Nor Elizabeth Warren either. Norm Scheiber makes the case for a Warren candidacy in an article this week for the New Republic.
It's not going to happen. Every cycle, the uber-liberal wing of the Democratic Party searches and searches for an alternative to the so-called "establishment" candidate. Remember Jerry Brown? Paul Tsongas? Gary Hart? Bill Bradley? Howard Dean? (Were any of these fellows really more liberal than Bill Clinton, Walter Mondale, John Kerry, or Al Gore?)
Elizabeth Warren is the uber-liberal candidate du jour, and a fine United States senator, but there's no way she wrests the nomination from Hillary Clinton. Hillary's coalition will be the same as last time--hispanics, the elderly, a sizeable chunk of the liberals, and women. Plus, this time, add African-Americans.
Hillary's critics say she was the inevitable nominee last time, and look what happened. Yes, look. Against a heavily-touted phenom, she won two-thirds of the primaries--the only large state primary won by then-Sen. Obama was his home state of Illinois.
Obama narrowly won the nomination contest by building up delegates in red state caucuses, and then prevailing through sheer muscle in the party's Rules Committee. (Hillary was supposed to be the insider power-broker, but you don't get more "inside" than control of the party's Rules Committee.)
President Obama is the one nomination contest the uber-liberals were able to win. They combined their 20% of the Democratic vote with the 25% represented by African-Americans. This time, African-Americans will be for Hillary.
Chris Christie is the toast of northeastern Republicans this week, all six of them. His claim to fame is being able to pull a majority of the young, African-americans, Latinos, and women. For Republicans interested in reaching out beyond their base, all six of them, Christie is The Man. Christie would lose to Hillary in all those voter groups, even in New Jersey.