In answer to Noam Scheiber, I think President Obama would have to, at a minimum, profess his neutrality, in order for anyone to credibly challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2016. Critics of Obama tend to focus on figures like Rahm Emanuel, Tim Geithner, and Larry Summers, without recognizing that the president promoted Elizabeth Warren every step of the way, from her role overseeing TARP to her candidacy to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to her successful U.S. Senate bid. Would the president withhold his blessing for Clinton’s campaign if she were to find herself in a primary contest against Warren? I think it is possible, although I also think it is unlikely.
While Elizabeth Warren is an emerging force in the Democratic Party, Clinton, like Obama, is a titan on the national stage. If polling numbers can give us any reliable indication this far out from an election, Clinton has the potential to beat a Republican opponent nearly as badly as Reagan beat Mondale. She has polled competitively even in Texas. She has a sterling resume as a former activist First Lady, and well-respected U.S. Senator, a strong presidential candidate, and a successful Secretary of State. She has connections everywhere, and while it might create some liabilities in a primary, her coziness with Wall Street is unlikely to harm her in a general election.
The president will be heavily-vested in assuring that he is succeeded by a Democrat, preferably with coattails. Hillary Clinton looks like the strongest presidential candidate this country has seen since Reagan sought reelection. Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, has a thin resume, hails from a state known for giving us failed presidential candidates, and could probably only win a demographic battle with a narrow margin in the Electoral College, if she could win at all. However much the president might respect Elizabeth Warren, I don’t think he’d be willing to risk his legacy by backing her, or even by staying strictly neutral.
Democratic primary voters will take their cue from the president. While the progressives, particularly the white progressives, would be extremely sympathetic to Warren, most progressives will look to the president for a sign, and that sign is likely to be in favor of Clinton.
Having said that, I think Scheiber has introduced an interesting debate about what the effect would be on the nominating process, on Hillary’s positioning, and on the Democratic Party, should Clinton find herself in a brawl with Warrren. I think Clinton would be pulled (uncomfortably) to the left, which might or might not do harm to her prospects in the general. At least the white progressive movement would be badly split, with most of the energy going to Warren.
The business community and the corporate media would marginalize Warren as a lightweight with insufficient experience, and as an unreconstructed liberal from the pre-Reagan Era. On a more even playing field, Warren’s ideas would probably prevail, and the country seems to have swung back to more liberal view in many areas, although trust in government is at historical lows so we shouldn’t delude ourselves that we’re back in 1976. The playing field, however, would not even be close to even. I think Warren could succeed in forcing Clinton to come up with ideas for tackling student debt and a more robust regulatory scheme than she would adopt if left to her own devices. More than that, I doubt Warren could do.
She’d have my vote, though.
We’ll see who actually runs. That will tell everything. I want to know something if she’s the only Democrat to seriously run. How will she fix things? How will she help resurrect the middle class? I know, she doesn’t really care. People think demographics are destiny but even if she were to win in ’16 she’d get thrown out in ’20 if the recovery is still muddling along like now. Also, here is another ex-Clintonite being a complete jackass:
https://twitter.com/GStephanopoulos/status/401315839019720704
Are people so interested in personality they don’t see how destructive the Clintons really are?
The only way any Democrat could fix things is if they won an overwhelming victory including states in every region of the country, and got well north of 60 votes in the Senate and control of the House. Then, at least, they’d have the freedom to pursue something other than austerity.
Then, at least, they’d have the freedom to pursue something other than austerity.
Who says she wants to pursue anything other than austerity? Is Bob Rubin going to be hanging out at the WH if she was president?
No Democrat wants to pursue austerity at this point. They might make some kind of deal on the long-term deficit, but only so that they could spend some fucking money.
Why would they need to do that? So you don’t even believe your Princeton buddy?
Yes, they’re very destructive. Now they’re not subtly distancing themselves from Obama’s health care program by criticizing it. They’re not rejecting it, that would be too extreme. Instead they’re positioning themselves as constructive critics and once everything gets straightened out and the country accepts the program they’ll say, ‘See, we were for it all the time, hoping everything would turn out fine.’ I can’t believe they’re campaigning against Obama as if they’re still in the campaign. Hillary Clinton: is she really so great? Who offered her the job as New York senator? What did she do before that to deserve it? Was she a New York state person? No, the Cllinton’s just used their wealth to install themselves in the state. As SoS: was she so great, besides having herself photgraphed as a nerd in a cargo airplane poring over texts like a studious student in the stacks of a university library. Where would she stand now in the negotiations with Iran? There is no reason to suppose she would ever have got behind the process when the Israeli government is so hellishly opposed. She must have known before she resigned that Obama was planning/considering an attempt at some kind of agreement. To put it very crudely, Monica Lewinsky made Hillary Clinton: every cloud has a silver lining, every set back is an opportunity. She does indeed arouse strong emotions, yes indeedy. That’s who the Clintons are.
I know many millions of bytes have been flinging about all over on this, but it is all a waste of space. Warren is not going to run for Prez.
And I refuse to take my “queue” from the president.
And what is he doing that will change the lines at my polling place anyway?
Personally, I can think of hardly anything less interesting and less effective (progressively) than yet another predictable episode of that tired old storyline, “progressive upstart gets crushed by establishment behemoth.”
Obama changed everything. He proved the effectiveness of an underdog campaign based on small-donor fundraising and community organizing. If progressives candidates won’t invest massively in organizing infrastructure, they deserve to lose.
The prospect is fairly soul-deadening, isn’t it?
Speaking as a dirty foreigner, I begging your blokes not to hand the keys to the nuclear arsenal over to a Republican for at least a decade.
That was one track — and the one his campaign publicly touted.
The other track was that considerable portion of Wall St big money that didn’t want another Republican or Hillary and the half or more of Hollywood that also didn’t want Wall St.
Oh, I’d vote for Warren in a nanosecond, too!
But I doubt she’ll run.
Maybe if she does something earth-shatteringly good in the Senate in the next few years.
But how likely, given even the present Democratic majority, is that?
No matter who the Democratic candidate will be, if I’m still alive, I’ll be voting for that person – even if it’s Hillary, or, even, FSM forbid, Rahm!
We cannot allow a Republican to win for at least the foreseeable future, because that party as currently constituted only stands for Plutocracy, social repression, racism, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, and Christian-flavored Fascism.
Count me among those who would favor Warren over Clinton. As a newspaper editor in New Hampshire during the 2008 primary I witnessed first hand how inept Hillary’s campaign was. Yes, she won New Hampshire narrowly, but still managed to offend much of the progressive base, many of whom voted for Edwards. Had it been a match-up between only Clinton and Obama, Obama would have won handily.
Personally, I think Hillary carries too much baggage, from the constant assaults on her during her husband’s terms of office to having voted for the damned War in Iraq. Moreover, I’m not at all confident that the African-American community has forgiven her for a perception of racism during the 2008 primary. Yes, she would excite the female base, but I’m not so sure that she’d be seen as being all that preferable to Warren.
There is also the question of family dynasties. It certainly didn’t work out well for the Bushes, and that may weigh heavily in voters’ decisions.
To me, it’s still to early to attempt to narrow the field to only Clinton and Warren. I’d also be quite amenable to Kirsten Gillibrand, who has carved out an impressive record since winning Hillary’s old Senate seat. She’s younger than either Clinton or Warren, isn’t seen as being quite as far to the left as Warren and doesn’t have Clinton’s baggage.
You will note that I’m not even considering any male prospects, of which there are many. My ideal ticket right now would be Gillibrand/Patrick. I think Patrick has done an amazing job as governor of Massachusetts.
The Democrat with the best campaigning chops also just happens to have one of the deeper legislative resumes and progressive public policy orientation is Sherrod Brown. A Brown/Gillibrand ticket would be stronger than Hillary/X (my guess is she would want Mark Warner).
The only way Brown gets in is if he’s “drafted” and funded upfront.
So why not a Clinton/Warren ticket.
She’s a little thin, but great for the base.
Its a classic VP sort of role.
2 girls on the ticket. Now that would be something crazy.
I think a Warren insurgency campaign is pretty unlikely, and though she has been the leader against to big to fail, there are other progressives, like Sherrod Brown, that bring more to the table and can speak to middle America, working class voters. Minimum, for me, to actively support with my boots on the ground a Clinton bid in 2016 is her putting a true progressive on her ticket, and I think Clinton/Brown would be very attractive.
Id favor Warren over Clinton but both suck equally on the foreign policy realm.
The bigger issue is that if Clinton and Biden both run, all of the stories are going to be about Obama shunning Hillary! or Obama turning his back on Biden!
I have a feeling the stories are going to be nauseating.
“Bigger issue” for who?
It’s unlikely that Biden would run if Clinton does but so what if they both did. Biden is likely to garner a lot more initial support from African-Americans than Hillary, especially after what WJC did this week. Biden is Obama’s loyal friend and political ally – full stop.
I’m totally unconvinced – no matter the media’s spin -that earnest and motivated Democratic voters will be more focused on personalities than things like plans to improve the economy, fix Obamacare, and to increase the minimum wage.
As I recall it, the intense 2008 Democratic primary was full of attractive photogenic candidates but the voters went for solid substance on healthcare, education, and war policy whether the media and the GOTP ever admit it or not. IMO it won’t be any different in the 2016 Democratic primary.
Once again, Democrats are going to let Presidential fever distract from critical downticket considerations.
Warren will have been in the Senate for 4 years in 2016, the same length of time as President Obama. But Warren is not as comfortable campaigning as Obama was and it sometimes shows. From a policy perspective, she really can do more in the Senate both in terms of shaping policy and in getting it through. Warren as chair of the Senate Finance Committee in 2016 would be formidable (yes, I know that’s not the seniority track that she is on–just a hypothetical).
I think the anybody-but-Clinton folks are thrashing around for the perfect candidate. And there never is a perfect candidate that has both the policy smarts, legislative infighting instincts, and popular appeal.
Warren needs to work on the financial markets, not on campaigning for the Presidency. Probably best positioned to deal with that since Albert Gallatin.
I agree, think of what she could do in three or four terms, consistently pushing back against the paid lobbyist hype and government inaction.
Haha! Look right below this comment. 33 Seconds apart. Great minds…….
Once again, Democrats are going to let Presidential fever distract from critical downticket considerations.
You are right. However, it doesn’t help when you see ads all over the web for “Ready for Hillary” bullshit. Or other “elite” Hillary supporters, like Tory-supporting Jim Messina, trying to bigfoot ’16 already.
Let’s keep it simple and keep our eye on the ball.
We need a BIG win to shift the balance back toward neutral. Basic, basic democracy stuff like voting, and even having an habitable world, duh!, hang in the balance. So far, right now, that seems to point to Clinton.
But she has a lot of non-progressive baggage. How much of a drag on a much (hypothetically) more liberal Congress would she be? OR Would she, having been set up in a position of being set ‘free’ become the Liberal Lioness she fantasized about occasionally, not too seriously?
Warren is right where she should be! If she does nothing for the next few years but get on youtube every couple of weeks to shout at bankers and such, what more could you ask of someone? She has Teddy’s seat and gets to go home regularly. She might (and there are a lot of details that Boo knows) be better looking to take over from Harry Reid when he retires! Schumer v. Warren. Now that’s a match I’d like to see!
To me, the worst baggage she carries is fat-mouth fool Bill. His most recent bigfooting on Obama’s (admittedly inept) response to the insurance cancellation undercut Obama and made him look like a lapdog to the failed Clinton dynasty. I don’t understand how anybody claiming to be liberal/left can even consider letting the “co-president” in a Reagan Lite administration get anywhere near the White House.