Poor Elizabeth Warren. In her speech to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, she proved once again that she was one of the most effective surrogates that the Clinton campaign possesses. The problem was that she followed Michelle Obama’s stunning speech, and paled a bit—OK, a lot—in comparison. Still, Warren’s address—which clearly laid out the distinctions between the two parties—was an extremely smart attack on both Trump’s GOP and the man himself, a clever two-pronged strategy that the Clinton campaign would be wise to use against Trump over the next three months.
Warren’s speech attempted to do two things. The first was to define Donald Trump as “a man who must never be president of the United States.” Warren seems to go after Trump with particular glee (and Trump clearly feels the same way about going after the woman he, oddly, refers to as “goofy Elizabeth Warren”). Part of her rhetorical strategy is to use a dismissively sarcastic tone while unleashing specific attacks, which prevents her from sounding glib and usually diminishes him. On Monday night, she talked about Trump’s reaction to the housing crash, and his role in Trump University, and then shifted into a discussion of his tax plan and opposition to a minimum wage hike, all as an attempt to undermine his credibility among the working class voters who make up a chunk of his support. And then, every few sentences, she’d really bite. Trump, according to Warren, is “a man who has never sacrificed anything for anyone. Every second of every day.”
One of the problems for Democrats in this election is that Hillary Clinton’s extreme unpopularity reduces the built-in advantage that her party has over the GOP. But Warren circumvents this by focusing on the party more than the candidate. At a time when the Democratic president has strong approval ratings, and Americans view the Democratic Party more favorably than the Republican Party, Warren tried to characterize the election as a choice between parties and visions, or platforms. She compared the parties’ policies (from economics to science) and values. Or, as she put it, speaking of Democrats and Republicans, there is “a huge difference between the people trying to level out the playing field and the people trying to keep the system rigged.”
Warren was probably never going to be Clinton’s vice presidential choice, but she further proved on Monday night that she will continue to be a highly valued attack dog. She also remains the person with the best chance to unite the two wings of the Democratic Party. Her pragmatism in government and interest in the details of policymaking, combined with her appeal to a more liberal and activist base, and political dexterity, are entirely unique. The only thing left for her to prove is that, on the national stage, she can make the same strong case for herself that she can for others.
