Obviously, Elizabeth Warren would be an amazing president. But does that mean she should run?

I'm not talking about this year. It's not going to happen, no matter how desperately we might fantasize. But wouldn't it be a pleasure to vote for her in 2016 or 2020? (Provided the country still exists at that point.) She's progressive like Bernie, and an outsider; and like Hillary, she's accomplished and pragmatic and well-connected, not to mention blazingly smart. She's just utterly fantastic—so fantastic, in fact, that maybe America shouldn't waste her talents on the Presidency.

Right now, Warren's doing the Lord's work of irritating Donald Trump. He's clearly annoyed by her, assigning her various nicknames ("Goofy" and "Pocahontas" and "the Indian") and firing repeated volleys of mean tweets at her. This may not have much of an impact on voters or the election, but it sure is a pleasure to see him when he's angry.

Warren's rhetoric on Trump is pure art. Here's what she said in a recent speech about how he took advantage of the housing crash:

"What kind of a man roots for people to get thrown out of their house? What kind of a man roots for people to get thrown out of their jobs? ... I’ll tell you exactly what kind of a man does that: It is a man who cares about no one but himself. A small, insecure money-grubber who doesn’t care who gets hurt so long as he makes a profit off it. What kind of man does that? A man who will never be president of the United States."

Marvelous. It's clear why Harry Reid appointed her to speak on behalf of progressive Democrats: "She's an effective messenger because, No. 1, she doesn't talk very much," he said. "When people talk too much, their message is lost. She doesn't talk very much. But when she talks, people listen."

This year, Democrats are hoping (probably with no small amount of desperation) that she can reunite the party after the bitterness of the Bernie v. Hillary Wars. Going after Trump is one good way to do that. Personally, I'm holding out hope that after Debbie Wasserman Schultz steps down as DNC chair (or gets fired, whichever comes first), Warren might take her place.

But Harry Reid's may be right: Warren's words have an outsize impact because they're not coming at us all the time. Her rhetorical power could be spoiled by overexposure if she was to run for national office, whether as president in 2020 or as Hillary's VP. (Also, resigning her Senate seat would mean that Republican Governor Charlie Baker, a Republican, would get to name her replacement.)

So maybe her current role is the best fit. Right now, Warren gets to give exciting speeches, tweet with aplomb, and raise tons of cash for other Democrats. She can be a little hyperbolic. She gets to pop up when she has something really good to say, and then disappear like Beyonce to work on her next surprise album. And in her spare time, she also serves as a member of Congress.

In other words, if we were playing Dungeons and Dragons, Elizabeth Warren would be a fine Dungeon Master. But she's probably a lot more fun as a Ranger.