Skip to main content

Warren

Berkley MI
Tuesday

Last week, Rachel Maddow wrapped up her interview with Elizabeth Warren with the question we all knew was coming. The question we knew she would surely duck.
If, Maddow asked, she were offered the vice-presidential spot on the Democratic ticket, would she take it?
Warren didn’t hem, haw, spin, or equivocate. She said, and I quote her verbatim, “Yes.”
As far as I can tell, this has not gotten the media attention we might have expected — the virus does tend to dominate the discussion these days — but there it was, out in the open. Maddow was visibly gobsmacked, but no more than I was. I’ve been thinking about it ever since.
First let me say that I consider Warren to be, by a wide margin, the person most qualified to be president. Her accomplishments are one thing — how many of us have designed and built a federal agency from scratch? But it’s her communication skills — her uncanny ability to explain difficult concepts so that Main Street can understand them — that put her in a class by herself. Add to that her obvious compassion and authenticity and it’s clear why I’m not alone in regarding her failure in the primaries as profoundly disappointing.
That said, I never considered her an especially good choice for running mate. I have spent the last few months convinced — and it’s hardly an original thought — that Joe Biden needs to name an African-American woman, as the literal embodiment of the two demographics now at the core of the Democratic party. The fact that we have at least two talented and charismatic choices at hand — Kamala Harris and Stacey Abrams — it has seemed to me a no-brainer.
At the same time, I thought Warren would ultimately be more useful either in the Senate, running the Finance Committee, or in a key cabinet post — Treasury comes to mind. It never occurred to me that she might actually see opportunity in the vice presidency, a post that has historically been a political graveyard, but which has grown in stature over the last several presidencies (Mike Pence notwithstanding).
But now I’m thinking — and more important, she seems to be thinking — that the virus changes everything. It certainly shifts the dynamic of the election to the point where I can’t see anyone not voting for Biden based on his choice of running mate. Would an African-American be a more righteous choice? Definitely. But this is Elizabeth Warren we’re talking about, and for me that makes all the difference.
Clearly someone will need to take charge of a badly damaged country. Clearly someone has to figure out what America 2.0 is going to look like. I don’t think Joe Biden is the guy for that. Nothing against Joe, but rebuilding the economy in the wake of a global pandemic is not really in his skill set. It is definitely in Warren’s.
So assuming he were to get elected president (please oh please), wouldn’t it be beautiful if he could leave the real work to her? If he could make her the de facto president?  We all know by now that complex plans are at the heart of her brand. She deserves the chance to make one and oversee its execution. I would trust her ideas over anyone else’s, and I would trust her to appreciate anyone else’s ideas if she thought them workable. She won’t let ego get in the way of a good idea.
Biden’s job would be to run interference for her. Take the political heat, which will be intense. Tend to the healing, which will be prolonged and heart-breaking. These are things he’s good at. He’ll exude empathy. He’ll be as touchy-feely as he can be from six feet away. And while he will surely continue to make all the spontaneous gaffes he’s so famous for, we’ll forgive him because in that regard he is so not Trump.
In the back of Warren’s mind, I’m guessing, is the real possibility that Biden may not finish his term. Yes, the virus could take him, and his age will always be a concern. But I think he’s just as likely to want to step down. He might just decide that he’s done what he came to do, and that he’s leaving the country in good hands. Or he might forego a second term.
But however that plays out — and there are many possibilities — Warren surely understands that as vice president, her odds of one day becoming president will have been raised considerably.
Hey, a guy can dream. Right?

Comments

  1. Couldn't disagree with you more on this one. I think Elizabeth Warren is a great Vice Presidential candidate if you want 4 more years of Trump. Too controversial right now.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blackmail for Fun and Profit

Once in a while, I like to use this space to indulge in some idle speculation, taking a few what-ifs and seeing where they lead. I tend to do this in response to some stimulus, some ping to my brain. Which is just what Keith Olbermann provided in one of his podcasts last week. He was talking about Jeff Bezos’ upcoming wedding to Lauren Sanchez, the woman with whom Bezos had been having the affair that ultimately ended his marriage. You'll recall that in 2019, Trump operators had a heavy hand in that breakup, having attempted to blackmail Bezos into coercing The Washington Post, which he owns, into covering Trump more obsequiously. It's rare to see such an instance of high-level blackmail surface in public, and we only know about it because Bezos didn't bite. He outed himself, he went public about the whole affair, thereby ending his marriage, which was apparently on the ropes anyway. An unusually happy postscript to this otherwise routine multi-bill

The Mainstream Media Continues to Disappoint

The awkward term "both-siderism" has, at long last, stepped into the limelight, thanks to the graceful gravitas of CNN icon Christiane Amanpour (full disclosure: our dog used to play with her dog). In one brilliant commencement address , to the Columbia School of Journalism, she dope-slapped her own profession and, indeed, her own boss, both of whom richly deserved it. That takes guts, not to mention a reputation for integrity. Both of which she has in abundance. What she said about the "both sides" problem in journalism is nothing new. But to those of us who've been screaming about it for years, it's refreshing to hear it denounced by a mainstream journalist of her stature, in a venue that serves as an incubator of mainstream journalism. While she declined to mention names, there was no doubt about the targets of her irritation. CNN and its chairman, Chris Licht, were still licking their wounds from their treacherous but buffoonish

The Definition of Defamation is Up in the Air

Underlying all the recent commotion surrounding Fox, Tucker Carlson, and the mess they've created for themselves, there's an important legal issue that has flown largely under the radar, but may soon be ready for its closeup. It's a First Amendment issue concerning the meaning of defamation, and the standard that must be met to prove it. The constitutionality of the existing standard was expected to be tested in the Fox-Dominion case, had that case come to trial. But since that didn't happen, I figured it would go back to the back burner. But then, last week, Ron DeSantis had it blow up in his face , giving the whole issue new momentum, and from a surprising direction. His own people took him down. DeSantis had talked his pet legislature into launching an outrageous assault on freedom of the press, eviscerating existing libel laws, and making it easier for public figures — like, say, DeSantis himself— to sue for defamation. One can just imagine DeSantis cackling