Hillary Clinton Needs A Strong Challenger Like Elizabeth Warren, 'The Boston Globe' Says & Here's Why That's True
Much like many of her vocal supporters advocating for the Massachusetts senator to change her mind on not running in the 2016 presidential race, on Sunday, the editorial board at The Boston Globe urged Elizabeth Warren to run in 2016, stressing the need for presumed frontrunner Hillary Clinton to have a strong opponent in the Democratic primary. Warren has repeatedly expressed her lack of interest in running for president, but the Globe's editorial board argued she should reconsider her decision, and addressed the Democratic party directly, cautioning that it would be "making a big mistake" if Clinton won the Democratic presidential nomination without any "real opposition," adding:
Fairly or not, many Americans already view Clinton skeptically, and waltzing to the nomination may actually hurt her in the November election against the Republican nominee. ...
She should not shrink from the chance to set the course for the Democratic Party or cede that task to Hillary Clinton without a fight. ... If she puts her causes and goals front and center, as Democrats gather their forces for the crucial 2016 campaign, Warren could enrich the political process for years to come.
The newspaper is only one among many pushing for Warren to run. Groups like Run Warren Run and Ready For Warren have been established with the sole purpose of encouraging a Warren 2016 bid. With a clear record for progressive policies and as a fierce champion for the middle and working class, Warren is a favorite among many, particularly those who are suspicious of Clinton being less liberal or those reluctant to allow Clinton too easy a path to the White House.
Though the paper mentions former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb and rumored candidate Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor, as possible contenders it noted that neither politicians were "top-tier opponents," and with good reason — realistically, how many Americans (and political donors) are as familiar with those names and their political histories as they are Clinton's?
The case for a Democratic candidate able to present a formidable challenge to Clinton is powerful. A competitive, quality primary race not only gives presidential hopefuls an opportunity to flesh out a vision and establish the kind of candidate they are, it also helps hone their skills in responding to issues and attacks by their challengers, rendering the party's nominee more prepared to handle the considerably tougher general election as well as, potentially, the nation's highest office.
Warren would not only be more than capable of providing a mouth-wateringly exciting Democratic primary, it would pit two equally tremendous female candidates against each other, strengthening their competence as political figures and the Democratic party. And Warren's presence would also inject some vitality into a presidential race that many have already said lack new blood and new ideas. As New Yorker editor David Remnick posed about Clinton's potential too-easy path to the presidency:
There are twenty months left before Election Day, 2016. Bush v. Clinton, the likeliest race (though don’t count on it), promises endless discussion of families who are as familiar to us as the Simpsons. But where are the other candidates? What is behind the national impoverishment of political talent?
Image: Getty Images (2)