She’s definitely my preference but the reality is…she doesn’t have the political power that Hillary wields.
Hillary can win, Ms. Warren can’t…at least not in 2016.
Elizabeth Warren has said that she isn’t running for president in 2016, but the Boston Globe is calling upon the Massachusetts Senator to do so for the good of the people and Democratic Party.
The Editorial Board of the Globe penned a piece outlining their desire to see Warren run and why she should do so.
Right out of the gate, the Globe explains that allowing Hillary Clinton to capture the Democratic primary unopposed would be a mistake because there are some serious splits among Democrats on certain issues that need to be debated. Of particular importance is how Warren has championed the fight against income inequality while Clinton has been more cautious on economic issues because she has Wall Street backing.
DEMOCRATS WOULD be making a big mistake if they let Hillary Clinton coast to the presidential nomination without real opposition, and, as a national leader, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren can make sure that doesn’t happen. While Warren has repeatedly vowed that she won’t run for president herself, she ought to reconsider. And if Warren sticks to her refusal, she should make it her responsibility to help recruit candidates to provide voters with a vigorous debate on her signature cause, reducing income inequality, over the next year.
Even in areas where the candidates agree, there are bound to be different priorities: It’s hard to imagine a President Clinton defending and enforcing the Dodd-Frank legislation with as much vigor as a President Warren, for instance.
Indeed, the big-picture debate on financial regulation and income inequality is what’s most at peril if the Democratic primaries come and go without top-notch opponents for Clinton. While she has a great many strengths, Clinton seems far more likely to hew to a cautious approach on economics. Her financial backing from Wall Street, her vote in the Senate to reduce bankruptcy protections, and her past reluctance to raise capital-gains taxes are no secret. Nothing about her record suggests much gumption for financial reform or tackling the deeply entrenched economic problems that increasingly threaten the American dream.
The Globe is 100 percent correct. The Democratic Party is prepared to crown Clinton as their nominee without much of a fight if any at all. Sure, there are other Democrats who are considering throwing their own hats in the ring, but Warren is a grassroots superstar who has mass appeal among the middle class and the poor. Her dedication to ending income inequality and the economic unfairness that has plagued the nation for over 30 years now is exactly what America desperately needs. And if Warren runs, her signature cause would take center stage.
As the Globe points out,
Seven years after the financial collapse, those challenges remain serious. To name just a few of the financial problems facing Americans: stagnant wages; ballooning student loan debt; exploitative payday lenders; shady subprime car loans; the proliferation of dubious for-profit colleges; inadequate retirement savings.
Unlike Clinton, or any of the prospective Republican candidates, Warren has made closing the economic gaps in America her main political priority, in a career that has included standing up for homeowners facing illegal foreclosures and calling for more bankruptcy protections. If she runs, it’ll ensure that those issues take their rightful place at the center of the national political debate.
Even if Clinton stills wins the nomination, she would be a stronger candidate precisely because of the competition with Warren. Clinton may also be forced to focus more on income inequality herself. Plus, a strong showing on the national stage, even in defeat, would propel Warren to greater national recognition and prominence, thus setting herself up as the frontrunner in 2020 if Clinton declines a second term, or in 2024 if Clinton loses or wins another 4 years in office.
If Warren runs and loses, she and Clinton would be better candidates for it. Clinton could potentially lay the groundwork for Warren to tackle income inequality head-on during her own future stint in the White House, but only if Warren forces Clinton to make the issue a major part of her campaign. That only happens if Warren throws her hat in the ring. And who is to say that Warren wouldn’t win? Just look at how the competition between Clinton and Obama in 2008 made Obama a stronger nominee. The same could happen for Warren in 2016. Republicans are already terrified of a Clinton presidency, but they are even more terrified of a Warren presidency and what it could potentially bring to the table.
The greatest single domestic issue in this country right now is income inequality and the people yearn for a leader who can end the vicious cycle that has placed so many in poverty as the rich get richer. Warren has populism on her side and she is the ideal Democratic candidate who can truly shape the party and finally bring it back to strongly supporting the economic values and principles it once championed from the 1930s through the 1960s when America was at the height of world respect and power. Senator Elizabeth Warren is the leader we need.