Here's how Elizabeth Warren is already playing key role for Clinton

Think Elizabeth Warren is attacking Donald Trump on her own? All signs point to coordination with Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Jacquelyn Martin/AP/File
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) of Massachusetts speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington in this file photo.

Hillary Clinton may or may not pick Elizabeth Warren as her running mate. There are good arguments both for and against the move. On the one hand, the Massachusetts senator is a liberal who might attract Bernie Sanders die-hards. On the other hand, she wouldn’t exactly bring gender or racial or even much geographic diversity to the ticket.

It all depends on what Mrs. Clinton wants to do with the choice. Most evidence shows vice presidential candidates don’t affect elections much. The first priority with the choice is “Do No Harm.” The selection itself is a window into a candidate’s priorities, however. In that sense it’s important. 

But here’s something we do think: Clinton’s already picked Senator Warren for one crucial task. That’s Anti-Trump Agitator in Chief.

In recent weeks it’s Warren who has taken on Trump most directly. Yes, Clinton gave that foreign policy speech that questioned Trump’s temperament. That was fairly tough. But Warren’s Trump comments have been brutal, particularly on social media.

“Your policies are dangerous. Your words are reckless. Your record is embarrassing. And your free ride is over,” Warren tweeted out to Trump back on May 11.

Oh, you thought maybe Warren was just going upside of Trump on her own accord?

That’s possible, sure. But organized presidential campaigns try not to let stuff happen by chance. It is far more likely that Warren coordinated her status as an attack weapon with Clinton’s team and is timing her fusillades accordingly. For all we know, they’re focus-grouping her lines ahead of time to try and make them as effective as possible.

Just look at today’s news: the Washington Post is reporting that on Thursday night Warren is going to hit Trump again. She’ll call him a “loud, nasty, thin-skinned fraud,” according to prepared remarks for a speech at the American Constitution Society.

Gee, leaking a story about attacking Trump one day after he’s finally given a speech that’s measured and semi-presidential, like GOP leaders have asked him to do. Who would benefit from that more than the presumptive Democratic nominee?

Warren is filling this role in part because she seems effective. She’s needled Trump enough to get him to respond. He’s made fun of her past claims of Indian heritage and her own real estate deals.

“I hope corrupt Hillary Clinton chooses goofy Elizabeth Warren as her running mate. I will defeat them both,” tweeted Trump last month.

Come on, Mr. Trump, you’re a presumptive nominee yourself. Don’t get snarled up responding to one-term Democratic lawmakers. That’s called punching down.

Another reason Warren is assuming the attack role may be more subtle: college-educated white women are going to be perhaps the most crucial of all demographic groups in the fall. Warren’s one of them. She’s baiting Trump to respond with words educated white women dislike, including an emphasis on physical appearance. 

Clinton herself can’t really do that, according to traditional political playbooks. The nominee is supposed to remain above the fray as much as possible.

Of course, the traditional political playbook also assigns the attack dog role to the vice presidential nominee. Which brings us right back to the beginning to this story. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.