man senator's Presidential ambition.

  •  i like warren a whole lot (0+ / 0-)

    but am less sure about her ability to run a grueling national campaign, both because of her age and because of her lack of experience in the nuts and bolts of campaigning.

    ironically enough, i have the same doubts about clinton. the difference being that i would cheer a candidate warren, and oppose a candidate clinton.

    but my hunch is that the eventual nominee ends up being younger. i am positive that whoever wins the primary will have a compelling campaign narrative outside of "it's my turn" or "my victory is inevitable," though.

    the ground the 2016 primary is fought upon hasn't emerged just yet.

    •  clinton (0+ / 0-)

      has been in the midst of grueling campaigns for going on 30 years at this point. and while she ultimately lost the nomination in '08 after nearly crossing the finish line, she was a successful two-term senator, and played integral rolls in both of bill clintons presidential campaigns. she is the very definition of battle-tested.

      liz warren -- i will say again -- ran once, and ran the most listless, shiftless, nearly disastrous campaign you could possibly imagine. it was basically martha coakley part II with a better ending. while everything was wine and roses and awesome youtube clips here on dailykos last summer and fall, the reality in massachusetts is that her campaign was like an old station wagon stuck in the mud. if it weren't for the last minute reshuffling of her staff, a DISASTROUS series of debate performances by scott brown, and a relatively favorable demographic base, warren would have lost. with that in mind, i think there is simply no way on earth she can go into a red state, or even a so-called purple state, and appeal to swing voters. she might turn out to be a good legislator, but she is a demonstrably terrible campaigner.

      •  clinton was nowhere near the finish line in 08 (0+ / 0-)

        she had lost the delegate race back in february, and only kept racking up delegates because she stayed in the race after it was evident that she was not going to win, in vain hopes that the party insider superdelegates would choose to overrule the primary voters and caucusers, because she was owed the nomination. actively wooing right wing voters keen on ratfucking the primary system out of boredom after mccain won his race, to top it off. it was an exceptionally poor campaign, and the only seriously contested one she has run in, tellingly.

        every race she has run in has had her starting out with huge advantages. she did a terrible job in '08 IMO, and ran against nominal opposition in a safe state in '00 and '06. other than having huge corporate and big donor connections and universal name recognition, she hasn't really distinguished herself at all as a formidable campaigner. she'll be 8 years older in 2016, and the campaigning in a contested primary will take that much more of a toll on her. that is, i assume, why her backers are doing so much to try and engineer an uncontested primary, as they tried (and failed) in 2008.

        if you look at what i wrote in the comment you replied to, you will see that i am not claiming that warren is a skilled or experienced campaigner, and i expect that this and her age would put her at a disadvantage as a presidential candidate, although i definitely prefer warren on the issues. my hunch is that the nomination will go to someone not being discussed at the moment, although who that will be i have little idea.

  •  I Kind of Feel Like Obama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe

    ...caught lightning in a bottle in 2008.  The idea that the next President will take a path like his--especially without something like the 2004 convention speech that really jumpstarted the whole thing.... would be pretty remarkable indeed.

    Also when I think about the things that (I understand) to really drive Warren, she can get more done where she is now than where Obama is now.

    Too Folk For You. - Schmidting in the Punch Bowl - verb - Committing an unexpected and underhanded political act intended to "spoil the party."

    by TooFolkGR on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 12:14:26 PM PDT

  •  Sorry, it's Hillary (if she wants it) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Swig Mcjigger

    There were MANY Democrats (like myself) that were torn somewhat between Hillary and Obama. I'm with the others above -- it was the 2004 speech that put me in Obama's camp.

    Without a similar mechanism, I'll be pounding the pavement for Hillary (either digital or physical) should she run. Note that there are flashes of brilliance in Senator Warren like her impromptu speech on fairness, but that's just not in the same league or sport as the 2004 convention speech. Sorry.

    I'll also let you in on something -- if Hillary does run, there's a very big chance we will mop the floor in down ballot races despite gerrymandering. It is unclear to me that the same level of coattails (if any at all) would follow Sentar Warren.

  •  Whoever runs, run on this: (0+ / 0-)

    "America needs change, so give me this or I will resign if I win. Give me a Senate that reforms the filibuster and give me the Congress. At this time in the history of America a President needs that power. If you want good tax reform, proper infrastructure spending, fair elections, banks broken up, proper healthcare for all and other things you will never get it with Republicans stopping it all. If the American voter does not realize that yet, then I don't want to be the dog in office to put up with it, I'll quit if I win without this power."

    I think people might rally to that. If people could see they would get massive change people who don't vote would come out and do it. It would be a gamble, but likely worth it.

  •  The country doesn't vote as progressive as it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    virginislandsguy

    ...polls. Too many people calling themselves Progressive do not want to put in the work necessary to move the country leftward. They believe change will come from D.C. and not from the bottom. Thus we get fantasies about what this or that politician would do if given charge of the Executive Branch.

    No thought about the Congress, no thought about retaking state houses, no thought about taking governorships, and nada on local races.

    No talk about putting political reform on the Democratic agenda.

    There has to be a primary. I know some want Hillary to be anointed, but she lost last time when she should have won. We don't know yet if she can run and win a national campaign against tough opposition. We must find out who can run nationally and win and who can hold and expand the Obama map. I don't want to go back to the days where we have to win Ohio or wait for Florida.

    "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

    by sebastianguy99 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 02:00:36 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site