Elizabeth Warren Wouldn’t Be 2016's Obama, But She Could Be Its John Edwards

[Capt. Obvious]

....

Instead, Warren’s scores look a lot more like Edwards’s in the early stages of the 2008 campaign. He was at 63 among Democrats and 50.8 among all voters, according to Quinnipiac’s survey in February 2006. Both of these are within two degrees of Warren.

Edwards, of course, didn’t win. But he did appear to move the conversation, highlighting the issue of inequality though his “Two Americas” trope. He filled the populist gap and, in doing so, forced the field to the left. The rest of the field came around to Edwards on the economic stimulus, the minimum wage and his reservations with a free-trade agreement with South Korea.

OnTheIssues.org, which ranks candidates’ ideology based on their public policy statements, shows that Clinton and Obama saw their economic liberalism scores rise between January 2007 and January 2008. On a scale of 0 to 100, Clinton became more liberal by 18 points, while Obama’s became more liberal by 10 points. By the end of the campaign, both of their absolute scores matched Edwards’s.

....

In other words, Warren would have a receptive audience. She probably wouldn’t win the nomination, but — like Edwards — she could help to shape the policy debate.

538

That alone is why she should run.

[KittyWampus]

1. check your thread title. And I would never compare Warren to Edward's even though I understand

why it's being done.

[treestar]

2. Every time some Democrat says something good

there are calls for them to run for President. I've even seen it about Jimmy Carter recently - he could run again as he only had one term.

But just saying a few good things does not mean they could win or carry out the office with any particular skill or talent.

It's people who think the presidency is everything - just get the right President and paradise follows.

EW like Obama or Hillary would still have Congress to worry about. the Presidency-worshippers believe the right President will strong arm Congress, no matter what its composition, into progressive bills.

Their Messiah of choice is always someone who hasn't and the office yet. No real human, thank the FSM, could be what they want.

[JoePhilly]

6. +1

[Scuba]

7. I'm pretty sure the Justice Department works for the President. I'd love to see EW ...

... picking the AG, and other top regulators.

[pscot]

25. Can you imagine Larry Summers as her economic advisor?

Nor can I.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

10. "...saying a few good things does not mean they could...

carry out the office with any particular skill or talent."

Sigh... Elizabeth Warren has done MUCH MORE than just say some good things. Your comment sounds as if you have no idea who she is or what she has done.

Here's a short list to get you started: She is U.S. Senator from Massachusettes, having won that office handily. She also created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (http://www.consumerfinance.gov/), an entire new federal agency that protect proles like you and me from being victimized by financial institutions as what happened leading up to the 2008 housing and credit crash.

She is in many way MORE qualified at this point in her political career than Hillary was the first time she ran (and lost) and 12 years more academic and worldly experience than Obama had before he became president.

I'd much rather have a President Warren protecting us from the sharks than a President Clinton feeding us to the sharks.

[Beacool]

12. Nonsense!!!

"She is in many way MORE qualified at this point in her political career than Hillary was the first time she ran (and lost) and moreso than Obama was before he became president."

Liz Warren never won elected office until recently. Hillary, not only had been an activist first lady in the WH and knew by then the ins and outs of what it takes to be president, she was on her second term as Senator. Obama was on his second year, but at least he had previously been a State Senator.

Sorry, but their experience in politics in 2008 surpassed Liz Warren's. It takes a lot more to run a country than railing against Wall Street.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

13. I don't take into account your commentary, re: Elizabeth Warren. Obama: Senator and Harvard Prof.

Warren: Senator and Harvard professor.

It's clear you don't like her and so your response is to be expected.

[Beacool]

17. Please...........

I like her just fine, unlike her supporters who are constantly bashing Hillary, I don't feel the need to trash the lady. I'm just pointing out that to say that she would have more experience than Obama and Hillary is not true.

You may have a right to your choices, but not your facts.

[treestar]

23. +1

Railing against Wall Street from the Oval Office itself won't do a damn thing, but these claims she should be POTUS are as if that were the case.

[Beacool]

26. It will be hard enough for someone with experience to maneuver Congress,

let alone for someone who just entered politics recently. Obama found out the hard way. A president can have the best intentions in the world, but if he can't get Congress to agree with him, then it all goes down the drain.

[treestar]

22. Any Senator with similar experience is in the same place

The calls to run for POTUS are only because of something she just said. This also applies to Bernie, Jimmy Carter or whichever person said something good lately. There are many D Senators with more experience than EW. And she'd still have to deal with whatever Congress there is, and there's no proof she'd magically convince Republicans and Blue Dogs to do her bidding. That's why people hang onto someone who never held Executive Office before. They can always hope that one will be the Messiah. But being human she will surely have the same issues and guess who will be crying in their beer with disappointment.

[DirkGently]

3. I think I'd prefer our better liberals stay out of the WH.

It's hard enough speaking truth to power from anywhere in the halls of Congress. Warren's doing a lot where she is, and I think she's pushing the conversation in the right direction without becoming the focus of all liberal hopes and all conservative wrath and all the problems that come with that.

I'd vote for her, of course. But I don't know that I'd wish the Presidency on her, or be willing to see her shackled by the office.

[Scuba]

8. "Shacckled by the office". Hilarious.

[DirkGently]

11. Hilarious misspelled drive-by attempt.

[WhiteTara]

4. This is why she should lead the Senate. nt

[NV Whino]

5. She's cheating on her husband?

[sabrina 1]

9. Anyone but a Third Way/DLC candidate. Otherwise if that's what we get, best to focus where

the people have at least some chance of being heard, Congress and their local elections.

Enough with the now Billion Dollar WH races, they seem to have very little to do with the people anyhow, but Congress can stop whoever is in the WH from pushing Republican policies, and it can help should we get a Dem in the WH to push Democratic policies.

Seems to me all this focus on the three years in the future race is a waste of time.

[Skidmore]

14. How about Elizabeth Warren just being

Elizabeth Warren? She's the best possible person she can be, especially when drawing on her experiences and knowledge and sense of decency that inform her ideas. She can stand alone without having to be hung with the labels given to other people.

[hfojvt]

15. sure Edwards shaped the policy debate

for a brief shining moment.

Then when he dropped out, it went right back to SNAFU.

[JI7]

16. Edwards was a phony , learning about poverty by joining a hedge fund

hhahahah

[cbayer]

18. John Edwards? I most certainly hope not.

[m-lekktor]

19. I agree.

that is an insult. i always thought he was disingenuous even before all that mess.

[cbayer]

20. When I first started posting on DU, it was early in the primaries

and I was ferociously anti-Edwards.

Boy, did I take some heat. I thought they were going to throw me off the site.

I would never, ever compare Warren to him. He couldn't hold a candle to her.

[JI7]

24. i wouldn't even compare anthony weiner to him

[cbayer]

27. I wouldn't either. Weiner just got caught with his pants down.

Edwards was running around naked, but it took a long time for people to notice.

[JI7]

28. yeah, i thought edwards was a phony politically and on issues, but didn't think he would cheat

and turns out he didn't just cheat but so much more which just added to it and made it worse.

[cbayer]

29. I knew of his medical malpractice cases that he made his fortunes on.

Even after it was later clearly shown that the physicians involved in these cases had done nothing wrong, he never acknowledged what he had done to them.

He was a shyster, an ambulance chaser and an extremely successful trial attorney. That's it, imo.

Thank god he didn't get anywhere near the nomination.

Elizabeth Warren, OTOH, truly seems like a good one.

[Maedhros]

30. What was your opposition to Edwards?

I assume your disagreement with him was before the revelations of adultery.

I thought his policy positions were in the same ballpark, but slightly better, than the field.

[cbayer]

31. He was a self-promoting phony.

In the game only for his own egotistical reasons.

The history of how he made his fortunes is sickening, imo. He preyed on women who had had difficult chid births in order to sue physicians who, it later was shown, were completely without fault.

There are few people I dislike, distrust and have as low a regard for as John Edwards.

I never believed a single word he said.

[Beacool]

21. She's not my first choice for president, but to compare her to Edwards is a disservice to her.

Edwards spoke a good game, but turned out to be a self-serving egotist and a weasel of the first order. There are plenty of cheaters in politics and elsewhere, but Edwards took it to another level. He not only brought heartbreak to his terminally ill wife, but he also denied his daughter and tried to pass her off as the child of an aide. That's as low as it comes. Elizabeth deserved that her remaining time on earth be filled with love, laughter and peace of mind. She got the opposite. Screw Edwards!!!

[REP]

33. I don't think Warren is a pompous, preening entitled schmuck like Edwards is

I never thought much of the Edwardses, even before the mistress and the bickering.

[DJ13]

34. She's no Edwards

She can win.

People can relate to her, Edwards was pretending.