Now that Hillary Clinton has officially confirmed that she will be seeking the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2016 there is only one question that remains.
What will Elizabeth Warren do?
There is no question that Hillary has taken a hit in the e-mail scandal. Her favorability ratings have fallen below 50% for the first time since April 2008. She has now fallen behind in the polls against Republican rival Rand Paul in both Iowa and Colorado. This same poll also concludes that voters no longer consider her “honest and trustworthy.”
Two former Democratic Governors have also been making noise about making presidential bids of their own. Maryland’s Martin O’Malley of Maryland has been arguing the presidency is not “a hereditary right” nor something to be passed “back and forth between two families.” This has received Hillary’s attention. Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, now a spokesperson for Hillary, recently told George Stephanopoulos that O’Malley “might make a nice member of a President Clinton administration so he better watch it.” Then there’s former Rhode Island Governor and ex-Republican Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island who pointedly reminded Democratic primary voters that Hillary voted for the War in Iraq.
Of course, poll numbers can be down this week and back up next week. Although O’Malley and Chafee could be thorns in Hillary’s side by tapping into Democratic activists’ lack of enthusiasm for Hillary, neither of them presents any real threat to her. The reason for this is that Hillary Clinton has spent nearly her entire adult life preparing to be the first woman elected President of the United States. It was only last month while speaking at an EMILY’s List fundraising dinner that Hillary asked, “Don’t you someday want to see a woman President?”
For many years, Hillary was the only game in town. But Elizabeth Warren has broken that monopoly by emerging as a viable left-wing, populist alternative. While it’s true that Warren has repeatedly said she will not run for President (as recently demonstrated by Seth Meyers), she hasn’t yet come out in support of Hillary’s candidacy. Until that time comes there must remain a possibility she would run. Democrats are no more enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton than Republicans are about Jeb Bush. At this point, I don’t think the left-wing core of the Democratic Party is going to accept Hillary’s “inevitability” nor do I think they have forgiven her for supporting the War in Iraq. As such they will continue to organize and support websites like draftlizwarren.com or runwarrenrun.org.
Hillary can respond to Warren in one of two ways. She could have one of her surrogates threaten Warren as Granholm did O’Malley. But that would alienate Warren’s supporters, who would likely stay home in November 2016 and allow a Republican to win the White House. I think it is more likely that Hillary will make Warren an offer she can’t refuse – to be her vice-presidential running mate. In which case, there would be more estrogen in the air than at a Lilith Fair concert or a reading of The Vagina Monologues combined. It would be the ultimate sister act.
While conservatives would certainly cringe at a Clinton-Warren ticket in 2016, it would also re-energize the Democratic Party’s left-wing base. Conservatives might dismiss Warren’s anti-Wall Street economic populism and not without just cause. But her presence on the Democratic ticket would give the party’s base a reason to vote for the pair. All Hillary has had to offer until now is to evoke Helen Reddy and shout, “I am woman. Hear me roar.”
There would, of course, be ample helpings of the “war against women” mantra. What Democratic Party campaign would be complete without cries of victimhood? The fact that two women had been nominated to lead America’s oldest political party into a presidential election would not give their supporters a moment of pause in making such claims.
Yet by offering Warren a spot on the ticket, Hillary has a better chance of assuring her place in history (or as some feminists like to say “herstory”). If successful, Hillary would also manage to neutralize Warren as a threat by relegating her to an office that John Adams called “the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.”
Now an argument could be made that Hillary would not want to share the spotlight with Warren for fear of being overshadowed by a more popular running mate. But the Democratic Party’s nomination was hers to lose in 2008 and Barack Obama made sure she did. Hillary does not want lightning to strike twice. Hillary Clinton would rather have Elizabeth Warren running with her than against her.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.
The offer renews after one year at the regular price of $79.99.