Dear Elizabeth Warren:
Please Run for President
“The game is rigged, and the rich and powerful have lobbyists and lawyers and plenty of friends in Congress. We can whine about it, we can whimper about it, or we can fight back. I’m fighting back!”
—ELIZABETH WARREN
https://runwarrenrun.org/
She's been on a media blitz lately.. I'm not sure what to make of it.. was it just to promote her new book? She keeps saying no, she won't run for President. Now she's taking on Obama, in public. A bit odd.. she's campaigning an awful lot for someone that's not campaigning.
Might she run, after all?
Campaigning hard for a candidate who isn't
The drive to elect Elizabeth Warren president has everything but Elizabeth Warren.
DOVER, N.H. — Kurt Ehrenberg spent three hours one day last week trying to convince people to try to convince Elizabeth Warren to run for president.
Republicans in the Granite State, with its first-in-the-nation primary early next year, are telling their nearly 20-strong glut of candidates, will-be candidates and would-be candidates to not beat up on each other too bad. The Democrats, meanwhile, have the opposite problem. They just want Hillary Clinton to have to run hard against somebody other than herself.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/elizabeth-warren-2016-new-hampshire-117332.html
Run, Warren, Run
Elizabeth Warren can run for president. She should run for president. And despite her denials, she probably will.
Elizabeth Warren today told Fortune magazine that she won’t run for president. If Warren stands by that decision, she’ll do a tremendous disservice to her principles and her party.
Warren is the only person standing between the Democrats and an uncontested Hillary Clinton nomination. She has already made clear what she thinks of the Clintons.
Warren has suggested that President Bill Clinton’s administration served the same “trickle down” economics as its Republicans and predecessors.
Warren has denounced the Clinton administration's senior economic appointees as servitors of the big banks.
Warren has blasted Bill Clinton’s 1996 claim that the era of big government is over and his repeal of Glass-Steagall and other financial regulations.
...
If Elizabeth Warren did seek the Democratic presidential nomination, she’d seize the party and the national agenda. Rank-and-file Democrats seethe with concern about stagnant wages, income inequality, and the malefactions of great wealth.
Left to her own devices, Hillary Clinton will talk about none of that. Hillary Clinton is a candidate so cautious that, compared to her, Michael Dukakis seems the second coming of William Jennings Bryan. Everything about her is polled, focus-grouped, and second-guessed. Her policy positions are measured in millimeters to the left of center. Her speeches are written first and foremost to ensure they can never be quoted against her. How many people remember what Hillary Clinton accomplished as a U.S. Senator? As a secretary of state? Since the fiasco of her 1993 healthcare initiative, Hillary Clinton has so feared doing the wrong thing that she has almost always opted to do nothing.
...
Could Warren do it? Of course she could. More than almost anybody running in 2016—more even than Republican insurgents like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul—Warren has both her message and her constituency ready to hand. Hillary Clinton speaks to those Democrats who feel that Barack Obama went too far. Elizabeth Warren speaks to those Democrats who feel he didn’t go far enough. And if Warren’s supporters aren’t as spectacularly wealthy as Clinton’s, together—as Barack Obama proved in 2008—they can give more than enough to fund a winning campaign.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/run-warren-run/384490/
The above article is from January, but here's an uptick though lately in "warren running" speculation. Again, it's odd that she'd taking on the President, in public. That's spending political capital. That has consequences, politically, power wise. So why would she do that, for no reason.
Frumm had a piece out recently, saying she should run, it's logical, and that she probably will run:
David Frum: Elizabeth Warren is probably going to run
Following a brief feint in which the White House masterfully exploited the servility of congressional Republicans to create the impression that Barack Obama was still firmly in command of the country’s destiny, the revolt of liberal lawmakers over a proposed free trade has made it clear that the president is very much a lame duck.
...
Frum is skeptical of the notion that Warren can be much of a force in the Senate as a junior senator unless she retains her current role as something of a spoiler of pragmatic Democrats’ ambitions. Moreover, Chris Christie’s experience suggests that popularity in politics is fleeting, and Warren’s window to win her party’s nomination is rapidly closing.
And if Hillary Clinton wins in 2016, what role for Warren then? President Clinton will face Republican majorities in both House and Senate. Like her husband in the 1990s, she’ll have to do business with them—and squash any Democrat who objects. If Hillary Clinton loses in 2016, Warren’s role in the Senate will quickly be eclipsed by the next generation of Democrats competing for their chance in 2020. By then, Warren will be nearly 70, older than most presidential candidates, even in our geriatric political era.
“If Elizabeth Warren did seek the Democratic presidential nomination, she’d seize the party and the national agenda. Rank-and-file Democrats seethe with concern about stagnant wages, income inequality, and the malefactions of great wealth,” Frum noted. “Left to her own devices, Hillary Clinton will talk about none of that.”
“If a politician expresses ideas that are shared by literally tens of millions of people—and that are being expressed by no other first-tier political figure—she owes it to her supporters to take their cause to the open hearing and fair trial of the nation,” he concluded. “It would be negligent and irresponsible not to do so.”
Frum makes a good case, but the only factor he did not appear to consider is the possibility that Warren is as career-minded and ambitious as the next politician. If she is a truly selfless ideologue, she might take Frum’s advice and take a stab at the queen. If she misses, her supporters will find her sacrifice admirable and will respect her for enduring the subsequent consequences. And there will be consequences.
As anyone who didn’t back Clinton in 2008 and found themselves on her “enemies list” will attest, the former first family has a long memory. An attempt to unseat Clinton from her present perch as the Democratic heir apparent to Barack Obama will not be forgotten. If Warren lunges at Clinton and misses, she can expect the remaining three years of her term to be especially frustrating. What’s more, as Frum suggests, Warren is unlikely to be able to retain her present status as progressive icon until 2020. Is that risk worth a presidential bid? Maybe not.
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/23/david-frum-elizabeth-warren-is-probably-going-to-run/