Nov
11
2013

Rooting for Injuries Watch: Hillary versus Warren.

Depressingly, I have to agree with Ben Domenech here*:

Even if [Elizabeth Warren] ultimately runs, I’m far more skeptical about Warren’s ability to actually beat the Hillary machine, in part because of the differences and similarities between the last inspiring progressive Senator who stole Hillary’s rightful place on the throne. The Obama nomination came out of nowhere – the explosion of an organic internet-driven fundraising challenger to the Clinton machine fueled in part by dramatic hopes for history-making achievement combined with a thriving cult of personality – and is unlikely to be replicated with Warren, who has nowhere near that kind of appeal nor the apparent ambition to go after the party establishment directly. That’s how she’s different.

But consider how she’s the same: for those Democrats on the fence between the two frames [Noam] Scheiber describes [in his TNR piece here] (and I think there are a lot of them), the lesson of Obama’s presidency may turn out to put them off upstarts for a cycle or two. Forget ideology: doesn’t Obama’s eight years serve as a cautionary tale for the left of what happens when you put so much faith in an inspiring speaker without much experience in actually running things? The nation is certainly disappointed by the failure of Obama’s dramatic, uplifting rhetoric to come to fruition in his policies: on the economy, health care, and more, Obama’s failed to meet their expectations (indeed, the one area Obama is most popular is in the arena of national security, where his acceptance of Bush era approaches to policy and endless drone war has wiped away any memory of the candidate whose rise depended, above all, on being right about Iraq).

…although, honestly, I don’t think that Hillary can necessarily beat, say, Joe Biden in the 2016 primaries. The woman is fundamentally dull.  Which, to be pretty obnoxiously blunt about it, is something that you can say about Elizabeth Warren, too. At this point in the 2008 election cycle Hillary was the front-runner, sure – but Barack Obama was this fresh new guy that had made a speech in 2004 that everybody thought was great and healing and bipartisan and the rest of that gauzy, feel-good stuff.  Elizabeth Warren does not have that reputation.  Elizabeth Warren has the reputation of being a scold.  That will serve her wonderfully wither regard to liberals, and apparently Massachusetts voters.  It will not serve her as well when it comes to the other 80% of the population.

But that’s assuming that the woman makes it out of the 2016 primaries, the actual mechanics of which being something that Scheiber never exactly described.  And for good reason: Clinton will probably have the money, and Biden will probably have the staff.  Where is Warren going to get the engine she needs to win the nomination?

Moe Lane

*Judging from Ben’s title – “I Wish Elizabeth Warren Was The Democratic Party’s Future, But She Isn’t” – he’s kind of depressed about her not getting the nod, too.

10 Comments

  • BigGator5 says:

    “Where is Warren going to get the engine she needs to win the nomination?”
    .
    Obama, or more specificly OFA. The time has come to watch OFA very closely to see what THEY have to say about Clinton and Biden.

    • acat says:

      Indeed, although the wrinkle there is OFA haven’t proven to be very good at getting any candidate not named Barack Obama elected.
      .
      Mew

  • Darin_H says:

    I don’t discount Biden getting the nomination because he will have Barack Obama Legacy for America on his side. That will be a huge drag in the general, but just the opposite in the primaries/cauci.
    .
    Hillary, Biden, Warren, O’malley, Cuomo – none of them particularly scare me for 2016 (Bredesen is about the only one I fear, and no worries about him getting the nomination). But by God, the 2016 Dem primaries are going to be fun – it’ll make our 2008 primary look glorious by comparison….

    • midwestconservative says:

      I fear a southern/Midwestern pro-gun Democrat Governor, especially since the GOP looks like it wants to run an anti-gun Northeastern Governor.

      • Darin_H says:

        Yep Bredesen vs Christie – probably worst case scenario. But the chance of Bredesen getting the Dem nomination is about the same as Bredesen getting the Rep nomination….

        • midwestconservative says:

          That or KY’s Governor Steve Beshear. That being said both are Blue dogs and stand no chance at getting the nomination.
          A “New Democrat” which are more liberal then Blue Dogs, are more tolerable to progressives and I’d argue more dangerous to us should we be fool enough to nominate Chris Christie.
          The three front runners from that particular group are Bayh/Warner/Schweitzer. Liberal enough to make it through a primary but “moderate” enough to tack to Christie’s right over in Fly over country.

          • acat says:

            Christie is not, for better or worse, “next in line guy”. Not running will do that to ya, and .. that means Santorum is arguably better positioned than Christie.
            .
            In deference to Mr. Lane’s expressed site guidelines, I will not express an opinion regarding either candidate.
            .
            I will, however, express a hope that another GOP governor, ideally one around 90 degrees longitude, decides to hop in.
            .
            Mew

  • midwestconservative says:

    Please Dear God! Make Liz Warren the Democrat nominee in 2016!
    Amen

  • sicsemperstolidissimum says:

    It is still possible that Pat Buckman might win the Democratic nomination and the presidency in 2016.

  • Herp McDerp says:

    Clinton will probably have the money, and Biden will probably have the staff. Where is Warren going to get the engine she needs to win the nomination?

    Where do the “Oh God, anyone but Hillary!” people go if Biden has a stroke sometime in the next couple of years?

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com