There aren’t many Democratic operatives making an open case against a Hillary Clinton nomination in 2016, but Carter Eskew takes a stab in a piece for The Washington Post, where he outlines the impact Elizabeth Warren’s populist-liberal approach could have on the contest.

Eskew, the chief strategist for Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign, ponders an anti-establishment case for Warren, fueled by Democrats who simply can’t take it anymore:

The Democrats’ “mad as hell” movement has been more muffled so far, but you hear its beat in opposition to intervention in Syria and in the perception among liberal Democrats that Obama caved to corporate interests on financial reform and health care. It is this strain that cheers Warren and creates an opening for a “people not the powerful” message in 2016 on the Democratic side.

This website has argued Warren’s bonafides all year-long, and currently places her as the third most likely Democratic nominee.

But I followed up with Eskew to pose the $64,000 question: Could Warren topple Hillary?

“Too many things unknown.  Can Warren be a good candidate?  Can Hillary run a good campaign?  Can Hillary go on offense and steal some of the ‘liberal space?’,” he replied.

Not committal, but not a no either.

Follow Dave’s blog at TheRun2016.com