One of the things to understand about the Office of the Presidency is that while it’s an important office, the president ultimately isn’t the one who designs and drafts the laws. The president just votes on the bills passed by Congress; and while having a president who is willing to sign progressive legislation is undeniably a good thing, that’ll never happen if you don’t have progressives in Congress to create those bills.
It’s one of the reasons why I’m surprised to see the Boston Globe urging Senator Elizabeth Warren to reconsider her decision against running. I’ve always felt that Warren does more good in Congress.
Warren, for her part, has firmly denied that she’s interested in pursuing the White House, but that hasn’t stopped some Democrats from urging her anyway. The Globe’s editorial board is apparently among them.
In their piece on Sunday, the board warned that the Democrats would be “making a big mistake” if they let Hillary Clinton get the nomination unopposed:
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren can make sure that doesn’t happen. While Warren has repeatedly vowed that she won’t run for president herself, she ought to reconsider. And if Warren sticks to her refusal, she should make it her responsibility to help recruit candidates to provide voters with a vigorous debate on her signature cause, reducing income inequality, over the next year.
The paper suggested that Warren could position herself as a legitimate alternative to Hillary Clinton, while dismissing other Democrats like Jim Webb and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley:
The Democratic Party finds itself with some serious divides that ought to be settled by the electorate. Some are clear-cut policy differences, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an enormous free-trade agreement with Pacific Rim nations that Warren opposes and Clinton backs. Even in areas where the candidates agree, there are bound to be different priorities: It’s hard to imagine a President Clinton defending and enforcing the Dodd-Frank legislation with as much vigor as a President Warren, for instance.
Supposedly, Clinton met with Warren in December, with the purpose of soliciting policy recommendations, but Warren said that she would “wait and see” how progressive Clinton’s campaign would be last month.
According to the Huffington Post, Clinton leads Warren by more than 45%.
Clinton can run, and hopefully Clinton can get elected. I have no desire to see political dynasties, but it’s not unheard of for families in politics to have multiple presidents in office who did remarkable things for the country (Roosevelt, anyone?). I can understand using Warren to motivate the voters and electrify the base, but let’s step back for a second and see the big picture: Warren is better served in the Senate, and she knows that.
Having said that, if there’s anyone on the Democrat side who strikes me as being able to tell the ignorant man-children running the Republican party exactly where they can shove their partisan nonsense, it’s Hillary Clinton. And they’re abjectly terrified of her as a result.