With the 2016 elections fast approaching, the country is watching potential presidential candidates with rapt attention. News media across the 50 states are already picking who they think will be best suited for the job as commander-in-chief, and countries around the world are watching to find out who will be the new leader of the “free world.” Suffice to say, this is an important time for politics.
Already a few names have been thrown into the ring. According to The New York Times, republicans can probably expect Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Rick Santorum among others to run for the republican nomination.
The democratic ticket seems much more sparse this year with only Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley and Jim Webb preparing to run for the presidency. This does not mean that they are the only ones qualified to run, however. Last week, The Boston Globe issued a statement pushing for Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren to run on the democratic ticket.
Warren became the first female senator of Massachusetts in 2012. She is known for her expertise in bankruptcy and finance and as an advocate for the middle class, something that may be good for the country as we continue to handle financial crisis. President Obama asked Warren to help set up an agency that would hold Wall Street and other financial organizations accountable for any wrongdoings they might commit against their customers, especially the middle class. Warren’s work on Wall Street and her endless crusade for the protection of the middle class has earned her great respect with the people of Massachusetts and countless others. That being said, Warren has refused to run for president despite countless appeals from different news articles and her supporters.
In an editorial written by The Boston Globe, writers pleaded with Warren to run for the democratic presidential nomination. With Clinton running virtually unopposed, writers feel that Warren would be best suited to go head-to-head with her. The Globe expects that Warren running would be good for both her and Clinton. Clinton would be able to fully argue her opinions against someone closer to her end of the political spectrum and Warren would be able to hone her skills as a debater and politician. The Globe also argued that Warren’s expertise in economics would be beneficial to the country. Clinton does not emphasize economics as much as Warren, in fact she voted to reduce bankruptcy protections and was reluctant to raise capital-gain taxes.
Clinton and Warren have a few other fundamental differences. According to The Globe, Warren is much more willing to enforce Dodd-Frank legislation, an act that places restrictions on Wall Street, than Clinton. Clinton also backs the Trans-Pacific trade agreement, which Warren opposes. These differences could lead to major, and interesting, debates.
The Republican Party has several candidates to choose from in this next election, which will make primary season interesting and might give people an opportunity to hear opinions from many different points of view. The Democratic Party has not been afforded this same luxury. Some could say that a few people neglected to run because it has been well known since 2012 that Hillary Clinton would be afforded the nomination for the Democratic Party. But some people are asking how democratic that really is.
If Warren ran, if nothing more, it would provide another point of view, another background and another idea on how this country could be run. With the family name and everything Clinton has done for this country, O’Malley and Webb don’t stand a chance against Hillary Clinton. Elizabeth Warren, however, may be just the woman for the job.