Three lefty bloggers speculated Friday about one or the other of two potential 2016 presidential candidates, one from each major party. The White House prospects of the Republican have been much-discussed for a few years; those of the Democrat, not so much.
Esquire’s Charles Pierce lauded Al Franken’s recent “populist campaign for re-election” to the Senate and wondered, given Elizabeth Warren’s reluctance to run for president, why Franken shouldn’t give it a go instead, since he’s “showed…how you embrace the themes on which Warren has based her career in the context of a political campaign.” (Also, it would “cause Bill O’Reilly’s head to detonate in a gorgeous orange fireball.”)
From Pierce’s post:
Franken ran a populist campaign for re-election — straight, no chaser. His ads were direct, and their message was impressively disciplined…If you’re looking for a way to do this, Franken and his people have written the primer. So here’s what I’m thinking — why don’t we hear Franken’s name bandied more about as a Democratic presidential possibility in 2016?…[Elizabeth] Warren doesn’t want to run, even though the most compelling conclusion to be drawn from the blasted landscape of the Democratic campaign is that running away from her particular economic message is disastrous, no matter where you happen to be running. Franken showed through his campaign how you embrace the themes on which Warren has based her career in the context of a political campaign.