With the decision of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders to enter the race for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president, Hillary Clinton finally has some competition ... sort of. It would be better if she had more – not only to challenge her politically, but at least to try to hold her accountable. Right now, about the only real prospect for that is Elizabeth Warren.

Sanders has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination and less of winning the White House. Warren faces not much better odds. But where Sanders can be dismissed as an aging gadfly, Warren has the personal appeal, the intellectual depth and the Democratic starpower to share a stage with Clinton and credibly question her on her financial machinations. And faced with the seeming inevitability of a Clinton restoration, somebody needs to do just that.

In fairness, someone should also take a hard look a Jeb Bush. Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank reported last week that the still-undeclared Bush is expected to top $100 million in campaign fundraising – this month! There have to be some tales in that kind of money.

But Hillary’s record should be the focus for now. As The Washington Post reported in February, “The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration.” What that agreement may mean is another question, but as Newt Gingrich has pointed out, the U.S. Constitution itself speaks to such behavior. (Article 1, section 9.)

Sanders is not up to that. A self-avowed socialist, he was elected to the Senate as an independent and caucuses with the Democrats. Although not even a registered Democrat, his purpose in getting into the race appears to be a desire to pull Clinton to the left on populist and progressive issues.

But, Clinton no doubt knows that she is already far enough left to win the Democratic nod. What she most likely wants is to show that she is not too liberal for general election voters – and Sanders could play right into that. Hillary will have no trouble looking moderate next to him.

In any case, this is not really about challenging Clinton for the nomination. RealClearPolitics keeps a running average of several major polls, including Fox News, Quinnipiac, CNN and ABC News/Washington Post. In it latest compilation Clinton, at 62.2 percent, has a 49.5 percent lead over her closest rival, Elizabeth Warren, who gets 12.7 percent; no one else is in double digits. Sanders is at 5.6 percent.

Sanders also does nothing to counter one of Hillary’s major strength’s. Politics aside, much of this country – and not just the female part – is past ready to see a woman in the Oval Office.

That is only one way in which Warren could stand toe-to-toe with Clinton. A former law professor and expert in bankruptcy law, she is well-versed in finance, obviously smart and clearly focused. Cheerful and personally attractive, Warren could raise Hillary’s hackles and remind voters what it was they did not like about the Clinton years.

If Warren were to question some of the Clintons’ financial dealings with the same intellectual intensity and passion she brings to Wall Street malfeasance, she could bring to this race some of the transparency lacking so far. Before the voters are faced with choosing between a Clinton sequel and a Bush threepeat, we need to know more.