Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Elizabeth Warren
Showing Original Post only (View all)If not Warren, then whom? If not now, then when? [View all]
Cross-posted from GD, just for convenience.Original thread here.
While I appreciate the wisdom of those who regularly remind us to keep our eyes on the 2014 prize, the fact is that many of us on the left want to see a real liberal elected President in 2016, and we're running out of time to recruit a candidate. It must be done now. The machinery of the campaign needs time to grow, and, with only three years left before the 2016 contest, time is running short.
So, I ask DU: If not Elizabeth Warren, then whom?
We need to nominate a woman. This is almost conventional wisdom, now, in the Democratic Party as Noam Scheiber, the Senior Editor of The New Republic, argues in a recent essay. I also think we greatly improve our chances of winning by running women in this political environment, as I argued here.
So, if we need to nominate a liberal woman, whom should we choose? Who's the third best fundraiser in the Democratic Party? It's Elizabeth Warren, who falls right behind Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Before she was even elected, her fund-raising e-mails would net the party more cash than any Democrats besides Obama or Hillary Clinton. According to the Times, Warrens recent speech at the annual League of Conservation Voters banquet drew the largest crowd in 15 years.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare
To those of you who proudly and definitively announce that Elizabeth Warren isn't running for President, I ask you this: whom else should we try to recruit? Elizabeth Warren is the best shot we've got to get a liberal in the White House. She's liberal, she's brilliant, she's articulate, and her record is, to my knowledge, spotless. She carries no baggage. Plus, she's an excellent fundraiser.
I would also add that she's a savvy politician, and that she keeps her options open. She may have said she wasn't running, but Barack Obama said that too. Big deal. What Scheiber's essay shows is that she is focused on her policy goals, and she doesn't care how she gets there.
The proper interpretation of Warrens prodigious p.r. efforts, then, isnt that shes especially taken with the idea of media stardom. Its that she is relentlessly, perhaps ruthlessly, maybe even a bit messianically, focused on advancing her policy agenda. Everything else is merely instrumental.
This is what the banking industry and its Republican allies (as well as internal opponents like Geithner) didnt fully appreciate when they effectively killed Warrens hopes of permanently heading the consumer agency in 2011. Anyone who knows Warren will tell you she had no particular ambition to be a senator. She decided that the Senate would suffice as a way to agitate for her issues only when Obama stiffed her for the CFPB joban enormous disappointment after she spent months lining up support among banks. Its poetic justice. At end of the day, if the banking community hadnt been so apoplectic, everyone could have decided its this little tiny agency, who really cares? says Anita Dunn, Obamas White House communications director in 2009. Instead, she ends up as a senior senator from Massachusetts on the banking committee, blocking Larry at the Fed.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare
This is what the banking industry and its Republican allies (as well as internal opponents like Geithner) didnt fully appreciate when they effectively killed Warrens hopes of permanently heading the consumer agency in 2011. Anyone who knows Warren will tell you she had no particular ambition to be a senator. She decided that the Senate would suffice as a way to agitate for her issues only when Obama stiffed her for the CFPB joban enormous disappointment after she spent months lining up support among banks. Its poetic justice. At end of the day, if the banking community hadnt been so apoplectic, everyone could have decided its this little tiny agency, who really cares? says Anita Dunn, Obamas White House communications director in 2009. Instead, she ends up as a senior senator from Massachusetts on the banking committee, blocking Larry at the Fed.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare
What Scheiber shows is that Warren, if she could be convinced that running for President was the best way to achieve her goals, might just do it.
If not Warren, then whom?

And, if not now, then when?
Now is the time to work on recruiting her (drafting her, if necessary) to run in 2016. We can't afford to wait. While I appreciate the efforts of those who want to see the Democratic Party re-take the House and hold the Senate in 2014 (and I support those goals, obviously), the fact is that Elizabeth Warren has to be thinking about this issue now, and she needs our encouragement in order to put in place all the pieces necessary just to preserve her option to run.
So, I invite all liberal Democrats to write, e-mail, or call the Senior Senator from Massachusetts, and let her know how you feel.
If not Warren, then whom? If not now, then when?
The Honorable Elizabeth Warren
317 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-4543
E-mail her here.
Donate here.

-Laelth
19 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

While we know that there won't be a fight for the nomination, should Hillary decide not to run
grantcart
Nov 2013
#2
The corporatists are afraid of Warren running as someone they won't be able to "control"...
cascadiance
Nov 2013
#6