Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren Won't Say Much About War, But the Draft-Warren Movement Doesn't Seem to Mind

The halfway insurgency.

|

Talking Points Memo reports:

WARren

Two progressive grassroots groups, MoveOn.org and Howard Dean's Democracy for America, announced Tuesday that they would launch efforts to draft Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) into the race, if their members approved.

"There is too much at stake to have anything other than our best candidates in the debate," Ilya Sheyman, executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action, said in a statement. "We are prepared to show Senator Warren that she has the support she needs to enter—and win—the presidential race."

If a majority of its members okay it, MoveOn.org plans to spend at least $1 million to convince Warren to seek the White House. That would include staffing up in states like Iowa and New Hampshire, assembling volunteers and small-dollar donors à la the Ready for Hillary PAC, and media buys. Democracy for America didn't detail its plans, but noted that a previous poll of its members had Warren with a nearly 20-point advantage over Clinton.

Left-wing dissatisfaction with Clinton has two main components: opposition to her hawkish foreign policy, and distrust for her cozy ties with Wall Street. These have been the themes for almost every politician who's been pondering a populist insurgency in the primaries (as opposed to those establishment figures, such as Joe Biden or Martin O'Malley, who would not being challenging Clinton from the left). War and Wall Street: Jim Webb hits both notes. Bernie Sanders hits both notes. When Brian Schweitzer looked like he might run, he hit both notes.

Elizabeth Warren does not hit both notes. Wall Street is a big issue for her; war is not. As Danny Vinik pointed out in October, she hardly ever says anything about foreign policy at all. Her clearest views are on Israel, where there doesn't seem to be much daylight between her and Hillary. The only substantial split Vinik found between Warren and the White House on an international issue was her September vote against aid to the Syrian rebels. But there are absolutely no signs that, should she run for president, she'd make that a significant part of her campaign—let alone any of the issues where she doesn't differ from the liberal interventionists, such as Iran sanctions, or where she simply refrains from speaking, such as the drone war.

Of course, she might not run. She probably won't run. But this is the person MoveOn and Democracy for America are making a vehicle for their dreams of insurgency: a senator who never talks about empire. Is that simply because they think she's the strongest possible challenger to Clinton? Or are they uncomfortable backing a candidate whose criticisms of a Clinton foreign policy would be, by extension, criticisms of the current White House too? Or do they just ultimately not care much about the issue?

Advertisement

NEXT: Colorado "Make My Day" Law Protects Man Who Defended Himself Against Cops

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Huh, so the Jews didn’t want to be associated with the Hindu religion. I understand.

  1. Run. Oh god, please let her get the nomination.

    1. Nah. Democrats are too smart for that. If people like Warren could win the nomination, Kucinich would have been a shoo-in and Ned Lamont would have sailed to victory.

      1. Howard Dean was headed towards the nomination until he made that weird howling noise.

        1. I believe Howard Dean was headed towards the nomination about the same way… I was headed towards the nomination: He wasn’t.

          Based on a kind of feedback loop, he and the noisy people around him thought he was headed towards the nomination, but the DNC had scratched his name off the list long before he tanked.

    2. She won’t. From a tactical POV, you’re spot on, but the people in charge want to win and know she can’t.

      She will run fully aware of this but with the goal of keeping Clinton from moving too far towards the center during the primary, which will come with a cost in the general.

    3. She’s about as qualified to be president as Whoopi Goldberg.

      1. She’s exactly as qualified to be President, if not more qualified, than Barack Obama was in 2008.

        She’s a somewhat weaker candidate because “first woman President” doesn’t push all the guilt buttons that “first black President” did.

        She’s an unlikely candidate, but it all depends on who else is running, and just how bugfuck nuts the Dems go over the next year or so.

        1. It will also depend on how radical the Republican candidates appear in their platforms. We have to remember that despite the ability of the Republicans to move the center to the right overall as a consistent overall objective, in the interim they can also take too large of a step and scare the bejezus out of the majority of the active electorate [that part of the eligible voting public that actually participates regularly], momentarily alienating them.

          However, back to the issue of Elizabeth Warren’s appeal, she appears to have given more substantive thought to her articulation of her arguments, as opposed to where Barack Obama was when his candidacy was launched. She is also more experienced in domestic government issues than he was when he ran. For Obama, his greatest attribute in his 2008 campaign was his “experience” as a political candidate for office (regardless of the office itself) over Elizabeth Warren who has more substantive political issue experience and expertise and much less electioneering experience than Obama had at the time of his campaign.

  2. Wait a second. She’s really in the Senate? I thought that was a joke. What kind of insane people elected her?

      1. They have the franchise? I thought that privilege was revoked after they showed an inability to stop voting for that evil drunken family.

        1. Oh no, that was just a dead hooker. Nobody who mattered died. No harm, no foul, right?

        2. No. California has dibs on being the first state to be ejected from the Union.

          1. Hopefully through Geology.

  3. a previous poll of its members had Warren with a nearly 20-point advantage over Clinton.

    Literally dozens of Americans.

  4. Why does anyone care what this crazy bitch does or doesn’t say?

    Totally sending her a bottle of liquor.

    1. By “liquor”, you mean “fire water”, right?

      1. Actually, yes I did.

        Hey, she claimed to be indian right?

    2. Because she’s one of the best assets the opponents of her party has.

  5. I am sure Team Red strategists are just as excited about the prospect of Team Blue nominating Warren as Team Blue strategists are about the prospect of Team Red nominating Huckabee or Santorum.

    1. ^This. Well-put.

    2. Or Jeb. Can you see all the heads exploding in voting booths?
      Maybe a real libertarian moment isn’t so far off.

  6. much as I hate to say it, the only honest broker in that bunch is Bernie Sanders. I disagree with him on just about everything but the man tends to be upfront about who he is and what he thinks. Faux-beth is a mirage candidate, a female version of Obama on whom progtards can project their fondest wishes while ignoring the few things about her that are known (and which should bother them).

    1. I agree with you on this. I can respect a person that I disagree with; I cannot hold any respect for someone that goes along to get along.

    2. Why should it bother the left? Fraud is perfectly OK if the person committing it is a fellow leftist. Principals trump principles.

  7. I would say, they’re just hedging the bet with a relative tabula rasa (in the spirit of Barack Obama) in case Americans don’t fall into line with Madam Clinton.

  8. Is that simply because they think she’s the strongest possible challenger to Clinton?

    I would say it’s because they’re a bunch of deluded nitwits who believe her nonsensical rhetoric. They somehow have convinced themselves Wall Street’s evil outsized profits, if confiscated by the government, would be sufficient to run their crypto-socialist fantasyland.

    1. ^This. But look at who we’re talking about. Moveon.org and Howard Dean’s fanclub. These people are an embarrassment to the mainstream of their party.

  9. Given the current class war climate, I’d think she would be a shoe in running on the “rich people are evil and banks are their enablers” platform.

    1. The eat-the-rich wing of the Democratic party is probably the loudest faction but it’s by no means the largest–if it were, how could a corporatist like Clinton be the party’s standard-bearer?

      1. Principals, not principles, my man.

        Saying the right words magically removes the taint of your huge bank account.

  10. My Aunty Mila recently got a nine month old Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 just by parttime work from a computer…
    Try this web-site ::::: http://www.jobsfish.com

    1. Your Aunty Mila is clearly more qualified than Warren is to be President.

      1. +1 I DON’T WANT UNLEADED.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.