Elizabeth Warren

What is notably absent from any of the four opinion pieces in today’s Globe is a realistic assessment of the downsides for Warren of tossing her hat in the ring. All of the pieces assume that Warren would be more influential as a presidential candidate than she is as a Senator. But why should that necessarily be so? Yes, she will get a lot more national press coverage, especially because if she jumped in, she’d probably see a quick bump in the primary polls that would make her appear competitive with Hillary. But much of the coverage would be on horserace nonsense, about the latest perceived gaffe, and about the latest tidbit that some RWNJ managed to dig up about Warren’s past, as it always is. A bunch more of it would be on international affairs – ISIS, Israel, Russia, all stuff that is squarely in Hillary’s wheelhouse and that is not likely to help Warren much. Relatively little of it would be about what Warren really wants to spend her time talking about, namely, income inequality and related economic issues. Query whether, as a presidential candidate, she could generate more favorable press coverage on those issues than she can if she participates in the campaign actively, but from the Senate.

And think about it: when was the last time that a primary candidate was able to direct the nation’s focus to particular issues to which he or she wanted to call attention, and actually achieve something substantive? I can’t think of one. Maybe Warren would be different. But maybe not – and if not, she likely returns to the Senate less influential for having failed than she is now. Unless she wins … but honestly, there is precious little evidence that that’s a realistic outcome.

The Globe’s new-found enthusiasm for Ms. Warren further convinces me that she made the right decision by staying out of the race. To me, these op-eds primarily demonstrate the increasing irrelevance and superficiality of what was once a fine newspaper.

I like it that she can stay in office as long as she likes. I am impressed by her skill at choosing issues to focus on, and by effectively moving our party towards her positions on those issues. I find Senator Warren far more effective than Senator Clinton was. It seems to me that Hillary Clinton ran for the Senate as a stepping-stone to other pursuits. In contrast, it seems to me that Senator Warren ran for the Senate because she wanted to be a Senator.

I see a host of negatives in Ms. Warren running for President, and not many positives.

I hope that Ms. Warren stays right where she is. My enthusiasm for Ms. Clinton continues to wane as her identity as a public official separate from her husband continues to emerge.

First of all, Warren does not want to run and has never expressed an interest.

Second, she can be more effective as a senator. As a senator, she can focus on the issues that she knows best and work as a real advocate. She would not be able to do this as well as president, and the presidency also requires foreign affairs work that is simply not her forte–or her interest, frankly. She can do a lot of good building the progressive wing of the Senate, which is of great importance because Congress creates and passes legislation.

Third, if she were to run and–hypothetically–to win, then her seat would be vacant, and Baker would get to appoint the interim senator until a primary and general special election. Joe Kennedy would probably be eying the seat, and he’d be a downgrade from Warren.

Note that the Globe does not say that Warren should be president, or even the nominee, or that the Globe would support her if she ran.

Rather the Globe says that it would be kinda sad, or at least boring, if she or someone didn’t run against Clinton, because gosh what fun is that.

The other argument in the editorial (which represents the paper) is that her candidacy would beneficially advance her issues and “enrich the political process for years to come.”

I have no doubt there will be many causes for regret in a Clinton candidacy and presidency. That’s what lesser-evils choices do. Warren running this particular gantlet will not change that.

The image of a Presidential bid advancing an actual agenda is a civics-lesson fantasy at odds with the money-choked reality of today’s corrupted political landscape. I’m not saying it could never be possible, but not in 2016.

Want to change that? Okay, elect more Elizabeth Warrens to Congress from other states. And leave her where she can do some good.