They seem to have realized that defending Hillary and Bill has no upside anymore. Gillibrand, who owes much of her success to the Clinton machine's support, will not be the last major democratic contender to condemn them. I think the democrats will nominate a woman, but it shouldn't impact the result of the election unless they try to run with "vote for HER because it's time for a WOMAN to be president" again while ignoring the real issues. What even was Hillary's message? It seemed like her gender was her only selling point. While I dislike Warren, she'd at least rally the base behind ideas.
Hillary's platform had a huge number of policies described, and in an ideal world, people would have just looked that up and knew what she was selling them. But that's not the world we live in. People want a clear, concise message about a generic theme that doesn't involve a lot of policy nuance. The only way to drive that into people's skulls is to ramble on about it over and over again, and talk about it every chance they get. But we all know Hillary didn't do that. In fact, ad-wise, she talked about policy less than almost every party candidate for the last generation, iirc.
Point is, the actual ideas are not the problem here. The next candidate, Warren included, needs to find an clear, effective theme for their ideas that makes sense to people. However this is not something I think Warren would have trouble with. She comes off as authentic, and she already has a brand that she sells well.
I have long griped that she should have done the courageous thing and defended the Trans-Pacific Partnership. At least people would have respected her for it even if they disagreed.
