Elizabeth Warren Could Threaten Hillary From Left In 2016

by JASmius

I'm still searching for that looking glass through which I must have fallen:

It isn't Republicans such as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie or Texas Senator Ted Cruz that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should fear if she chooses to run for president in 2016, writes Noam Scheiber of the New Republic.

Instead, she should keep a wary eye on fellow Democrat Elizabeth Warren.

Warren, currently serving as U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, represents the more socialist wing of the party, which is growing in popularity among Democrats under 30, Scheiber writes, citing a recent Pew poll.

Clinton represents the "Democratic elites" associated with her husband's presidency, who moved left in support of the economic stimulus and larger unemployment benefits of President Barack Obama, though they still think the economy needs a "large, powerful, highly complex financial sector."

Eh.  Crusading Marxist versus corrupt Marxist.  They're still all Marxists.

Even though Schreiber correctly (because it's undeniable) describes a Warren presidential bid as a "suicide run," I'm still shaking my head over the unquestioned assumption that Hillary Clinton is inevitable in 2016.  Oh, I have no doubt that she still harbors the burning ambition to get to the Oval Office in her own right, but I'm racking my brain to recall an instance where the Democrat Party made such extraordinary accommodation for a loser.  Generally speaking, no unsuccessful presidential hopeful gets multiple shots at the proverbial brass ring.  Aside from Richard Nixon in 1968, you have to go all the way back to William Jennings Bryan in the late nineteenth century to find an example of a party so inured to tired, old blood.

So....what explains this impenetrably unimaginative mindset?  Why would a party that has moved so far to the Left, in large part as a reaction against the Clintonoid "New Democrat/six degrees of separation/deep cover" deception paradigm, willingly put their masks back on and go to ground on what they day-glo obviously believe?  And if they were willing to do that, why wouldn't they nominate someone fresh and new, with ties to the old Clinton regime, such as (by then) two-term New York Governor Andrew Cuomo?  Especially since they'd be unlikely to be facing, let's just say, a "lightweight" on the Republican side?

I dunno.  Perhaps I shouldn't be discouraging this ubiquitously perplexing Hillary obsession.  If she were the 2016 Donk nominee, she would lose in a landslide to pretty much any governor the GOP sent against her.  But then, I'm really not trying to discourage it; what I'm trying to do is understand it.

Of course, it does help explain why Barack Obama will simply shred the Twenty-Second Amendment and remain in office indefinitely, the law be damned.  Assuming his political acumen extends beyond his own worthless carcass.