Adam Green makes his progressive populist case as part of the "Elizabeth Warren wing" of the Democratic Party.

Adam Green made his progressive populist case as part of the “Elizabeth Warren wing” of the Democratic Party on Chuck Todd’s MSNBC show on Monday.

“There’s been consensus in both parties since the 1990s Clinton days where big corporations run the show and both parties suck up to them and everything else falls into place from there,” he said. “The Elizabeth Warren wing really believes in challenging the current state of who has power and who has influence.” [Washington Post]

THE PROGRESSIVES looking to challenge a potential Hillary Clinton candidacy have not yet shown the spine required. Making the populist case, challenging the Wall Street establishment core that grips both political parties, is a good way to take on Clinton’s powerful coalition. However, it’s lacking the bold courage that also requires an action plan, which Adam Green began to supply, with gusto, on Chuck Todd’s show Monday morning.

When you begin your progressive offense, recently represented by Krystal Ball, it’s killed before you even start by saying you “deeply respect” Clinton’s “strong intellect” and that she was “strong” at State, and also “effective” and “hardworking” in the Senate. Oh, but wait! She’s just the wrong candidate now. People said that in 2008, too, so it’s not only unoriginal, but reveals that Ball and others making the same case — there are many — simply lack the courage to say they don’t want Clinton to be president.

You can’t have it both ways.

It should be noted that Senator Elizabeth Warren didn’t ask for the rarified place she now inhabits, let alone her own “wing” of the Democratic Party, which Adam Green trumpeted today. That doesn’t mean she doesn’t deserve it as the most articulate politician today for the progressive economic vision.

Having great respect for Senator Elizabeth Warren, and believing she’s most valuable in the Senate, her foreign policy deficit weighs large for me, as does her lack of relationships in the seats of power inside the intelligence and military industrial complex of fortress America, which (unfortunately) runs the half of the country that Wall Street doesn’t. On economics, I’m also not convinced that adversarial relationship alone is how you run a country, though it’s exactly what is needed in Congress standing up against the establishment party leaders. That Warren would be even more valuable if Clinton happened to successfully run the presidential gauntlet successfully should be clear.

From Philip Rucker and Dan Balz’s column this weekend on what’s happening inside the Democratic Party:

“One of the biggest failings of the Democratic Party,” Stern said, “is that its funders come from its traditional side of the economic spectrum and its voters come from a more populist, distributive side of the economic agenda.”

Former Montana governor Brian Schweitzer said, “I think the party increasingly is responding to the special interests they need to get elected “” the military-industrial complex, big energy, pharmaceutical companies, banks.”

Wall Street won’t back a populist candidate or a party representing the “Elizabeth Warren wing,” that’s for sure. Unite Blue doesn’t want them to.

The good news for Democrats is that Adam Green and his allies are ready to challenge Clinton on economic policy.

What’s missing on the progressive side are candidates who can seriously challenge Hillary Clinton.

This is a debate worth having in the Democratic primary and it’s obvious that Adam Green and his progressive allies are going to make sure it happens. However, they still need a candidate(s) to represent them for 2016.