Here Are 3 Questions Elizabeth Warren Must Answer in Her Next Interview

With independent Vermont Senator and Democratic presidential runner-up Bernie Sanders almost out of the way, the battle between presumptive nominees Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is already heating up, and liberal icon Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is already smack in the middle of that fight. But if she’s going to be an effective surrogate for the former secretary of state, and maybe even more, Senator Warren has to answer at least these three questions.

Warren has been roasting Donald Trump alive for weeks now, and reaping huge rewards for it, but in her new role as Hillary Clinton endorser and Veepstakes short-lister, Warren won’t just be able to throw grenades from behind a podium or a Twitter feed, she’s going to have to answer questions from real live people. The first of those will come courtesy of Rachel Maddow, who got Warren on the record as saying she is qualified to be commander-in-chief if she were called upon to do so.

1. What makes you qualified to be commander-in-chief?

Since Warren brought it up, she can hardly duck this question. It’s true that this part of the job is learn-as-you-go for almost any candidate, but Warren has succeeded in public life by excelling at an exceptionally narrow set of issues, and there’s little on her resume’ to suggest any interest, let alone aptitude, for foreign policy. Fellow legislators like Sen. Sherrod Brown and Sen. Claire McCaskill and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have experience and credentials on committees relevant to national security and foreign policy. Warren has none. I’m a liberal who likes Elizabeth Warren, and I’m not close to sold on her as a VP who can step in.

2. Were You Wrong to Attack Hillary Clinton Over the Bankruptcy Bill?

The only example that anyone could come up with to make Bernie Sanders’ charge that Hillary was influenced by donations stick was this attack from Warren over the bankruptcy bill:

That was from before the final bill was passed, and Hillary Clinton has since explained why she initially supported the bill, which was because she got the very provisions Warren favored into the bill, and why she opposed its final passage, with those provisions removed. Warren’s attack was damaging to Hillary during the primaries, and she should now explain whether she was wrong to attack Hillary then, or whether she stands by that attack.

3. Why Were You Still a Republican Well Into Bill Clinton’s Second Term?

Many liberals may not know this, but Elizabeth Warren was a registered Republican until at least 1996

I was with the GOP for a while because I really thought that it was a party that was principled in its conservative approach to economics and to markets. And I feel like the GOP party just left that. They moved to a party that said, “No, it’s not about a level playing field. It’s now about a field that’s gotten tilted.” And they really stood up for the big financial institutions when the big financial institutions are just hammering middle class American families. I just feel like that’s a party that moved way, way away.

First of all, 47 years is not “a while,” which is how long she wasn’t a Democrat. It’s not hard to guess where right-leaning so-called “independents” cast their votes in the 1980s. Either way, that means that until she was 47 years old, Elizabeth Warren was fine enough with Republicans’ race-baiting to stay in the party, and ignorant enough of their economic vision. I’d like to know if and why she voted for Ronald Reagan, why she ignored Republican barbarism on issues like race, gay rights, and reproductive freedom, and why any liberal should trust her to stay in the boat now.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.