HILLARY CLINTON’S HARD CHOICES

[Capt. Obvious]

....

As the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza and others have pointed out recently, the possibility of Warren entering the race is one that should give the Clintonites fits. Warren is articulate, forceful, and, in attacking the bankers and the plutocrats, she’s fastened on an issue—rising inequality—that electrifies progressive activists. And she’s a woman, which means that her accession to the White House, or even to the top of the Democratic Party ticket, would be just as historic as the elevation of Clinton.

Over the past few months, Warren has repeatedly said, “I am not running for President.” But her use of the present tense, and the appearance of her memoir, “A Fighting Chance,” may not be entirely happenstance. In reviewing Warren’s book in last week’s issue of the magazine, my colleague Jill Lepore noted that its publication “only adds to the speculation that Warren is considering challenging Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2016. And, even if Warren doesn’t run, this book is part of that race.”

How should Clinton deal with the Warren factor? If you were more cynical and uncharitable than I am, you might suspect that there was something not purely coincidental in Simon & Schuster, her publisher, choosing the same week Warren’s book was published to release some details about “Hard Choices,” including its title and cover photo, which shows the author looking very formidable. In any case, the announcement about the upcoming book insured that Clinton, rather than Warren, was the primary topic of discussion when the panelists on the Sunday-morning talk shows had their obligatory discussion about 2016. (As it happened, it came on top of the news that her daughter, Chelsea Clinton, is expecting a baby, though the timing of that, at least, was surely coincidental.)

It may well be that Warren has no intention of running unless Clinton drops out. In that case, any opposition in the primaries would most likely be limited to fringe candidates, such as Brian Schweitzer, the populist former governor of Montana, who has expressed interest in running, and who is currently a commentator on MSNBC. Even if Warren were to challenge Clinton, all the indications are that she would lose. Clinton’s national approval ratings have fallen steadily during the past year, which may partly reflect the low profile she has been keeping. But she remains extremely popular among Democrats. The latest CBS News/New York Times poll, which was carried out in late February, showed that eighty-two per cent of them want her to run in 2016. Just twenty-two per cent of Democrats said they wanted Warren to run. (Forty-two per cent said they wanted Vice-President Joe Biden to enter the contest.)

The strategic issue facing Clinton isn’t whether she could get the nomination. Barring something shocking and unexpected, it’s hers for her taking. The question is how far she would have to tack to the left to capture some of the enthusiasm that Warren’s populist message has engendered. In a general election, against a well-financed Republican opponent, Clinton would need to have all those Warren supporters knocking on doors and posting on Facebook for her. But, at the same time, she would have to be wary of alienating moderates and independents.

....

New Yorker

[DonCoquixote]

1. Or

"But, at the same time, she would have to be wary of alienating moderates and independents. "

Or she could realizes that these coveted Reagan Democrats will turn on you at a moment's notice, and that they will run when you need them. If you are going to beat the GOP machine, which is full of Koch bros money, you will need people who knock on doors and walk on broken glass; the Reagan Democrats are NOT that.

[sabrina 1]

2. Don't we have an election in 2014 coming up? Where we have a chance to get

some actual Progressive Dems elected and then again 2016 where we can get more actual Progressive Dems elected?

If we were to focus on Congress, we the people might have a say in this country.

Anything can happen over the next three years so to even be talking about this right now is merely a distraction from what ought to be the main topic of conversation, CONGRESS.

Because as we've seen, a President can only do what Congress allows them to do. And when we put all our energy into that race, at the cost of the actual Representatives of the people, well, we know what happens.

I am taking the message we have been given when ever we object to certain policies, to issues directly affecting the people not getting attention etc, 'You can't expect the President to focus only on YOUR stuff, he is the President of ALL the people'! Okay, got it.

But MY Rep in congress is not the Rep for 'all the people' s/he is the one who was chosen by US to represent US and to whom we have more access.

So that is what I and many others are now going to be doing. So that if we get a President who does not represent the people's interests, but rather Corporate interests, Congress will be there to stop them. And if we DO get a President who represents us, Congress will be there to support him or her in getting things done for the PEOPLE.

Either if the people have Congress, the President will have to work with them and that is why I fail to see anymore why there is so much focus on the Presidential elections after all we've witnessed now.

[JaneyVee]

3. "A Fighting Chance" is a damn good campaign slogan.

[Sunlei]

4. “I think Hillary Clinton is terrific,”she said.“We've got to stay focused on these issues right now"

Sen. Warren, last Monday. when asked if Mrs. Clinton would make a good President.

She also has signed on a letter, "“All of the Senate Democratic women have written her a letter encouraging her to run.”

[Capt. Obvious]

5. First I've heard of this

You'd think that info would be all over DU.

[Sunlei]

6. It was on DU a couple days ago. I thought it was a nice statement,Mrs.Warren is a terrific Senator!