Warren, beloved of the progressive set, has been dutifully not endorsing anyone.
My take: she knows that she has some power and is saving it to use when it will be of most good to the result in November.
The primary process will be over when Warren says it is over, likely before the end of the month. Her stating that it is time to move along and work on the healing and unification process will have impact perhaps rivalling even Sanders saying it, will force Sanders to say it.
Of course she will have, behind the scenes, gotten promises of various people (not herself) being placed in various key positions (not the ceremonial VP spot but ones of little flash and of significant actual policy implementation impact) and other commitments from Clinton first.
If she really worked for the Progressive cause, she’d have endorsed Bernie a long time ago. If she wants to join the Democratic establishment, she’ll endorse HRC. But really, most people in the US don’t even know who she is, so I wouldn’t get too excited about what she does or doesn’t do. I’m sure she’ll get all sorts of promises from HRC, all of which will be promptly relegated to the dust bin as soon as she’s inaugurated.
Warren’s going to be a Senator. She’s not going to be in the Cabinet. As a Senator, she’s a progressive hero. In the Cabinet, she’d be an implementor of Clinton policy at best, which would damage her standing among hardcore lefties, and at worst she’d end up a scapegoat, as Cabinet Secretaries often are.
aside from saying this, what has Warren ever accomplished in the Senate or elsewhere (that her and only her could do)? She’s merely a vocal firebrand, as Ted Cruz is for Republicans. And given Berners’ love of her, I’m not too into her. I’ll take Chuck Schumer instead.
“Most people” are not the core of support for Sanders, most people who are that core very much know and care about who Warren is.
Agreed. Her being in the cabinet or VP is not what she will getting.
Yup. It is over when she says it is. What gives her saying it is time to rally behind Clinton more cred when she does (and she will) with her progressive fans than how she has behaved to date?
My concern about that is that personnel is policy, but selecting based on that motivation tends to politicize the faithful execution of the law. Competence should be the primary attribute Presidents look for, not someone who is motivated to implement an ideological agenda.
“Faithful application of the law” is always politicized. And there are competent managers on both sides of the aisle - the question is which aspects of the law do the competent managers want to highlight?
Anyways, Warren is kind of a middle ground currently - a strong left-leaning progressive, who tends to govern pragmatically, and is comfortable in the “establishment”. So really, an endorsement for Clinton wouldn’t be out of character. But she also does like the issues that Sanders is raising. So she’ll hold her powder right now and likely endorse Clinton after she wins New York (or after the final primary).
Faithful application of the law is not always politicized. James Comey, for example, is well known as a very non political guy who takes his position very seriously. Presidents also often appoint members of the other party to cabinet positions because they know they will execute their duties faithfully and impartially. Warren seems to be very against that approach. She seems to be calling for activists in Democratic administrations.
What power is she going to have in Nov that she doesn’t have now? Is there any doubt at all that she’s going to endorse whoever runs on the Democratic ticket?
If you’re worried about Bernie voters not voting for HRC, it’s his endorsement that would make a difference, not hers. She’ll just look like a sell-out, having sat through the real fight for the progressive agenda.
That’s a nice delusion. The law, itself, is political. Where one decides to focus on the law, because no person can apply the entirety of the law with equal application - they don’t have the manpower. That’s, btw, why people can jaywalk with impunity, even though it is ‘against the law’ - its not because the police are not applying a ‘faithful application of the law’, it’s because they have other priorities. Those focuses and priorities are political. Always.
Police are not allowed to be political and can get punished for being political. At least if their political enforcement differs from the desires of the local politicians. I’m just as cynical as you, but I think that a high profile Senator actually advocating for what amounts to loyalty tests for executive branch officials is not a positive step. The idea is that we’re supposed to identify the parts of our political system that still don’t work the way they should and fix them, just as previous generations did. Endorsing politicization of everything is not where we should be going.
The power is before November, to impact what happens then and afterwards.
Again, her focus is on getting the “right” personnel in place. She will get as a show of gratitude for getting Sanders to pivot to the unfication process by the end of the month, and she has the power to make that happen.
The concept here is not “loyalty tests” but not having industry insiders being placed in the positions of policing the industry.
In terms of the political lean being relevant though … think Supreme Court nominee. We are all conscious that judging and executing the law includes some interpretation.
To the degree Warren can persuade Sanders to endorse Clinton effectively and for Sanders to in turn persuade his supporters to support Clinton when it counts (in the Nov vote) she will be effective. If not, not.
Anything else is noise around the edges. Warren endorsing Clinton before Sanders is mathematically eliminated will simply be seen as a sell-out by the true Bernheads. Who are a disturbingly large fraction of his total support.
The right media has done an excellent job of demonizing every possible left spokesperson / celebrity / big beast. Warren is more well known in right-leaning America than she is in left-leaning America. Unfortunately what those right-leaning folks know is far from the truth. So whatever she does say whenever she does say it will be more noticed and amplified (and vilified) on the right than it will be noticed or lionized on the left.
IMO the only (or at least vastly preponderant) way to keep Sanders supporters enthused and involved on the D side is something like this:
Sanders himself (at least in public) says “It’s time to chose Progressive (very) Lite over the monstrous troglodytes from the right; I withdraw to unify our forces against teh Evil and I command thee to support Clinton.” And backs this up with lots of repeats and lots of deeds to match words.
Warren’s ineffectual bleating will be nothing against this. And nothing without this.
ETA: Just to be clear … She *is *a darn effective politician. But her power is not that of the pulpit. She’s effective in the hearings and the negotiations and the law-writing. And the personnel.
It seems to me her (probably mythological) family history was not used to gain advantage (for her) and really was quite innocent. Two of her employers used it to prove their diversity. It happens.
Tempest in a teapot, except in the right wing bubble.
Warren is in a pickle. She can’t vocally support Hillary because it would be seen among progressives as selling out and she needs to raise money from them. She can’t vocally support Bernie because she knows the fix is in for Hillary and the Clintons keep a list of people who don’t endorse them and if Hillary gets elected then she will be on that list.
She knows that discretion is the better part of valor and is sitting on the sidelines until Bernie throws in the towel.
As Obama said, “She’s a politician just like the rest of us.” Good ol’ Barack. Ever since his sheen wore off, he’s been determined to make sure no one else gets to capture the public’s imagination.