People don’t always listen to Elizabeth Warren. When politicians were announcing their candidacies for president, Warren repeatedly said she was not running, but that didn’t stop people from forming a Super PAC and campaigning for her. Nevertheless, an endorsement is something progressive voters would listen to — and with the race between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton tightening, her opinion might decide the nomination.
But Warren isn’t endorsing anyone, and people aren’t quite sure why.
Many theories have been thrown around the internet about why Warren, the only female Senator to not endorse Clinton according to the Boston Herald, has been so silent.
One idea is that she is waiting for a cushy deal, possibly a cabinet position, in exchange for her thumbs up to the Clinton campaign.
According to one piece in the Huffington Post, that theory has been disproven, and Elizabeth Warren has already smashed the Clinton campaign’s hopes. That article points to a speech Warren gave in front of the Senate about Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.
“A new presidential election is upon us. The first votes will be cast in Iowa in just eleven days. Anyone who shrugs and claims that change is just too hard has crawled into bed with the billionaires who want to run this country like some private club.”
That “anyone” is supposedly a distant reference to Clinton — who has taken money from numerous billionaires through Super PAC donations — but that much is speculation. (Bernie Sanders has refused to take large donations from the politically active wealthy).
Elizabeth Warren made a name for herself in politics by calling for banks to be held accountable for the 2008 financial crisis and saying they should ultimately be broken up because they continue to be “too big to fail.”
Clinton, on the other hand, has accepted donations from the Wall Street for years. (When the subject was broached in a debate in November, Clinton said the finance industry gave her money because of 9-11, a connection the campaign had a tough time cleaning according to Vanity Fair).
Likewise, Clinton refused to support Elizabeth Warren’s 21st Century Glass-Steagall act, which would prevent banks from using depositor money for potential risky investments. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, repealed the original Glass-Steagall act in 1999, which had been in effect since 1933.
So if Elizabeth Warren is too at odds with Clinton to support her, why no endorsement for Bernie Sanders?
Warren’s brand of people-politics is far closer to the Sander’s campaign. He too supports breaking up big banks, and he wants to publicly finance elections.
Pollster David Johnson of Strategic Vision said she might be waiting in case she’s forced into the race herself.
“It is very likely that Elizabeth Warren will get into the Democratic race with Hillary’s poll numbers declining. Either Democrats will urge her to jump into the race or she will be drafted at the party convention to save the Democrats from a mortally wounded Hillary Clinton and fatally flawed Bernie Sanders.”
Still, her silence could actually be a plus for Sanders, since Clinton’s campaign likely needs the backing more. An endorsement from Elizabeth Warren would prove to skeptical progressives that Hillary Clinton is a candidate from the left, proof that could make a decisive difference. The same endorsement for Sanders would just reaffirm what primary voters already know.
[Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images]