We keep hearing calls for Elizabeth Warren to run in 2016, to keep Hillary honest in the Democratic primaries. This ignores the fact that
1) Warren would be a reluctant candidate (as Kos recently said)
2) Warren is not a particularly good candidate - she tends to come off as shrill (I love the woman, but being honest) with non-partisans
3) She hails from a state (she'll get as many votes in Oklahoma as Obama got in Kansas) - MA - that is already in the bag electorally and may not translate all that far in the Dem primaries.
I agree it may be necessary to keep Hillary honest by running someone to her left.
So... why not Sherrod Brown?
Brown has some distinct advantages over Warren:
1) He is from an electorally significant state (OH). Maybe THE most electorally significant state.
2) He would pull a bigger punch in the primaries (Ind. Midwest) against Hillary and make her work for the labor-Dem base.
3) He is a favorite of labor and may give Hillary some competition for endorsements.
4) He has, to be fair, more experience on the national stage than Warren.
and most importantly
5) On every major issue, he is exactly where Elizabeth Warren is.
I know we keep focusing on Warren, but it seems perhaps more realistic to look at Sherrod Brown as our best hope at running a candidate to Hillary's left. And who knows... Hillary HAS been known to lose the nomination...