In Which Karen Tumulty and Sean Sullivan Bury the Lede

This piece by Karen Tumulty and Sean Sullivan, concerning emerging ideological divisions in the Democratic party, should come as no surprise whatsoever to those who have been tracking the paroxysms that have been afflicting Democrats since the 2014 midterm elections took place. And of course, it ought to go without saying that reports of Democratic party divisions are very much welcomed by Republicans in advance of the 2016 election cycle. In two years, Senate Republicans will face an electoral map that is as bad as the one that Senate Democrats faced this year, so any internal rifts in the Democratic party that (a) serve to hinder the next Democratic presidential nominee and the coattails that he/she may have; and (b) serve to directly offset Democratic advantages in Senate races will make Republicans quite happy.

But that’s not the subject on which I would like to focus. Rather, I’d like to highlight for your attention, gentle readers, the following passage concerning the omnibus spending bill that recently came before the Senate, and managed to pit–in the minds of many, at least–Senator Elizabeth Warren with Hillary Clinton:

As the drama was playing out on Capitol Hill on Friday, more than 300 former Obama campaign staff members released a letter calling on Warren to run, saying, “we want someone who will stand up for working families and take on the Wall Street banks and special interests that took down our economy.” Last week, the liberal group also announced that it would put at least $1 million into an effort to draft Warren, who has repeatedly said she does not intend to run for president and who was recently named to a spot in the Senate Democratic leadership.

Neither statement mentioned Clinton, who many on the left think is too sympathetic to Wall Street and corporate interests. She has yet to make clear what her main rationale for running would be if she decides to seek the presidency.

(Emphasis mine.) No rationale to a Clinton-for-President campaign, eh? Gee, what a stunner. And of course, the continuing lack of rational concerning any Clinton-for-President campaign ought to be more prominently mentioned in any story that covers or discusses a possible Clinton-for-President campaign.

%d bloggers like this: