I Still Have a Problem with This

[Content Note: Coercion; hostility to consent.]

There were three articles in the Boston Globe yesterday urging Senator Elizabeth Warren to run for president.

Anna Galland, executive director of MoveOn.org Civic Action: "Elizabeth Warren, run for the White House."

Warren should run. Our country will be better off if she does. She would be a strong candidate — one who injects valuable ideas into the conversation and ensures the kind of debate our country needs. And she could win.

Put simply, this moment was made for Elizabeth Warren.

...To be clear: Senator Warren has said she's not running for president, and we take her for her word. But we also believe she's open to persuasion.

...Senator Warren, we hope you're reading this. Our country needs you. Please run.

Joshua Green, national correspondent at Bloomberg Businessweek: "Warren would be a credible threat to Clinton in the primaries."

Although she took her time doing it, Elizabeth Warren seems to have finally convinced the panting obsessives of the Washington press corps that she isn't going to run for president next year. Her decision is a big loss for Democrats, because having Warren in the field would have a number of salutary effects.

...[Clinton's] instinct is to do everything in her power to avoid exposing herself to scrutiny. That instinct will undoubtedly carry over to the primaries — unless someone like Warren forces her hand.

The Globe editorial board: "Democrats need Elizabeth Warren's voice in 2016 presidential race."

Democrats would be making a big mistake if they let Hillary Clinton coast to the presidential nomination without real opposition, and, as a national leader, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren can make sure that doesn't happen. While Warren has repeatedly vowed that she won't run for president herself, she ought to reconsider.

...A presidential campaign would test Warren as never before. Her views on foreign policy are not fully formed. And on many other important issues — climate change, gun control, civil rights — Warren could struggle to articulate clear differences between herself and Clinton. That's a risk she should be willing to take.

Our country needs her. (It's her duty to run.) Clinton must be stopped. (And Warren is the only one who can do it.) Her party needs her. (But not so much she shouldn't risk a long career in public service to do this thing we want her to do RIGHT NOW.)

Each of the three pieces notes that Warren has said she has not running, but: "We believe she's open to persuasion" and "She ought to reconsider."

This, after Warren literally used the very specific language of: "No means no."

Why aren't there more women like Senator Elizabeth Warren in politics? the pundits wonder. Welp.

[Related Reading: sporktastic's "The Problem with 'Run Warren Run.'"]