I am not endorsing her as a candidate, at this point. But I am excited about the movement that is pushing her candidacy, unlike a whole bunch of Beltway types who have lined up to say how silly the whole notion is.
Warren will not run, they cry -- though a draft movement has convinced her before. And even if she did, she would not win -- though no one gave President Obama a chance, either.
Still, even if all of the naysayers are somehow on to something, the folks supporting "Run Warren Run" -- MoveOn.org, Democracy for America, and the Working Families Party -- and "Ready for Warren" have it right. Here is why:
It elevates Elizabeth Warren's issues
Even Democrats who support other candidates acknowledge that big banks and other special interests have rigged the game in Washington. Our whole party understands that inequality is worse than it has been since the 1920s, and we need to build an economy where everyone has a fighting chance.
In fact, it is not just Democratic voters who are emboldened by Warren's fight for working families; her ideas ring true in red states and blue states, in rural parts of America and in big cities like Boston and Chicago.
"I came out of a hardworking, middle-class family," Warren often says, in some variation. "I came from an America that created opportunities for people like me, and I now see an America where the government works for people who already have money and power." It is, in her own words, "time to remind politicians that they don't work for the big banks -- they work for us."
That is a voice that would add real value to any party's primary, but especially a party that purports to stand up for working people.
Debates are good for everyone
Contested primaries feature robust discussions on the most pressing issues facing our nation -- and the best ideas for making America stronger. Now, more than ever, we need those discussions.
Many Democrats are voting with Wall Street, while Republicans shout about flat wages. Our country and the Democratic Party deserve a real debate over what we stand for.
And there is a great place to have these debates: in states like Iowa and New Hampshire, where voters are ready to ask candidates tough questions and hear their platforms.
A primary would strengthen the nominee
In the absence of a competitive primary, some have even speculated that theremay not be any Democratic debates before the general election. Call me old-fashioned, but I want to nominate a presidential candidate who has answered tough questions on the crucial issues facing hardworking Americans today.
Some argue that a vigorously contested primary would actually hurt the Democratic Party, that a competitive primary could split the Democratic base or force the eventual nominee to spend too much time and money too early. In other words, exactly what happened in 2008.
Remember how that worked out?
Primaries leave candidates fit, tested, experienced and prepared for the grueling general election campaign. And as we saw in 2008, all that organizing leaves the party energized and ready to get to work.