With liberal dissatisfaction over the inevitability* of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton reaching an all-time high, many are clamoring for tough-talking populist darling Elizabeth Warren to get in the race. POLITICO reports:
Three prominent liberal activists — including the president of a large union — are calling for Elizabeth Warren to challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, insisting that the Massachusetts senator's participation in a competitive primary process would benefit the party. …
"We agree with former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, the Boston Globe, and many others that Sen. Elizabeth Warren would be a strong candidate, and that if Hillary Clinton also declares, the debate between the two of them would be critical for our nation," write Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America, and Annie Leonard, executive director of Greenpeace USA — the environmental group — in a new letter published by Run Warren Run, a campaign organized by liberal political organizations.
The letter's authors argue that Democrats deserve a lively debate over issues, including the role of money in politics, voting rights, global trade, global warming and worker's rights, and that the "country needs new ideas and new leaders."
A Warren candidacy holds a certain appeal, even for libertarians. She would certainly present a much clearer ideological contrast to whatever name the Republicans put forth than Clinton would.
That said, liberals might be disappointed to learn that although Warren talks a good game about crushing big business with the awesome power of government, her economic ideas leave much to be desired—even from an anti-corporations standpoint. She supports the Export-Import Bank and won't endorse Sen. Rand Paul's bill to Audit the Fed, for example.
And while she's never said much about foreign policy, many believe that she's not dramatically less hawkish than Clinton, anyway.
*We're not supposed to use that word, but whatever.