I wouldn’t give Elizabeth Warren all the credit for derailing Larry Summers’ rise to Fed Chairman, but I don’t really mind if she gets all the credit anyway. Of course, that doesn’t mean that I want people to ignore the role played by Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, and Jon Tester of Montana. I strongly supported all four of the them when they ran for the Senate, and it has paid off. As I said earlier, I don’t think Ms. Yellin is really that preferable to Summers, but I don’t mind someone finally being held responsible for being wrong in Washington DC. Back in 2002, there were hardly any progressives in the Senate at all. Today, there are enough on the banking committee that a Clinton deregulator got knee-capped. I’d say that that is a case of progressives making progress.
In any case, Sen. Warren’s star is rising, and that can’t be a bad thing.
In any case, Sen. Warren’s star is rising, and that can’t be a bad thing.
According to PPP she’s tied with Biden for 2nd behind Hillary re: Democrats & 2016. Granted there is some Boston area leakage into NH, but it’s still a remarkable accomplishment. Also, too, I’d be willing to put money on the fact that she’ll smoke Hillary in 2016 if both decide to make a go of it.
Warren’s the star she is to the left because of the person she is, and the policies she champions, but as a retail politician and public figure Clinton blows her away.
I recognize the ideological gulf separating the two, but imagine what a Clinton/Warren ticket in 2016 would offer.
I don’t know that the country necessarily needs 8 years of Clinton (but who knows if she has 8 years of presidenting in her either, for that matter), but it’s also fairly clear that we’re not in much of a position yet for a left-of-center president to get a lot done, that the upcoming decade or so is going to be largely a transitionary period, with the transition into precisely what depending of course on who wins today’s political battles.
Clinton would be probably as effective in terms of dealing with Congress and etc as anybody else we can come up with in the short term, and Warren as veep would have 4-8 years to learn from Clinton (both of them) all the points of political finesse and executive leadership that she currently lacks.
The immediate political appeal is obvious: how do you go about trying to follow up on the historical import of electing the nation’s first black president? Electing a woman isn’t bad, but women occupying the two top seats of power in the nation–in the world–would be a cultural high water mark rivaling what Obama achieved with his victories.
Anyway, if we’re discussing a Warren-for-president scenario that might take place in the real future, that would be one way to get there.
The Democrats won’t put two women on the same ticket.
If we lived in a functioning Democracy, Elizabeth Warren would be a shoo-in for President in 2016, with Bernie Sanders thrown in as a sweetener.
We don’t live in a functioning Democracy.
Here’s another Massachusetts liberal.
Cute ad.
You have a functioning democracy. The probelm is, it’s representative. That’s a problem when the people it represents are to no small extent god-bothering racist jerks with defective empathy genes.
A political party that appeals systematically to the worst impulses in people begins each election cycle half a lap ahead.
I agree. And I hope President Obama recognizes that ultimately, as Michael Tomasky writes today, this is a good thing for him and for the party. Because he’s going to need strong support from the party’s left wing (at least, the part of it that’s in Congress) to deal with Republicans for the next three years.
Also, let’s not let the episode go by without a shoutout for Jon Tester. He may not be a progressive in the eyes of many on the East Coast, but it sure looks like it was his public opposition to Summers as Fed president that was the final nail in the coffin for that idea.