海角大神

Is Elizabeth Warren really, truly, not running for president in 2016? After all, lots of liberal Democrats hope that she will. They see her as the great hope of US progressives.

She insists that she isn鈥檛, though. She repeated that position numerous times in broadcast on Monday morning.

Mr. Inskeep pushed Senator Warren (D) of Massachusetts on the question, and she kept saying 鈥渘o." She said 鈥渘o鈥� four times, in fact.

鈥淚 am not running for president. You want me to put an exclamation point at the end?鈥� she finally said.

Aha! That reply was in the present tense. Obviously, she鈥檚 not a declared candidate for president at the moment. No one is. It鈥檚 too early for that. So her coy demurrals mean nothing, right? She鈥檚 really saying there鈥檚 a chance.

Weeellllll, maybe. Pretty much every politician in Washington has thought about being president at one time or another. That鈥檚 why they鈥檙e in Washington in the first place. After they meet the incumbent for the first time, they go home, look in their mirrors, and say, 鈥淲hy not me?"

Warren鈥檚 probably no exception to this rule.

We believe it is unlikely in the extreme that she runs in 2016, though. It鈥檚 true that disaffected liberals are begging her to get into the race, and the media keep asking about it because the media can鈥檛 abide a boring status quo. She鈥檚 not going to do it, though, for a simple reason: She鈥檇 lose. And in doing so, she鈥檇 gain precious little for herself or her causes.

Warren would lose because the 2016 campaign is already well along and Hillary Rodham Clinton is very close to wrapping it up. That鈥檚 not just because of the polls, which show ex-Secretary of State Clinton a prohibitive favorite, as far in front as any possible nominee of recent times. It鈥檚 also because we鈥檙e in the pre-primary phase of the race, where prospective candidates jostle to line up fundraisers, state party chairmen, consultants, and so forth. That鈥檚 something that Clintonland does better than any political machine in the country.

Liberals don鈥檛 like to hear this. They insist there is great unrest in the progressive wing of the party and that there would be an explosion of interest if someone to the left of Clinton entered the race.

That鈥檚 what President Howard Dean thought, too.

Would running and losing nobly raise Warren鈥檚 stature at all? How could it? She鈥檚 already the darling of the base for her stand against Wall Street on such issues as the relaxation of trading rules in the recent omnibus spending bill. She鈥檚 already on Clinton鈥檚 shortlist for possible cabinet appointments if she (Clinton) actually wins the presidency.

She won鈥檛 be Clinton鈥檚 VP pick, no matter what. So that鈥檚 already out. (Sorry, but Clinton is unlikely to pick another woman of approximately her own age for the ticket.)

Maybe this analysis is too utilitarian and Warren might opt for a larger forum to talk about issues close to her heart. Maybe she really is just parsing her words carefully and will go against all her 鈥渘o鈥� comments later. Maybe Hillary won鈥檛 run in the end: That鈥檚 certainly possible.

The 2016 race would be a lot more exciting if Clinton had a charismatic challenger. That alone does not mean it will happen.