Unless you want a repub president.

we need to vote for someone less liberal and closer to a republican, to avoid a republican?

She's run for office once and her performance was not brilliant. It got better as time went on but it was no more than competent at best.

She has no record yet. I don't like her stance on Iran. It's certainly not liberal.

And no, it's not like Obama. He had served 8 years in the Illinois Senate, and run for the House. He has mad political skills and he had the backing needed. It's highly unlikely she will.

She's just not ready for 2016.

From that perspective, I guess I can't really disagree.

Obama had only two years on the national stage--statehouse politics doesn't count for squat unless one is a governor.

Warren is also a nationally-recognized SCHOLAR, which Obama never was. That more than compensates for lack of elected experience.

That said, I'd be happy to support Elizabeth Warren anytime, anywhere.

it's engaging in the mechanics of a campaign. It's getting out there amongst voters. It's being involved in the nitty gritty of politics. It counts a helll of a lot.

I hate to break this to you, hon, but being a scholar doesn't count for shit in politics. Not when it comes to the electorate and the largely anti intellectual streak in this country that's a mile wide.

Warren is not a natural when it comes to politicking and she doesn't have much experience with it and she sure as shit doesn't have the coalitions behind her that you need to mount a successful national campaign.

This is like ABC stuff. It's duh stuff. It's as fucking basic as it gets.

to even be in the running.

...is what Many were saying about him in 2008.

why? because I have the brains to discern the differences between the two. You do too.

Barack Obama was, and still is in fact, charismatic, intelligent, and articulate, and that was in addition to the historical significance of him being the first African-American to be a party nominee.

she's not afraid to stand up for what she believes in and she has the fire in her heart to do what's in the best interests of the american people.

but any of those choices would be fine.

A strong coalition of Democrats who will stand against neoliberals.

I don't really care who they are, as long as they are not neoliberals.

That narrows the pool of choices, obviously.

I'd start with Bernie Sanders, but he's not a Democrat. Here are some possibilities:

Alan Grayson
Jeff Merkley
Maxine Waters
Barbara Lee

Will she even make it to 2016 without being indicted?

and primary them with Republican Lite types.

I want Hillary & I think she can beat even their best perceived candidate Jeb Bush. Them's my two cents. I want to win 2016, period.

Bring on Hillary if we want to kick Repub ass!

even more easily in four years.

I know. I'm about four years older than she is. And I doubt that she is in as good health as I am.

that is, a path to citizenship.

He's not going to win a general election with that, especially since his ability to appeal to Hispanics was one of his biggest selling points.

And then, of course, there's the name.

Oye! Maybe the rethugs will draft him!

is that we don't learn from history.

I like Warren too, but I see her as too professorial and lacks the gravitas to really bring the fight to the rabid Republican party.

What important issues did Hillary lead Dems in the Senate, or lead a fight against Bush?

.

she did not become aggressive with any Senators, Dem or Rep., but only managed to become angry with a "mere" republican congressman who's in for 2 years....hmmm, and I can't remember his name..

Senators John Cain and his stooge Lindsey Graham were extremely aggressive and rude, but met with no such anger....just sayin' .

One off target thought, had he won, Feingold might be the Chair of SFRC.

somebody in the House . .but she wasn't nice to Johnson either... .

before I make a choice.

Likely.

Enough.

and this time I won't let someone's bullshit assessment of electability be the driver of my choice.

I think given the unpopularity of Congress right now, we should look for a governor.

And I'll be honest with you I don't see anyone on the horizon that looks like a potentially great Presidential candidate. There are plenty of people that I like a lot who don't stand a chance, there are plenty of old names in the Party that not only won't run, but don't have any business running, but we have no real stars rising, at least not on the national level. I would be wise of us to find and begin promoting some sound people, but other than go to the state governments we have very little to work with and even there the pickings are slim.

Hillary is the name thrown out the most. Warren is very popular.

"And I'll be honest with you I don't see anyone on the horizon that looks like a potentially great Presidential candidate...I would be wise of us to find and begin promoting some sound people, but other than go to the state governments we have very little to work with and even there the pickings are slim."

Have you ever noticed that despite all the complaining, that never happens? People push one candidate or another based on a single issue, but such candidates are rarely successful.

This is a big country. It takes a lot of appeal to get tens of millions of votes.

She is another 3rd Way Democrat. Being a Democrat does not mean what it used to. Being for the Worker, the common person. The Democratic party leadership currently is to the Right of Richard Nixon. Most Democratic Congress Critters are on the same pocket as the bought off Republicans. But, we don't seem to care, as long as they are not as bad as the Republicans. Think frog in pot on stove.

DU has many unthinking members that use only the labels, such as (D) and (R) to differentiate between between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'. Hence, even though they campaign for "Democrats", the reality is that they are campaigning for the further swing of the Democratic Party to the Right. We need to go back the other way, to the Left. But first, we must pass over Center, to be on that Left. Being the shadow of the Republicans is clearly not working very well for us, U.S.

who do you want to win. Because I think we are all responding with a different idea in mind and what does that really tell us?

He is great. Intelligent, a Stanford grad, gets along well with people. He has strong experience in the House, understands the issues like no one I know of. He would be great. But he does not like to raise money as I understand it, so he would have to be drafted.

A couple of big pluses: he speaks Spanish and is a common-sense Catholic.

He is my congressman and really wonderful.

a lot more good people to work with than the rethugs do. Think positive!

Clinton, does she?

Clinton is too conservative. She was a hawk on Iraq and supports the military too enthusiastically.

Also, she has Walmart ties in the past -- served on the Walmart board. I don't think that will be a plus in 2016.

Isn't it obvious?

If either of them gets the nod, I will officially quit the Democratic Party.

They are THAT bad.

Andrew Cuomo
Dan Malloy
Deval Patrick
Earl Ray Tomblin
Jack Markell
Jay Inslee
Jay Nixon
Jerry Brown
John Hickenlooper
John Kitzhaber
Maggie Hassan
Mark Dayton
Martin O'Malley
Mike Beebe
Neil Abercrombie
Pat Quinn
Peter Shumlin
Steve Beshear
Steve Bullock

Al Franken
Amy Klobuchar
Barbara Boxer
Barbara Mikulski
Ben Cardin
Bill Nelson
Bob Casey, Jr.
Bob Menendez
Brian Schatz
Carl Levin
Chris Coons
Chris Murphy
Chuck Schumer
Claire McCaskill
Debbie Stabenow
Dianne Feinstein
Dick Durbin
Elizabeth Warren
Frank Lautenberg
Harry Reid
Heidi Heitkamp
Jack Reed
Jay Rockefeller
Jeanne Shaheen
Jeff Merkley
Joe Donnelly
Joe Manchin
Jon Tester
Kay Hagan
Kirsten Gillibrand
Maria Cantwell
Mark Begich
Mark Pryor
Mark Udall
Mark Warner
Martin Heinrich
Mary Landrieu
Max Baucus
Mazie Hirono
Michael Bennet
Mo Cowan
Patrick Leahy
Patty Murray
Richard Blumenthal
Ron Wyden
Sheldon Whitehouse
Sherrod Brown
Tammy Baldwin
Tim Johnson
Tim Kaine
Tom Carper
Tom Harkin
Tom Udall

I've heard presidential talk about Sherrod Brown (born 1952; Senator since 2007, before that 14 years in the House, before that posts in Ohio state government) and Sheldon Whitehouse (born 1955; Senator since 2007, before that posts in the Department of Justice and Rhode Island state government).

Each of them is too young to be a has-been but has a decent level of experience. So, which of your pejorative categories are you selecting for them?

This is not to say that others on the list should be ruled out. These were just the first two that came to my mind.

but I think he has a problem for national elections. This is very hard for me to say, but he would have to explain why his voice always sounds so hoarse. He has a problem projecting strength because of his voice.

As one who has a certain understanding of the human voice, I have to say that Hillary's voice would also work against her just as Sarah Palin's voice and accent made her sound silly.

Grayson has a great voice. Elizabeth Warren can have a pretty good voice.

No one has a voice like Obama.

So why is this important? Because we do judge people by their voices more than most of us are willing to admit.

Obama's voice has gotten him very far in life.

The voice, most of us seem to believe on a subconscious level, is the mirror of the soul. The voice betrays us. It can reveal our impatience, our arrogance, our subservience, our fear, our love, our anger, just about everything we think or feel or are shows in our voice.

I could go on and on about this. But don't ever underestimate the importance of a good voice in politics. Makes all the difference in close races.

I should remind everyone of Al Gore's voice. I liked it, but his pronunciation sounded constrained like someone trying to sound better than he really thought he was. People picked up on it. On the other hand, phony though it was, GWBush had mastered the "I'm just a down-home kinda' guy" voice and had everyone who voted for him fooled -- especially the proud to be from the country folks.

Wow, of the governors and the senators, both my favorites are old bald guys.

I kind of like Jerry Brown, but he's old.

So would a few others. It's very early, so I'll say Merkley/Grayson or vice versa,

They have done enough public service for the country. Elizabeth Warren ftw

you're going to need somebody that can be the LBJ to Obama's JFK, and Hillary fits the bill.

That won't work for the paper tiger democrats here, of which there are many. But, that wasn't part of the answer.

Paper Tiger Democrats. Own it, because it is all you are.

He is his own caricature.

Hillary has the best chance of being elected--unfortunately.

That is because she has the best chance of securing corporate funding and of continuing the sellout of liberal and progressive principles. Those two facts are not unrelated.

It's getting to the point that I just don't see conventional electoral politics as a viable avenue to the things we need to do in the interest of species survival.

whoever that pathetic sack of excrement may be.

Hillary, Elizabeth, Joe, Andrew, Martin, Brian-anyone we could concievably nominate under any imaginable circumstances would be heads above their pick and I will go along with whatever the party en masse decides. I'm expecting Hillary but I'll take any of our guys happily. Bur Lydia would be good too!

No objection to a poll, but this is far to small and skewed sa list (Dean and Warren not running) to provide an informed response.

She's a tad less than two years younger than Hillary.

I didn't cast a vote in this poll, its too early.

She's clearly more popular than Hillary, and likely based on what she has done thus far.

I want to know what she has actually done. Anyone can sound progressive on the campaign trail. It's what you do once you are in there that counts. I suspect the answer to this is nothing, but that's not exactly shocking considering they haven't had a chance to do anything yet.

And so you know, I am reconsidering my position on Hillary for reasons that I am too lazy to type here right now.

"I don't WANT to change anyone's mind about Warren

I want to know what she has actually done. Anyone can sound progressive on the campaign trail...And so you know, I am reconsidering my position on Hillary for reasons that I am too lazy to type here right now."

...given that you knew what Hillary has done, how did you end up supporting her, but having doubts about Warren?

Warren is no longer on "the campaign trail."

Elizabeth Warren Embarrasses Hapless Bank Regulators At First Hearing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022377143

WARREN TO BERNANKE: "So when are we gonna get rid of 'too big to fail?'"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022434722

Hillary obviously has as track record and perhaps the best resume in the world. She is, however, a Clinton, and until she distances herself from her husband's positions on free trade and what not, I find myself struggling to support her. After Obama, I am officially a skeptic. I don't trust any of them.

Warren is, so far, a complete unknown. She sort of grilled some bankers. That's nice, but it is something we aught to expect from anyone confronting those jackals. That this is noteworthy says a great deal about our party. The question I am asking myself is this: What could Warren do that would convince me she is a real progressive? There is no simple answer to this, other than time.

If she wants my support she needs to be out there every day taking on big businesses and corporations, confronting Fox news, advancing the liberal agenda. So far, by my count, within a week of winning she was sending out fund raising letters to help pay off her debt, and she basically did it again just a few weeks ago -- though this time she is theoretically setting up her own PAC.

So I would say this. She needs to stop asking for cash and begin showing what she is all about.

"Hillary obviously has as track record and perhaps the best resume in the world. She is, however, a Clinton, and until she distances herself from her husband's positions on free trade and what not, I find myself struggling to support her. After Obama, I am officially a skeptic. I don't trust any of them."

...you're considering pulling support for someone who has "the best resume in the world." How did you determine that?

She has her own record. She ran in 2008. Why would you need to hear how she feels about President Clinton's record to make a determination?

But that's no longer enough for me. I want a progressive.

"First Lady, Senator, Sec State, international respect ... that's one hell of a resume. But that's no longer enough for me. I want a progressive. "

...were only considering her titles when you supported her?

The left wing? Hillary is the most popular politician in the nation by far, and has been so for a considerable amount of time. Remember that DU is not a reflection of the real world.

Yes, and Hillary is Coke, while Warren is RC Cola. Who do you think would win in a popularity contest?

Hillary may be very popular now because not many really know about her Keystone stuff, her Honduras fiasco and the details of Syria may come out soon too. And there is more to Benghazi and Hillary's ineptness and selfish self preservation in that, than we are allowed to know at the moment.

I don't think her popularity will hold when these things come out in the sunlight - so far they have been fogged in and hidden but if she runs she will have to cope with a loss of popularity when some of these truths come out. And there will be more, lots more.

Hillary was the SOS, not the president. The president sets foreign policy, the SOS implements it.

She will remain the most popular politician that the party will have next election cycle. Of course her popularity will come down somewhat if she does choose to run. But as of now, she's still the best hope the Democrats have of keeping the WH in 2016.

she sure didn't have much responsibility, did she?

because it seems when things don't go right, why, it's Obama's fault! What is it she was responsible for as SoS then? Only the good things? Does Obama get credit for those too? (Actually I don't kow what these good things are but I'm sure there are some).

Do you think Obama assigns people to do their work themselves and trusts they will follow his vision or do you think Obama should have been watching over Hillary all the time?

He has a lot on his plate for all his Presidency so babysitting his staff is not really practical, is it?

I like her and think that she'll one day become a great Senator (similar to Teddy), but she just entered politics last year and barely won her senate seat in a very blue state.

She doesn't have the popularity, name brand, experience and money raising capacity to run a presidential campaign in the next two years. Allow her to remain in the Senate where her contribution could be felt for years to come.

Same as Obama, for that matter. Warren is as much of a fantasy for the left as the Tea Party politicians are for the right. Neither type could win a presidential election. That's why this last cycle the Republicans ended with someone like Romney, almost every other candidate that ran was far too conservative. The left wing of the party would be making the same mistake if they tried to push Warren to run in 2016. It would be a sure way to give the presidency to the Republicans.

"Warren is as much of a fantasy for the left as the Tea Party politicians are for the right."

...patently absurd.

It's an objective analysis based on many years of political experience.

BTW, we do not even know if Hillary is interested in running in 2016. But, if the choice were between Hillary and Warren as the party nominee, there's no doubt in my mind that Hillary would have a much better chance of winning against the Republican nominee. I would say the same even if I didn't support her.

"BTW, we do not even know if Hillary is interested in running in 2016. But, if the choice were between Hillary and Warren as the party nominee, there's no doubt in my mind that Hillary would have a much better chance of winning against the Republican nominee. I would say the same even if I didn't support her."

...at least you know that is your opinion. The fact that you're not sure if Hillary is running, but you are here denouning Democratic support for Warren as a "fantasy for the left as the Tea Party politicians are for the right" is ludicrous.

I really don't care. You can push anyone, it doesn't really matter to me.

You can push anyone, it doesn't really matter to me.

...thanks for my freedom.

That's nauseous.

Joe Biden as the candidate personally

Now is the time to do the gruntwork if you want more of a say in the selection process in a few years.

choice--and I could be wrong--but she is not electable by majority because of her "liberal views"...
I love HRC too--but, I'm not holding out that she'll really run and if she does---will she represent all of Us or remain a "traditional DC Pol"?
Bottom line: Instead of recycling "embedded politicians" who are basically of the Same traditional mindset of assuring economic security for the wealthy, corporations, banks/wall street, wars etc--We need to recruit, vet, run New people with dynamic visions And The Courage and Will To Stand Toe-To-Toe with the crooks and NOT Cave into Hostage Demands. What we are Capable of as a Whole is beyond our imaginations but WE are being Held Back By those in Power--just follow the money and the verbal diarrhea we are presented with.
The great ones are out there and hiding from us because they know how "it" works and they want No part of it
We can't do this by 2016--but maybe and If we still are Allowed to Vote and All districts are not yet Gerrymandered to ensure victory for the GOP--we must start Today for 2020.

Progresses! Remember, by popular vote--We actually Won back, by the Peoples Vote-the US Congress, but because of Gerrymandering We Lost-Officially.


http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/13/oh-my-pennsylvania-weighing-bill-to-allocate-electoral-votes-by-congressional-district/

They are the only group left that can garner support from a wide spectrum of the population and are both capable and free to promote a beneficial agenda.
2 ¢

... allow President Obama a third term, 'cuz he's just that great.

head of Chicago teachers union.

and Janet Napolitano has pretty well thrown her hat in the ring.

there are lots of fairly good peeps out there and also lots of time for more to pop up.

Whatever happens, 2016 will be another hugely interesting election year.

I only hope that whoever takes over continues with obama's good works and doesn't take us all back to that old way of messing in others governments and shaking fists at others instead of practicing diplomacy.

It would be a crying shame to lose all the hard and good work that the Obama admin has done. But that can surely happen if care is not taken on who the torch is passed along to. Not all Democrats are democratic.

Last edited Mon Mar 4, 2013, 05:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Warren looks good, but let's give her some time to accomplish something. Anybody that shows effective leadership in addressing the nation's problems will get my attention.

or Hillary45/Charlie Crist

and in 2024 Michelle Obama

And yes, Howard Dean for DNC chair.

A lot of the party's higher-ups, especially those with ties to the DLC, turned their backs on Dean after he voiced opposition to the developing Obamacare compromise in the Senate back in 2009. Since then, we haven't heard a whole lot of out of him.

True, Dean might appreciate a lower profile these days, but he's one of the main reasons we took back the House in 2006.

I remember the 2008 primaries where he always spoke up if there was a hint of racism against Obama (as he should have), but remained mute about the barrage of sexism against Hillary. After she had dropped out of the race and a group of women activists confronted him that summer and asked him about it, his response was that he hadn't been aware of it because he didn't watch TV that much. Bullshit!!!!

Same goes for Nancy Pelosi. She who, as Speaker of the House, should have remained neutral and who actively was twisting super delegate arms trying to convince them to switch allegiance from Hillary to Obama (even in states where she had won). I also remember her saying in public repeatedly in 2008 that it would be a terrible mistake if Obama picked Hillary as VP. Well, she too remained mute about the sexism until Hillary was safely out of the way. The hypocrite is now saying that Hillary would make a great president and that he should run in 2016.

The hell with both of them!!!!!!!