Efter Barack Obama

Vi är ju några trogna själar som aldrig tröttnar på amerikansk politik.

Idag publicerar Washington Post en intressant programförklaring från senator Elisabeth Warren (se länken).

Tidigare i höst skrev Michael Tomasky som är redaktör för vänsterliberala  Democracy: A Journal of Ideas i Foreign Affairs om Warrens politiska betydelse:

Talk of her becoming president will probably remain just talk: Warren is 65 years old and has suggested that she won’t run if Hillary Clinton does. Since a Clinton run seems likely, it may never be in the cards for Warren to have a shot at the presidency. But her gravitational pull within the party will remain strong, and her influence on Clinton could be immense. Warren commands such a loyal following that she doesn’t even need to be a candidate to nudge Clinton to the left. Many journalists already call the more populist faction of the Democratic Party “the Warren wing” — such is the level of authority she’s attained in just a few short years. Anything candidate Clinton proposes that falls under the general category of family economics will need to get a thumbs up from Warren. And any hint of Warren’s disapproval could cause Clinton considerable grief by attracting the suspicion of the party’s liberals. But Warren could also be a great asset: Clinton would have no better advocate with the progressive crowd than Warren.

Warren

Yuval Levin, en av den amerikanska konservatismens smartaste tänkare, skrev härom dagen om Hillary Clinton:

Hillary Clinton has some enormous structural advantages as a general-election candidate, to be sure: basically the benefits of incumbency (no real primary challenge and no bar of presidential plausibility to clear) without the key disadvantage of incumbency (being responsible for everything people don’t like). And she has some personal advantages: She is smart, tough, and savvy and has a capacity to learn from failure and adjust. But she does have other disadvantages of incumbency (people are bored of her and feel like she has been talking at them forever) and some disadvantages all her own: She is a dull, grating, inauthentic, over-eager, insipid elitist with ideological blinders yet no particular vision and is likely to be reduced to running on a dubious promise of experience and competence while faking idealism and hope—a very common type of presidential contender in both parties, but one that almost always loses. And as things stand now, she will have little of substance to run on, which makes it even harder for such a politician to win.

Mycket kan hända i amerikansk politik. Det finns inga självklara kandidater till presidentvalskampanjen 2016. Elisabeth Warren är en mycket mera autentisk politiker  än Hillary Clinton och Warren skulle kunna skapa en entusiasm liknande den som förde Barack Obama till Vita Huset.

Jag är inte säker på att Warren verkligen givit upp tanken att kandidera 2016.

Det finns republikaner som skulle vilja se Jeb Bush i Vita huset i januari 2017.

Mitt tips är att de amerikanska väljarna kommer att tacka nej både till ännu en Bush och ännu en Clinton.