Elizabeth Warren for Senate Leader?

     Those pushing her for President have backed off apparently. 

      http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/11/what-groundswell-for-elizabeth-warren.html

      Now that Harry Reid has announced his plan to step down in 2016, Warren is being pushed to take his role:

      "The news is breaking this morning that Harry Reid will not run for reelection, which will set in motion a scramble for power at the top of the Democratic Senate leadership. This, in turn, will intensify the debate between the rising “Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party” and its (somewhat) less populist wing over what sort of economic agenda the Democratic Party should represent."

       "This debate is already underway: Two liberal groups are now floating the idea of a Warren run for the post of Democratic Senate leader."

    "Judging by the Twitters, most political observers have already decided that the two major contenders for the post will be Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin, with Schumer seen as the heavy favorite. That may be true, but that doesn't mean the liberal wing of the party will quietly acquiesce without trying to put its stamp on the outcome."

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/27/morning-plum-liberal-groups-float-elizabeth-warren-for-dem-senate-leader/

     Schumer isn't a liberal? I guess it depends on who you ask-how liberal they are. Greg Sargent himself admits it's not likely to happen. I have somewhat mixed feelings about the proposal. I don't know that it would interest her anyway. 

     In a previous post, I discussed the difference between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren as powerful leading Democrats.   

   http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/03/hillary-is-bad-for-breaking-email-law.html

   Basically, Hillary is an ambitious politician, but Warren is basically a Saint. 

   She goes to Washington not to gain power, but more like Jesus storming into the Temple and chasing the money changers out. 

    They are too very different kinds of powerful ladies, and liberal Democrats. I see no actual basis for the idea that Hillary-or Schumer for that matter-aren't liberal enough. I mean I think at the present time the entire Democratic party is going in a moderately progressive direction-their centerpiece issue is now wage stagnation and rising inequality. 

   Granted, on the specific issue of financial reform and the conduct of the banks, Warren is simply a firebrand-and on this issue considerably more populist, I would have to agree. 

    While many progressives prefer Warren by a large margin to Hillary, you can argue that if anything, the preference of Warren over Hillary is not necessarily a positive thing for the feminist movement. After all, there remains a knock on HIllary for being ambitious-ok, maybe she's very ambitious, but is she any more ambitious than most males at her level of power? The very question is absurd. 

    You could argue that maybe many folks-even liberals and progressives-are more comfortable with a woman who's sort of like a saint and the conscinece of America than a woman who has strong beliefs and convictions, but, yes, is also very ambitious. 

   Warren's whole appeal is that she cares nothing for her own power and aggrandizement-she is just an outaged saint preaching about the evil banks. 

   Don't get me wrong-I used to live in Massachusetts, and if I still did, I'd vote for her in a second. I agree she has an important role in today's Democratic party. However, Senate Leader would not be right for her: that requires a politician, not a saint. 

    Warren has an important role today in the Democratic party-but not as the Senate Leader. 

    P.S. I really will miss Harry Reid. The best memory of him was when he claimed taht a friend told him that Romney didn't pay his taxes back in the 2012 Presidential race. That was a classic moment. 

    http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/08/mitt-romney-has-harry-reid-right-where.html

    http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/08/wsj-editorial-pages-backhanded.html