Elizabeth Warren’s US Senate announcement is up at her website, and she previews the themes of the campaign in a video message. I might as well just put the majority of the transcript below.
Middle class families have been chipped at, hacked at, squeezed and hammered for a generation now, and I don’t think Washington gets it. Washington is rigged for big corporations that hire armies of lobbyists. A big company, like GE, pays nothing in taxes, and we’re asking college students to take on even more debt to get an education? We’re telling seniors they may have to learn to live on less? It isn’t right, and it’s the reason I’m running for the United States Senate. You know, I grew up on the ragged edge of the middle class, and I know it’s hard out there. I fought all my life for working families and I’ve stood up to some pretty powerful interests. Those interests are going to line up against this campaign, and that’s why I need you…. We have a chance to help rebuild America’s middle class. We have a chance to put Washington on the side of families. We can do this together.
Warren has combined this video message with a full day of campaigning. She greeted commuters at an MBTA stop in Boston this morning, and she plans to visit New Bedford, Framingham, Worcester, Springfield, Lowell, and Gloucester by tomorrow.
There has been some criticism from progressive circles over Warren’s entry into the race. There’s a concern that a loss would be a true setback for her agenda of consumer financial protection. They question what Warren can get done in a dysfunctional Senate.
Pardon me, but that is a seriously risk-averse take. The implication of that is to say that nobody of any import or worth should get involved in politics at any level, and that no amount of progress from the political side can possibly be good enough. I don’t see the theory of change there. If someone with integrity and a record of success wants to contribute to public service, I don’t really see the point in trying to stop them. That doesn’t mean there’s no role for movement-building outside of politics as a driver for policy that shift-with-the-wind politicians can adopt. But I don’t see why you wouldn’t want help on the inside with that.
What’s more, I do see this as an opportunity to test a legitimate anti-bank populist message against a real opponent. Massachusetts may be a blue state, but Scott Brown has a 54% approval rating and will have scads of money to tout his record and distort his opponent’s. He’s already doing some of that, playing the role of faux-populist with New England Cable Network, pretending that he “worked very hard to make sure that banks didn’t act like casinos with our money.” The history is clear. He single-handedly watered down the Volcker rule to almost nothing, mainly to protect Mass Mutual and other state banks. He has been the recipient of hundreds of thousands of dollars of big bank largesse. This anti-bank claim he’s trying to make is untenable. And Warren knows it.
I’m trying to think of the last candidate in America who really ran against Wall Street, rather than used an applause line against them. Someone who won’t get a dime in campaign contributions from the banking lobby. Is it William Jennings Bryan? I don’t know. But it’s worth seeing if that kind of a campaign can break the back of big money and work. Otherwise, we won’t have much of a democracy left to salvage.




102 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
obama will be warren’s real opponent, just as he was for coakley
how does warren manage to run a populist campaign w a neoliberal president of her own party undercutting everything she says?
i don’t see a path for her
hate to say it but i think brown sweeps back in on the 2012 gop wave
The U.S. Senate is not worthy of Elizabeth Warren.
Both before, after and more so than Bryan was Eugene Debs. After Debs, Huey Long. After Long, Paul Wellstone.
But this is one hell of an ideological genealogy.
If she is elected , she will probably be so marginalized and maligned that she will be stymied.
If she is not elected, she may be able to fight more effectively outside the system.
The worst thing that could happen is for her to be elected.
But more power to her what ever she does. We need a hundred more of this smart and brave woman.
We’re screwed. She’ll win the nomination and then she’s going to get slaughtered. Brown got elected based on class and gender issues. Mass is democratic, but it’s working class ethnic Catholic democratic. Brown won because of his pickup and his penis and he’ll do the same this time around.
I also have concerns about her being marginalized in the Senate but if she’s not in the Senate, she has no voice. Maybe her views will make some of the other “progressives” in the Senate finally feel ashamed for their poor performance in the cause of their country.
How cynical to have her doomed before she’s even started…cheers for her honesty & courage…..The game has hardly started.
There’s no place for an honest person like Warren in a political culture based on lying and whoring. If she ever made it to the Senate, she would either have to become part of that culture or become a gadfly subjected to constant ridicule and rejection by her own party.
Yawn.
Welcome to the fight. Elizabeth. I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
She’s an inspiring figure and I wish her well; I may even break my rule about contributing to Democrats. But Brown won’t be an easy opponent and as others have pointed out, even if she wins, she’ll be a voice in the wilderness.
Good message. Tough opponent. Will be interesting to watch. Quite possibly, disapponting for her and for us.
I think people are so discouraged right now that it’s hard to hope. When you’re standing at the bottom of a hole, the sides look very steep.
Marginalized or not, she would have a vote and a voice on the Senate floor, just like every other Senator. Sanders is marginalized yet his message resounds with the voters in his state.
RevBev, I’m with you, although I don’t know if I’d call it cynical. Don’t know what I’d call it but it smells. Is it fear of something? At least by running her message will be heard by the people of MA while the messages of other outsiders isn’t being paid much attention to. We’ll just have to wait and see what goes down. She may well lose but at least she’ll have stood up for what she believes. How many people would make their first run for political office at her age if they didn’t seriously want to change things?
observing eliz warren from a public viewpoint, i think she has the physical and personality tools to be a star democratic politician.
i find her a charming, physically attractive woman.
she is very articulate and seems to have a tolerant view of politics and a focused view of who her opponents are (and are not).
she took a hillary-clinton-like approach to her non-nomination to the consumer protection agency by not pitching a fit at her loss and then by rolling up her sleeves and getting into electoral politics.
whether she and her family can take the obnoxious lack of privacy (i include here vicious personal attacks of the karl christian rove sort) involved in american politics remains to be seen.
i will watch her campaign with interest. a first clue will come with who she chooses to guide and advise her campaign. a choice from some of the same old loser schmucks that dem candidates have been paying for years to help them lose would be a bad omen in my view.
And then you figure out a way to get the fuck out of the hole instead of waiting for somebody else to come along and lift you out.
Really? I’m interested to watch Warren go after this corrupt institution and turn it upside down.
It’s dark and a small light looks bright.
Well said.
a little advice here:
a senator is only doomed to ineffective if they agree in their heads to play by the rules.
warren may or she may not.
the way to be effective these days in this rich-good-old-boys club is to raise hell with the institution’s deficiencies from the beginning.
warren may or she may not.
if she has the mental toughness, i expect to her to be a star, perhaps a presidential candidate, of the stature of hillary clinton.
I have no doubt that she has the toughness and I have lots of hope. I like her so much that I don’t want to see her trampled – by the Democrats. The Rs are going to do the worst against her, no doubt, which is to be expected.
And when she gets elected, she will be turned/useless in 5, 4, 3, 2, …
Sanders? Kucinich?
All she can really do is raise hell. And I would support her for that alone.
But the whole system is corrupt. Voting makes no difference. IMHO. MY perspective. You are free to have your own.
Voting in a corrupt system will do very little. If anything at all. Could take that money and start people/worker-centered businesses. Where profit is minimal, and most of the money/profit goes to the workers AFTER the price of said product is lowered so that normal people can buy it without having to sell their souls.
It’s not just about winning. It’s about galvanizing people, long term, for change. If she continues to speak as directly about our problems, then she changes minds, win or lose. If she mutes her message, mid-campaign or last-minute, in order to win, that will disappoint me. We need a movement more than we need senators and congresspeople, more than we need bourgeois democracy, a new system more than we need to take over the old one.
HB
I envision the WH and the DSCC supporting Scott Brown like they haven’t supported anybody else. If Warren challenges the status quo from the get go, pulling no punches, this will be a really nasty campaign and for some reason my gut tells me Warren is gonna be like a badger.
Heh, Happy Your Day.
Excellent news. The next question is how out of state folks can support her beside donation to her campaign. We badly need some competent folks to represnt us.
Win or lose, she can get her message out and show that there are some voices crying in opposition to the malignant status quo. As someone here said, her biggest opponent will be obumble and his rightist policies.
Email her campaign and ask.
If I had been treated like Warren has been treated by the WH and Congress I’d be lookin’ to break one off in their asses all day, every goddamn day.
Thank you, Elliott. Can’t believe that I’m 78 – I only feel about 70. ;)
I agreee with you and BearCountry at #28. That goes a long way toward fighting the demoralization that the uniparty banks on to stop the movement for true change.
Thanks, SD. These spirited discussions make my knees feel better already.
ElizabethWarren.com
Happy Birtday, Twain! Let us help you eat that cake and blow out the candles.
on edit, not necessarily in that order :)
Happy Launch Day, Twain!!!
;~DW
Thanks – will need all the help I can get blowing out all those candles. You get cake if you eat your spinach.
Hey, DW. Thanks a lot. I wondered yesterday where you had been. Nice to see you.
Luckily, I love both! Here is a birtday hug ((Twain))
Unlike the people of Germany who went along I’m not gonna sit quietly by and watch the country taken over by 21st century fascists. Me and Norske still think alike.
Just use one big one. All those little candles prolly burn the damn house down.
Heh. From your mouth to God’s ears.
LOL. And the surrounding houses for many miles.
Let me add my own agreement to that sentiment, and also take the opportunity to wish you a good afternoon, my new “friend.” (You do know that I don’t understand any of this Facebook-y stuff, don’t you lol?)
Our birthday ritual was to make a wish, but never tell anyone what it was. It you managed, even with help, to blow them all out, your wish would be granted.
By whom, I’m not sure :)
Really? From your writing I’d never have guessed that you were older than 76 lol. Happy Day.
Candle Fairy!
Thank you. I’ll try to be more mature in my comments. :)
I’m proud to be the first :) It is so great to see you. I’m a facebook idiot myself.
Good luck Elizabeth!
What wbgonne said…
I think we got a good handle on her while she spent most of a year being, as I said downstream, yanked around by Obama like a marionette. I was embarassed for her, that she put up with it for so long. If she’d held a presser and emphatically said:
“Fuck this; I am OUTTA here.” I would be singing her praises. I have no doubt she’s a good person, and not without some personal courage, but there is no fire in the belly that I can see, and I will be astounded if she moves to directly crticize Obama and to put some distance between he and herself.
Again, contrast HER tone, with Alan Grayson’s reaction to Paul’s callous “let him die!” policy in the second great debate:
Grayson called it “sadism”.
If you’re a democrat who wants to be elected in 2012, you’d be better be ready to deliver some gut-punches like that to, not just the republicans, but to the guy in the White House.
And folks, if the democrats running for office aren’t willing to do that, their chances of winning, are slim and none.
LOL. Between you and my lady, then, I see the possibility of being dragged into the future. Kicking and screaming all the way of course. ;-)
Methinks she’s smarter than that. That would immediately cause her to be labeled a disgruntled whatever. She held her tongue and stuck it out as long as she saw some chance of her vision bearing fruit. That she didn’t say that kinda shit even after leaving the WH is a tell.
“…break one off in their asses…”
We can only hope…against hope, I fear.
She can take one leg, I’ll get the other. Prepare to meet your future, mortal.
Got an e-mail from her campaign this morning because I had already signed up. Will donate as much as I can. She appears to be very special.
You’ve given up before you even engage in the struggle.
Why can 1 Republican senator (e.g. De Mint) bring the Senate to a halt?
With Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and a few others,real filibusters
might be mounted which could bring real change.
Why can 41 Republican senators stop all activity ? Why can’t Democrats take a
page from their book,so they only need 41 to block a Republican Senate?
Well obviously, I don’t think she should have used those words, but emphatically putting an end to her use as a liberal dog-yummy would have shown that she was her own person. That she put up with it for so long, to me, is evidence that she’s infected with Obama’s “centrism”, and if she wants to get elected, I think she’s going to have to show the voters that she is “healed”, and the only way to do that is by distancing herself from Obama.
I like the way you think. You are right we can not wait until we are pulled out of this hole. We have to make it happen. This shit has gone on since Columbus landed here and changes are made slowly. We can’t give up if we do they win. My 2 cents. :)
Hopefully our webinar this evening will help us identify some points of engagement.
So the fact that she didn’t perform as you would have makes her a non-starter?
As yet, there has been no struggle on which to give up on.
She was obviously picked by Obama for the purpose of keeping liberals on the reservation. She let herself be used for that for months. Then he dumped her. It was not pretty, and there was damn sure no struggle, on her part; just a lame willingness for it to continue.
If she brings that sort of character to the campaign, that won’t be a struggle either, it will be a mercy killing, what with Obama’s coattails looking like sewage, from start.
Thanks for remaining objective in your comments. If Warren did win she’d be relegated to the basement by the “progressives” in the Senate. They managed to marginalize Feingold to the point that he stopped running for the Senate, and she’ll receive the same treatment.
Jeez, the negativity here. Okay she can’t singlehandedly reform the Senate, the Congress, and the entire financial system. Nobody can. Uphill battle, one candidate at a time. Can you at least take one glimmer of light and savor the possibility for one moment?
Better look out, I’ll get ya in trouble. *g*
You mis-state it. It’s not as I wanted her to perform. It’s that she performed so long and so loyally, for Obama as he flipped her around like a bass plug, in front of us.
You may see that as a character reference; I don’t.
I did not see “a lame willingness to continue.” I saw a strong woman who walked away from an abusive situation. She could have played the game and chose not to. Hope she’ll be kicking a** and taking names.
I welcome your trouble. :)
How do you know that? That’s your perception. The woman hasn’t come out with anything but a brief announcement and you’re already dissin’ the shit out of her.
You’re judging her on the basis of how you would perform under the same circumstances.
“That she didn’t say that kind of shit even after leaving the White House is a tell.”
Well, she better learn to say some of “that shit” and go after Obama to some extent, or she’s going to be spending a lot of time and money to be a sacrificial goat for Brown.
Twain, I’m sorry; she didn’t walk away, he dumped her.
Back to work.
Namaste
No, I’m judging her on how a person who was proud of her beliefs and who was also independent in them, would have behaved. She may have had those feelings, but holding still for what she went through, again, for me, is not a character reference, and the people would like to present it as that are, I think, badly mistaken.
The situation is a little more clear when Osterity is not the only focus of each and every complaint we have about our government, or lack thereof. There’s a lot more going on here than Osterity.
We’re going in circles. I’m done.
Thanks….in my view her decision takes a lot of conviction & alot of guts.
What’s a poor fleshie to do lol?
We’ll have to wait to see how she turns out, of course, but I think SD is right that she was constrained in what she could do or say while she was officially on the Obama team. Now she’s on her own, let’s see what she does.
Well, this poor ewwwwww….you know, person, is going to fix herself some lunch :)
I have about a millllliiioonnn eggs here. Anyone?
As a self-admitted pessimist and cynic, I’ll be interested to see how long it takes the need for a large campaign war chest to start coloring her views and words.
It seems there is always a new reformer or progressive the becomes popular only to be seduced and co-opted by the corrupt and suffocating system they become part of.
It’s like they become assimilated by the Borg collective. I’d love to be proven wrong, but . . .
Sounds like hen abuse.
yeah, warren’s problem is that she can only beat brown by running as an authentic democrat but she won’t be able to do that w obama as president
you can count on brown’s team wrapping obama’s deadweight around warren’s neck
obama is far closer to brown than warren policy-wise so the dem establishment won’t help her much either
she just say fuck it and run for president
“There is a lot more going on here than austerity.”
There sure is.
In this campaign, she’s going to have to deal with the shit coming down the pike from Obama’s two wars. (I assume Libya will continue to stumble forward…)
She’s going to have to take a position on Obama’s keeping thousands of our troops in Iraq after the expiration of the SOFA. If Al Sadr, as he’s promised, sends his supporters back into armed opposition against the continued occupation…or if bloody factional fighting breaks out, what will she say, as she campaigns?
Same thing with Afghanistan. Obama has given the “exit” date on that as 2014. I am skeptical. I think a lot of americans are skeptical. Will Warren help hold his feet to the fire on Iraq and Afghanistan? Is she so saintly that her admirers on here will give her a pass if, in her campaigning, she supports sustaining these miseries?
Given her “loyalty” that you tout as good character, I am, again, skeptical.
I don’t see any way that Obama can turn the economic situation around. That means that it’s probably going to get worse. I fully expect that Obama, knowing that he can’t get anything meaningful passed by the republican house, will be reduced to feigning the “good fight” (now that he has no weapon…) and lamenting when he gets his butt kicked. Given Warren’s track record of complacently being his “librul” poodle, while he plays the same role for the republicans, I would be surprised if she doesn’t fall right in line with Obama’s last, desperate, progressive-charade. We’ll see.
One thing: there is a lot of ongoing bullshit that’s going to be resolved over the next year or so. I look forward to it.
Not from me! You know better :) Although I guess eating eggs in front of them might not be very well received…
Believe it or not, one, Sassy, keeps pecking on the window trying to get in. It’s like the damn Birds around here. AAArrrrggghhh!
‘checker: I agree; while she was on the team, she was constrained. That’s why she should have left the team. Especially after being reduced to the status of near-permanent water-girl.
But, as I’ve said, I think she’s a good person. I’m willing to give her a chance. (No money…yet. :o) )
It’s like this, if you care about the country, if you care about the progress of what the bible zombies scorn as “secular humanism”, then you should be thoroughly pissed. Now that she’s no longer…constrained…I would like to see evidence of that from her. Needless to say, I think that for her to win this election, some of that evidence is going to have be a willingness to publicly criticize Barack Obama, and not for what went on with the Consumer Affairs kabuki, but about the economy and Obama’s bloody, lunatic, foreign policy.
What I’m saying is this: Nothing I have so far seen from her makes me think that she has either the political smarts or the courage to speak out, that would help her beat Brown. I hope that changes.
(I would add, when I hear people compare her, admiringly, to Hillary, I cringe. If that’s accurate, then she shouldn’t even run.)
She might be blaming you. Have a care.
I will :) You take care, too. bye.
wbgonne: “You can count on Brown’s team wrapping Obama’s dead weight around Warren’s neck.”
If you own a ranch, you can bet THAT on it.
God forbid she should be like Hillary!! I think you know I agree with your feelings. Just don’t look a potential gift-champion in the mouth, so to speak. We’ll know soon enough if she’s tough enough to do what we agree she must do.
‘checker, thanks. :o) I have to say, her potential very much remains to be seen. If she tries to run WITH Obama, I would say it’s very low.
She is brilliant and she cares.
That “moment” has now expired, now back to reality. The system is corrupt and broken beyond repair. Some of the comments express the same beliefs that infected the electorate when Obama promised “Hope and Change”, and we’re currently experiencing the results of that belief. I caught the PBS/Frontline broadcast last night and the second segment on the rapid expansion of the police state.
It exposes the extent to which the shadow government is monitoring the citizenry and its proliferation will only increase until we live in a virtual prison.
That is our reality.
My fear: that she will end up endorsing Obama.
My hope: that she will not endorse Obama, end up defeating Brown and in so doing ends up being virtually the only Dem to buck a massive GOP tide, thereby pointing the way for other Dems. (Those Dems would follow that lead not for ideological reasons but purely from a practical need-to-get-elected perspective.)
Risk averse? Try that one on Warren.
If she wants to do something for the middle class, going up against powerful interests, the big elephant taking a dump in her living room is Big O. That is one special interest she has never stood up against so far.
I would not overjudge that she did not piss in the tent while inside, or that she remained in it for as long as she did – Yves Smith, too, saw it as smart bureaucratic infighting and, within the lost cause, effective – and I would not even put too much weight on her not directly and bluntly challenging the White House now or going forward.
But there are two issues. One, there is absolutely no excuse for actively supporting Obama at this point. If she does that, she is working directly against her own professed objective. This is what has permanently disqualified Feingold in my mind as well – to support Obama is to make a mockery of what he claims to stand for.
The other issue – what I wrote over at Naked Capitalism:
I agree that, on principle grounds, any continued association with the Obama administration is a disservice to Warren’s policy objectives. It is the Mukasey Principle in reverse – then: If you join a corrupt administration, you will be forever tainted no matter what the motives. Now: If you choose to remain part of a corrupt administration, whatever you have accomplished will be tainted by association.
Further, Warren had been given an incredible opening for a clean break: Obama’s attempt at co-opting her had ended in her dismissal. She could have taken this as a sign to exit, and either go the Johnsen route of low profile acquiescence (in the, likely mistaken, belief that this would serve her policy objectives better), or could have staked out – antagonistically, or with no comment whatsoever on the past – a public position building her own power base independent of Obama and the party.
It is important to remember that even during the primaries, Obama was obsessed with control. He gutted the party apparat to build his own, gutted rival power centers after nomination and again after election (50 states etc.), and gutted nominally independent (527) issue groups. Warren has opted to rely for her election on a party machine gutted and controlled by Obama, for the benefit of Obama at the expense of the party and any potential contender. No Machiavelli, she.
Sanders is a serial caver. He may occasionally talk the talk, but that’s about it.
You are right. The alternative to not challenge Brown for fear of losing is not only gutless but stupid and wrong.
But the argument on the other hand is strong. Losing this one will have echoes of consequence well beyond MA. And everyone knows it will be bare knuckles, uphill hand to hand combat between what is truth and what is big money. Elizabeth Warren is the only one in a BLUE state in whom anyone had this kind of confidence.
I live in south central MA, owned and operated by tea bag brains. We have NO competitive print media. If you are out of state and want to keep track, bookmark The Worcester Telegram for a right of center perspective.
It’s humerous that regulars here can be so harsh on Elisabeth Warren for not sounding off on Obama on her way out the door, yet so quiet about FDL’s refusal to make a clear statement that it will NOT, under any circumstances, support the reelection of Obama & our Congressional Democrats who’ve so shamelessly abandoned the Progressive principals & ideals they campaigned on. This is the real world folks, when you’re up against overwhelming power it’s wise to carefully select your battles.
Ms. Warren best step away from Obama. Otherwise he will sink her chances, just as he did to the Democratic candidate in NY 9.
Yessir. It’s too early for FDL, or Warren, to say that they won’t support Obama. Period.
But FDL is doing the scutwork and leading the progressive pack (by a country mile) and compensating with truth and courage for the democrats who are still toting the hod for our timid little “centrist” preznint, as he hauls the party back into the political privvy.
If Warren wants to win, she’d better be thinking hard about getting on our train in the not-too-distant future. There is simply no way she can beat Brown without abandoning Obama at some point in the election.
BTW, Bailey: Barack Obama is a lameduck caretaker president, not an “overwhelming power”.
Excellent, sincere delivery in that opening video announcement by Elizabeth. It successfully conveys her evident passion, along with some of what I yesterday called the ‘honor and ethics and duty and decency’ that’s so lacking in current Congressional incumbents in terms of their relationship to the American people, as evidenced Tuesday by the questions and comments (or lack thereof) voiced during the first Super Committee hearing.
I think it’ll be crucial for Warren to carefully consider every step that she takes from here on out, especially in the early going, so that she has a chance to build her credibility with (regular election) voters before they tune her out as just another Party hack delivering empty “applause lines.” One obvious legacy of the 2008 Obama campaign, given his subsequent brazen betrayal of his own campaign rhetoric once in office, is undoubtedly a deep cynicism and mistrust of feel-good campaign rhetoric from Democrats or Independents that seems even slightly manufactured, or insincerely adopted, for the temporary duration of an election campaign.
And perhaps the biggest, most consequential near-term decision Warren faces, as indicated in various comments above, is the decision about what her relationship is going to be with the corrupt powerbrokers of the national Democratic Party (Obama included) – during and, if successful, after the campaign.
I think if she’s wise, Warren will run as an Independent in all but name, and perhaps even eventually become one in name, if she’s elected, using her high profile and credibility to run without Party support in future, as Bernie Sanders does in Vermont (though Sanders is an example of an “independent” Senator who in fact performs as a loyal Democratic Party subject in the Senate, his regular rhetorical flourishes aside).
Those corrupt Democratic (and Republican) Party powerbrokers (enabled by their money-hungry followers) are the reason that the U.S. Senate is rightly seen as “dysfunctional” – though it’s more accurate to say that the democratic, legislative institutional role of the Senate has been effectively suspended by abuses of Party power, with little or no push-back from Party members in the Senate. That reality threatens the “priorities” of everyone in Congress – unless they happen to match those of the most influential campaign donors – and is really the threshold problem that needs solving before discussions about issues (many of which the Parties will never allow to see the light of day, as the Senate is now operated) can or should be taken seriously.
Today, instead of public, collective legislating by our Senators, the leadership of the private Parties (and thus often the White House) is regularly allowed to dictate Senate outcomes – without regard for nominal Party platforms – to their caucus subjects in back rooms. Thus we only see public action on the Senate floor after preordained results have been privately negotiated off the record, leaving to public view merely the play-acting of a legislative process, in name only, to seal the deal. And, as the dangerous Super Committee precedent demonstrates, even going through the motions of a democratic legislative process is becoming too tiresome and inconvenient for the tastes of the Party bosses. [Perhaps especially for the Party powerbrokers atop the hierarchical Executive Branch of government, who evince no love or loyalty for egalitarian representative self-government when it threatens to interfere with their own will or personal prospects.]
So the outstanding question for me is whether that undemocratic Party-run “legislative” system is the system that Elizabeth Warren is running to join and unquestioningly support as a “loyal Democrat” in the Senate. The answer obviously remains to be seen. If Warren is overlooking, or plans to overlook, like most incumbents, how her Party has corrupted the Senate as an institution, the cynics will be right about her prospects and limited ability to make a meaningful difference in Washington. But if Warren goes into this race and into the Senate as an unabashed small-d democrat prepared to confront an aristocratic Party hierarchy, all bets are off as far as the good that she, as one, principled, gutsy Senator – unafraid to publicly speak the truth about a corrupt Party system – could do to change the practices and product of the Senate. Changes that, ideally, from time to time, could and would be advanced in partnership with some of the freshmen Republican Senators who haven’t been afraid to say (at least with Democrats in charge) that the Senate is not being allowed (because of abuses of Party power) to function as designed or intended.
To repeat something I said in early August, toward the end of the backroom debt-ceiling dealmaking: