Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Game Changer: Boston Globe urges Elizabeth Warren to challenge Hillary

Game Changer: Boston Globe urges Elizabeth Warren to challenge Hillary

The day the rise of Hillary began to slow, and our planet to heal.

With Hillary’s email and fundraising scandals destined to be a permanent fixture in the 2016 campaign if she runs, and with Clinton fatigue already setting in, the voices calling on Elizabeth Warren to mount a challenge are growing stronger.

What started with committed progressives at places like MoveOn.org and Daily Kos, now is going mainstream liberal.

The Boston Globe Editorial Board is calling on Warren to challenge Hillary:

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….

The clock is ticking: Presidential candidates need to hire staff, raise money, and build a campaign operation. Although Clinton hasn’t officially declared her candidacy, she’s scooping up support from key party bigwigs and donors, who are working to impose a sense of inevitability about her nomination. Unfortunately, the strategy’s working ….

Fairly or not, many Americans already view Clinton skeptically, and waltzing to the nomination may actually hurt her in the November election against the Republican nominee…..

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.

Some of Warren’s admirers feel she’d be better off fighting for those causes in the Senate — but her opportunities to enact reforms there are shrinking, which should make a presidential run more attractive. As a member of the minority party in the Senate, her effectiveness is now much more limited than when she first won election, since Republicans control the legislative agenda. Democrats face an uphill challenge to reclaim the Senate in 2016 and face even slimmer prospects in the House. For the foreseeable future, the best pathway Warren and other Democrats have for implementing their agenda runs through the White House.

To drive home the point, The Globe today features several Op-Eds also urging Warren to run:

This could be a game changer. Warren needed to be dragged — seemingly — into running for Senate.

She will need to be dragged into running for President. The people need to demand it so strongly that Warren will be able to portray herself as bowing to the will of the people, rather than being an opportunist.

This is Warren’s chance. People may remember this day at the moment when the rise of the Hillary began to slow and the Democratic Party began to heal.

The speech already has  been written for Warren:

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Oh, and yes, we have just launched an expansion and updating of ElizabethWarrenWiki.org. Because we believe.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Sammy Finkelman | March 22, 2015 at 2:30 pm

The editorial is waste of time, and a distraction, and plays into the hands of the Clintons, who are probably behind all this touting of Elizabeth warren in the first place.

Whom they should encourage to run is Jerry Brown, or perhaps an uncommitted, draft-somebody campaign.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | March 22, 2015 at 2:46 pm

    The problem with Gov. Moonbeam is that he is too old. Yes, maybe in better shape, both physically and intellectually, than Hillary!, but still notably older. I just don’t see a septuagenarian winning the White House, whether it be Brown, Bernie Sanders, or even Slo-Joe Biden. Sexagenarians are bad enough (though arguably I am one of them), but septuagenarians are pre-Baby Boom (mostly born before WW II), trying to communicate with Gen X, Y, and esp. Millennials.

    MattMusson in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | March 22, 2015 at 3:01 pm

    Hillary is wounded. Look for a campaign to take out Warren too. Then wait for the jungle drums to start beating for Michelle.

    There is a reason Obama kept his campaign team intact.

      Frank G in reply to MattMusson. | March 22, 2015 at 5:00 pm

      and they just did so well in Israel!

      walls in reply to MattMusson. | March 23, 2015 at 11:11 am

      Do you *really* think the country would stand for another 0bama???

      Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to MattMusson. | March 23, 2015 at 1:36 pm

      MICHELLE IS IT!

      Observation of the televised “Democrat CONventions” has revealed a pattern. Whoever introduces the “selected” Democrat Presidential candidate on the last night of their “CONvention” is always the selected presidential candidate four years later.

Sammy Finkelman | March 22, 2015 at 2:32 pm

Warren was complicit with being dragged into the Senate, but she’s not here, and she’d be destroyed by the Clintons. Not just personally, but also her alleged ideas.

LukeHandCool | March 22, 2015 at 2:42 pm

The day after Kerry says talks are making progress and Obama speaks solicitously to the Iranians in a video, Khamenei declares, once again, “Death to America!”

Passing the reins of American power from an incompetent community organizer to a shameless affirmative-action fraud might give many voters reservations about such a Seminole moment.

I say don’t worry.

As life imitates Farsi, things just couldn’t possibly get any more Farsical, right?

Sammy Finkelman | March 22, 2015 at 2:44 pm

If the Republican nominee is somebody other than Jeb Bush, AND is considered a “Tea Party” Republican, AND the Democratic nominee is a severely ethically disreputable Hillary Clinton, then the next President of the Unioted States will probably be Michael Bloomberg, chosen by the House of Representives sometime in late February to early March 2017, after a short period of time in which the Republican nominee for Vice President become Vice President and Acting President, after the Democrats in the Senate fail to prevent a vote and have John Kerry serve as Acting President.

For this to happen, Hillary Clinton would have to be deemed ethically unacceptable by a wide majority of the public, and yet still get the nomination.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | March 22, 2015 at 2:49 pm

    Well – she is a Democrat, which means to many of us that this is plausible. Ethics have never been a Clinton strong point, and of the two of them, she is, by far, the less ethical. But, ethics have long been optional for Dem politicians. So, she may be just fine.

Sammy Finkelman | March 22, 2015 at 2:56 pm

In the John Kerry scenario, the House would not yet have chosen a Speaker, either, or the Senate a president pro tem. In fact, they will unable even to count the Electoral votes.

Once they do, then failure to pick a president or a vice president results in the Speaker of the House becoming acting president. But in that case a vice president should be picked since there are only two candidates and somebody must have a majority, while the House of Represenatatives can be deadlocked because they vote by states and some states can be divided and they also would have 3 candidates.

If Speaker is picked and a vote for vice president is prevented is prevented in the Senate, perhaps because some Senators don’t want a president and vice president of opposite parties, then the speaker of the House would become acting president, unless he turns it down. He might have to resign his House seat to do it, and it is only temporary.

Other ideas: elect a non-member as speaker and have that person act as president.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | March 22, 2015 at 3:01 pm

    I think though that you underestimate the advantages that Republicans have in this sort of voting. The problem is that while there may be some parity nationally between the two parties, the Democrats tend to have their strengths more in more populous states, while Republicans dominate the less populous ones. If every state gets the same vote, then controlling more states would seem advantageous.

Bruce Hayden | March 22, 2015 at 2:58 pm

I am not sure that I understand the Dem hunger for Warren. She seems, to me, to be a typical “do what I say, and not what I do” type Dem politician, who had to use fake affirmative action to get where she got academically, and then lied about it. So, she took a lot of money from precisely the same sorts of parties that she demonizes. Who should be surprised at the hypocrisy?

But, I think that the reality is that a MA liberal is not going to sell very well outside deep blue states. Sure, she lied, cheated, etc. to get out of fly-over country, and into progressive Utopia, but many more of us from fly-over country, than from places that really respect where she claims to be from these days. And, she really isn’t that well tested as a politician. It is one thing to run for Teddy Kennedy’s Senate seat in MA, and something quite different to run for President of the US. How is she going to gain enough political experience to keep from screwing up royally with that single election under her belt? We have seen how that works out on the Republican side – now it is time for the Democrats to learn that lesson too.

Warren is the Democrats’ Cruz: wildly popular with the most ideological of the base, a hard sell to anyone else.

Note that O’Malley was in Iowa last week and had a Walker-style reception from Democrats. Some said he was “inspiring.”

When was the last time anyone said that about Hillary?

    pesanteur in reply to Estragon. | March 22, 2015 at 3:22 pm

    >>”Warren is the Democrats’ Cruz: wildly popular with the most ideological of the base, a hard sell to anyone else.”

    A completely unsupportable and even rather ugly analogy. Show the data that says Cruz is a “hard sell to anyone else.” The reason we have primaries is to learn just who “sells” to whom. Your regurgitating specious media narrative.

    And the same thing was said about Reagan even after he won the 1980 New Hampshire primary. I know because I covered it as an intern reporter. All the establishment wags were bleating that Reagan couldn’t win a national election because he was too extreme and appealed only to a fringe.

    As for Warren, you betray your ignorance of the modern democrat party. The entire party is now “the ideological base.” And Warren had this nomination some time ago. She is the only and natural ideological heir to Obama.

      MikeE in reply to pesanteur. | March 22, 2015 at 3:56 pm

      “She is the only and natural ideological heir to Obama.” Aside from Michelle Obama, that is.

      MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to pesanteur. | March 22, 2015 at 5:40 pm

      pesanteur: Listen to Mark Levin go through what a long list of GOP Establishment throne sniffers had to say about Reagan in their effort to push him out of the GOP primary to clear the deck for Ford in 1976. George Will wrote that Reagan supporters were “kamikaze conservatives”. There’s a whole bunch of equally obnoxious things said about Reagan by establishment RINO Senators like Percy, liberal Republican Vice President Rockefeller and know-it-all pundits.

      Then when Reagan was running in ’79, George Will’s long knives came out for Reagan again. So did the WSJ editorial page. Yet he won handily in ’80 and his ’84 re-election was the largest landslide in the entire 20th century by some measures.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R40lcJddbAc

      Henry Hawkins in reply to pesanteur. | March 22, 2015 at 6:29 pm

      Ignore him. He’s a center-left GOP RINO elite defender and really bad at it. Any conservative in the GOP he calls various bad names. He once said the owner of this blog was an idiot for supporting Newt Gingrich.

    Twanger in reply to Estragon. | March 24, 2015 at 12:45 pm

    If you want the rain in all 50 states to be taxed, like in Maryland, go ahead and vote for O’Malley.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | March 22, 2015 at 4:55 pm

The obvious thing to say about Hillary being attacked by Warren is that I’ll be rooting for casualties.

(Credit to James Taranto for saying something similar about Jonathan Chait after he was attacked by the left for criticizing political correctness.)

Bitterlyclinging | March 22, 2015 at 5:13 pm

The Boston Globe is wholly owned by ‘Pinch’ Sulzberger, who, coincidentally, also happens to own the New York Times. The Globe never goes in a direction that it wasnt directed to travel by Mr Sulzberger. ‘Pinch’ originally bought the Globe to impress Same Sex Marriage upon the good people of the State of Massachussets in order to get the same sex marriage ball rolling in the other 49.
Now, while the Times is busy writing exposes on the many and various nefarious activities of Bill and Hillary while she was head at State, ‘Pinch’ can use the Globes editorial page to independantly (Cough! Cough!)promote Elizabeth Warren’s candidacy for president. After initially well serving ‘Pinch’s’ primary purpose of instituting Same Sex Marriage in Massachussetts, the opportunity to usew the Globe to serve as astroturf for beginning the Warren campaign has be a serendipitous twofer for ‘Pinch”.
All strings, though, eventually lead back to Barack Hussein Obama.

    nomadic100 in reply to Bitterlyclinging. | March 22, 2015 at 6:19 pm

    Bitter, you’re a little behind the curve. The NYT sold the Globe in 2013 to John Henry, owner of the Red Sox. The Globe was a big financial drain on the Times and it unloaded it.

Rigged is as Rigged does.

Hillary ow Warren – the same bed bugs.

Henry Hawkins | March 22, 2015 at 6:30 pm

RELEASE THE BIDEN !!!

I’d love to see Warren run just to see the opposition commercials … there would be some real doozies no doubt.

And what would be a great Warren slogan? “Aim high America, with high cheekbones”!

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend