See it here. A few edited excerpts follow, many points I've made before:
"If
Warren stands by that decision [not to run], she’ll do a tremendous
disservice to her principles and her party. [...] Once the presidential
contest begins in earnest, she’ll be pressured to join the cheering
squad for the achievements of the Larry Summers-Bob Rubin years—and to
keep silent as Hillary Clinton raises hundreds of millions of dollars
from Wall Street Democrats.
[...]
You know who plays a truly significant role in the national
conversation? First-tier candidates for president, that’s who. [...]
Warren plainly does want to do things—and is denying herself her best
chance to get them done. 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.
[...] Only
one thing could change this dreary calculus: a credible challenge from
Hillary Clinton’s left. Such a challenge would force Clinton to shift
left—and might extract commitments that would bind a future Clinton
presidency, as the right extracted commitments from Mitt Romney in 2012.
Even better, from the left-wing point of view: A left-wing challenger
might actually win.
[...] 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. It would be negligent and
irresponsible not to do so. Elizabeth Warren belongs to that unusual
group who stick by their principles even when it might cost them
something, including an election. But if you’re willing to lose for your
principles, surely you should be willing to try to win for them?"
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.