General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsElizabeth Warren won’t be president. But the Senate may not be her final destination.
Even the Draft Warren folks now accept it: Warren won't run. But she may have a new job come 2017 anywaySeveral months ago, supporters of an Elizabeth Warren presidential candidacy detected some glimmers of hope in their bid to convince the Massachusetts senator and liberal favorite to take her fiery brand of progressive populism to the national stage. Though Warren insisted she wasnt seeking the nations top job, political grammarians couldnt help noticing that Warren spoke only in the present tense. Sure, Warren may not have been running for president in October 2014, but who knew what mid-2015 held in store? While Warren was remarkably disciplined in sticking to her pat Im not running for president response, she even spoke, rather cryptically, of amazing doors that could open down the road. Moreover, Warrens pre-midterm campaign swing notably including stops in Iowa and New Hampshire stoked speculation that it was the prelude to something larger.
But it was not to be. Even as organizers of the Draft Warren campaign raised funds and set up shop in early primary states, Warren herself never took any serious steps toward mounting a presidential run; she did not set up anything resembling a national campaign infrastructure, nor did she make any additional forays into early-voting states. In recent months, she became more emphatic in spurning entreaties to enter the race, even going so far as to couch her answers in the future tense. On Tuesday, the Draft Warren folks conceded to reality, with the campaigns leaders announcing that they would end their efforts next week, after they delivered one last plea.
For some of Warrens most ardent fans, this turn of events isnt quite as unwelcome as you might think. To be sure, many progressive activists dissatisfied with Hillary Clinton saw Warren as their only viable hope of dislodging the Democratic frontrunner. But amid the Draft Warren push, many of the senators devotees maintained that she was right where she belonged holding bankers feet to the fire, sounding the alarm about soaring income inequality, and holding presidents from her own party to account from her perch in Ted Kennedys old Senate seat. Much like the late liberal lion, who represented the Bay State for 47 years, Warren could demonstrate that you dont need to be president to prove an effective agent for progressive change.
More here: http://www.salon.com/2015/06/02/elizabeth_warren_wont_be_president_but_the_senate_may_not_be_her_final_destination/
Stardust
(3,894 posts)I wasn't sure what the author was implying...
CTyankee
(63,926 posts)there, a thorn in the side. I firmly believe she thinks this is her destiny and that she can make the change she has so long wanted. I believe this with all my heart and soul. I believe in Elizabeth Warren.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I feel your pain, using dial up here.
KatyMan
(4,222 posts)n/t
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)former9thward
(32,169 posts)Presidents want their SC legacy to last decades.
Stardust
(3,894 posts)would be great for our country.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)She would be 1000x more valuable staying where she is in the Senate. Appointing her to an admin position would simply be kicking her upstairs.
I wouldn't mind seeing her appointed to SCOTUS, however.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)The GOP took control of the Senate, remember?
The 2014 elections relegated the Dems to minority status and all the chairmanships went to the Republicans.
They have full control of the agenda.
Some folks decided that both parties were the same and didn't bother to vote for Dems. In the process, they hurt Bernie and Warren.
So now folks like Warren can't get anything through the GOP-controlled committees.
Legislation is how shit really gets done.
There will be no pro-Warren legislation coming out of the Senate any time soon.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)and filibuster it, as well.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)That's the reality.
Of course Dems can filibuster legislation, but that's only obstructing the GOP agenda.
Warren can't put her agenda forward.
Elections have consequences.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)She is a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; a ranking member of the Subcommittee on Economic Policy: http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=committees. Minority members are not powerless.
If the Democrats regain the Senate majority, she'll be in control of the committee.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Kinda like the public option, which couldn't even make it out of committee.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)You tried hard to convince me otherwise, but it just didn't work.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I was explaining to you the current situation in Congress.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)which stated she would be "1000x more valuable in the Senate" than holding an administration role. I never claimed that the GOP didn't, for now, hold the Senate majority. If you didn't think she should leave the Senate for an administration role, what else was your point?
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)The sales of brown pants would skyrocket among banksters and other fraudsters.