Elizabeth Warren For President!

Why not?

Elizabeth Warren, the senior senator from Massachusetts, is one of the foremost voices for fairness toward the middle class and for restoring a level playing field to banking.  When she declared that the Dodd-Frank Act, meant to regulate the financial sector, was imperfect because it failed to break Citigroup into pieces, she started a movement.  Now we have to figure out how to get her to lead it.

Just as Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy were called to run for President to stop an unjust, illegal war, Elizabeth Warren is being called to run for the Presidency to stop an unjust but perfectly legal financial system.  She says she won't run.  I hope she does.  Not only would she be the most liberal President we've had in decades (and she's an ex-Republican!), she would be an antidote to where the two parties are heading . . . toward nominating for President members of political dynasties who think they're entitled to the office.

Jeb Bush, George W. Bush's smarter brother, has announced that he is forming an exploratory committee to see if he should run for the Republican presidential nomination.  In other words, he's running.  His Democratic opponent in the general election, should he win the nomination, would most likely be Hillary Clinton, who's assured the nomination because she seems so unstoppable and all of her likely challengers for the Democratic presidential nomination, all those "rising stars" that Democrats boasted about all year long, got killed politically.  Except for Elizabeth Warren.  She's the only thing standing between Wall Street and the eclipse of the American dream as we know it, while Hillary is no less a Wall Street Democrat than treasury secretaries in both her husband's administration and Obama's.        

That said, if Elizabeth Warren doesn't run - no, stand - for office, I will hold my nose in November 2016 and vote for Hillary.  Democrats need to win more than two presidential elections in a row - something they haven't pulled off since the 1940s - to lock in Obama's accomplishments (yes, there are some) and make them difficult for a future Republican President to reverse.  I saw the last Bush reverse Bill Clinton's achievements as soon as he took over the Presidency in 2001, and I certainly don't want to see another Bush do the same to Obama come January 2017.  But I'd much rather see Ms. Warren go for the Presidency, even if it does mean another special Senate election in Massachusetts.

Run, Liz, run!  :-)