I don't see her as being palatable to a national electorate in this country.
I've long since gotten past thinking a presidential candidate or any politician needs to reflect my personal views. None ever will, not in this country. If Clinton runs, I'm supporting her but she's highly competent and can win.

was not raised about Obama, in fact.

HRC certainly knows how to play the DC game, and she's plugged in and connected. What I like about Warren is her integrity, and her laser-like focus on important economic and regulatory issues of fairness and transparency.


I'll throw out two fairly standard disclaimers, here, one being obviously I'm going to support the eventual nominee, and I think HRC would be a formidable one-- and two being, we should probably get through the midterms before worrying too much about 2016.

But given the presumptive and quite preliminary field, Warren is my top pick. Doesn't mean she'd make it, but that's what primaries are for.

Thankfully, we don't vote for nearly 3 years. It always seemed clear to me that Obama was quite moderate. Having heard Warren's speech at the convention last year, I fear she's come off as "pinko" (which for me is not an insult) to the national electorate. Perhaps I'm wrong. Who knows if she even wants to run. I've never seen any talk of it except here on DU.

People aren't going to have a ton of sympathy for the Bankers and Hedge fund managers who peddled CDOs and made money betting on the collapse of the boom that they knew was built on opaque bad mortgages (they knew because they were the ones who built it, of course) ... One of Warren's strengths is that she doesn't come off like some radical with the che poster in the dorm room, she knows what she's talking about and she presents it intelligently.

I've given you a new nickname: Warren the Wizard due to your magical powers with other members.

EW hasn't done that. She also has a very narrow focus (Banks/Wall Street) as part of her portfolio.

She's also a former Republican. I don't have problems with any of that, but others might.

I don't think she's got the foreign policy chops.

She's also not the best on the stump. HRC wasn't either--but she is now. Obama was always pretty good at that, and he's gotten way better with time.

She's also shy on experience. Obama had state legislature experience before he went to the Senate, EW was a college professor. HRC did the Senate, and then became SecState--which is the most experience anyone can get without actually being the President.

HRC also advised her husband down the years, and there are some who say the best ideas he had came from her. I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.

I don't think Warren will run, but who knows...

And no one is going to argue that she's not smart as a tack. And capable. And skilled at dealing with GOP shit-slinging.

I suspect odds are better than half that she'll be the nominee, so either way the debate may be moot.

But I simply don't give a damn...on certain policies, we could elect god himself...it does not matter...an empire will do what the empire will do.

So I refuse to play the quadrennial game, or get invested in any DC pol...this apple s rotten to the core.

I know this is not the answer you were expecting.

Yes.

but I'm not voting for anyone who isn't a progressive. And no more lesser of two evils.

Just because Obama pulled a fast one, does not mean everyone is like that. There are good potential candidates out there.

How extreme would they be viewed compared to this present bunch of crazy Republicans?

If I had to choose, it would probably depend on how formidable the Republican candidate would be.

I mean, look at their bench...rMoney was the most likeable, the most viable candidate they had...

Warren -- and I like Russ Feingold

if they could be persuaded to throw their hats in the ring.

And maybe it is a popular idea in his state. It's a win-win if that were the case?

I could get behind that.

I'm not sure about his position on that issue. That's something I need to find out.

I'm concerned.

I could also completely get behind a Warren run and be very happy with her as the next President. As for Clinton... I would support her if nominated but she is down the list a bit on people I would prefer. I would also very much like to see Alan Grayson throw his hat into the ring... oh, and Al Franken is a good egg as well

forthrightness of Warren or her understanding of economic issues affecting most Americans.

He is really great though. Both Warren and Biden are older, but seem to have a lot of energy.

There was a tough primary for 2008, expect another in 2016.

thanks, but no thanks.

A knock-out drag-out???

Like Carter-Kennedy in 1980.

ah, no thanks.

Thingy is, can one please tell me who would the Elizabeth Warren fans want to replace her on the committee she is on, and in the Mass. senate, and please be specific.

It is a nail biter as it is in the Markey race being decided on Tuesday

and in case one didn't notice- President Clinton and Elizabeth Warren were in unity for Markey.

Now tell me, also, where does Elizabeth Warren campaign, what states would she win, and who would do her job in the Senate destroying the banks and all, while she would spend 3 years campaigning?

Of course, she would not need to be there to vote, when say it is 93 to 4.

But what about the close votes.

I suspect Sen. Warren is NOT going to run against Hillary.
Now, if Hillary were not to run, Sen. Warren would be in a primary with Kirsten Gillibrand, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius,
Senator Cory Booker, Gov. Deval Patrick and VP Joe Biden.
And of course, the major name not mentioned, Michelle Obama, though I predict 2024 will be when Sen. Michelle Obama decides to run for President.(and just about all of them except for VP Biden won't run if Hillary does, except for VP).

But I 100% believe Hillary and Elizabeth will NOT run against each other.

Making the OP a choice we are not going to have and it just riles up the tension.

And, in giving unrealistic expectations, it ends up deflating the side that never ends up running, therefore deflating the votes
and making BushPaulfamilyinc one happy camper.

And perhaps deny people a better choice?

One thing is about certain-the next nominee will be a woman, and that is about as much a sure thing as much as anything is a sure thing.

The only other race will be for VP.

The one and only thing Hillary didn't have in 2008 was President Obama's core supporters (like myself).
This time 95% of them are there.

Again, last thing we need is another 1980, or another 1968.

In 1968, Democrats had to defend the Vietnam War. As I recall, Nixon had a "secret plan" to get us out? And in 1980, we had Jimmy Carter or Ted Kennedy (Iran hostages or Chappaquiddick?) I don't see the same parallels you are talking about? Every election is different. I don't agree that a tough primary makes it less likely for Democrats to vote. Hillary and Obama had a tough primary and the President ended up with a record number of Democratic votes. i don't think your theory holds water.

You appear to place much faith in your powers of prophecy.

From where I sit, until we have players to choose from to put on the team, it's a bit premature to choose the place where the trophy sits. But I'm only human and don't pretend to have absolute knowledge...

Good luck! (Personally, I want another 1936)

it forced those lazy East Coast zombie candidates to campaign. Dig this. Before 2008, the previous Democratic Primary contender to visit Oregon was Bobby Kennedy. 40 years of deep sleep.
It is going to be a fucking fight for the soul of the Party, we out this way are sick of the East Coast Zombie Centrists. Out they all go. Carnage for the Blue Baggers and Tea Dogs.

We need to change the party. We need to change the country. Elizabeth Warren can. She could continue the change that Obama promised and has not been able to deliver because of the Tea Baggers.

Because of her common sense and her ability to explain complicated things in simple words, I believe that Warren would appeal to a lot of independents and even Republicans. Of course, Republicans and machine Democrats would try to make her out as being a socialist. But she isn't. She is a lawyer. She favors capitalism. But most of all she favors justice. Americans are thirsty for justice.

Clinton would bring with her the appearance of the same old, same old corruption. She just has too much baggage.

I mentioned Warren as a potential candidate to a friend who strongly supports Hillary Clinton. My friend pointed out that Warren does not have the money that Clinton has. I think that may be a huge advantage in 2016. People are really, really sick of the corporate money in our politics. I think that not owing those political debts to the corporations may be what makes Elizabeth Warren our next president.

Occupy. We might as well run Jill Stein again, or say hello to Pres. Paul/Rubio/Bush. I think most Democrats would choose Christie over Warren. Just sayin'.

Do you woodshed on a smaller site?

What percent were abused by the banks?

It's pretty high.

And then let's go up one rung. What percent of Americans have a close friend or relative who lost a business, a job or a house in the 2008 recession? How many have recovered economically?

I think Elizabeth Warren will be very well received by all those people. And they just may be the majority in the country. I know I am one. I have friends and family who lost houses, jobs, businesses and are still struggling. That is going to be a big issue. People do not forget trauma like that very easily.

The Republicans have nothing to offer those who lost out. Neither do the corporate Democrats. Elizabeth Warren can speak to all of us who are disillusioned about what has happened and offer sensible solutions. I would like to see her in the White House. At the very least, she should run because she will inject new concepts into our political discourse.

time & time again choose moderates. Now you have every right to work your ass off for Elizabeth Warren, but I'll be working for someone whom I think stands a chance in hell of beating the Republicans. We're told by some liberal activists that Democrats can win anywhere, and perhaps they can, but they won't be "liberal". There's a certain naievete that consumes both far ends of the political spectrum that's almost frightening to reasonable people.

This is not to discourage progressives, because I used to think of myself as one also, but having been around these parts for nearly a decade, DU progressives are a different breed. I think that's true across the internet. There's a mindset here that will always keep a number of you "Underground", and that's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just that in the real world, there have to be adults in the room, and that's the Democratic Party. Too bad there's not another adult party we can partner with to address the myriad of ills that have afflicted the country.

ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT - 2016!!!!!!

for voting for Elizabeth Warren. First, she used to be a Republican -- just 15 years ago. Second, she is too progressive. Please decide.

Elizabeth Warren may be popular among progressive Democrats, but i don't think she represents progressives so much as she represents common sense. She has not recommended nationalizing banks or anything extreme. She has simply recommended prosecuting bankers who cheat. We do that to poor people who cheat. Why can't we do that to bankers?

Elizabeth Warren is not that much more progressive than Hillary Clinton claims to be. She is just more honest and fair. Hillary Clinton has sold out. She did it long ago.

Elizabeth Warren worked for her money. Bill and Hillary Clinton used their political positions and influence to "attract" money. And Americans will appreciate the difference.

She gets a big fat NO from me. If Warren can make it through a primary, she'll certainly get my vote in the general. However, as much as you folks decry the DLC & the "Turd Way" (cute), you do tend to gravitate toward former Republicans as the great white hopes for the new liberal agenda. I'm no Clinton fan, so you don't have to explain their warts to me. We're all well aware.

I think it's valid to question her former political alliances & ideology. Do you know what Ed Schultz, Cenk Ugyr, Arianna Huffington & Elizabeth Warren all have in common? And yes, it's concerning for some people. They could be genuine, or they could all be playing liberals for suckers by increasing the chasm on the left, which plays right into the hands of their former Republican Party masters. It's genius if you really think about it.

I don't think that Elizabeth Warren is extremely to the left. She is mainstream, but she doesn't owe the debt to corporate America that Hillary does.

I am sick and tired of Democrats who have sold out to the corporations. Let's have a fair economy and a just society. Or at least, let's move in that direction.

As long as we elect people who owe their careers to corporate America, we will, as a nation, falter and weaken.

And I think that would be Hillary tho I do love Elizabeth. Fooled ya with that N/t thingy.

from the utter ruin of "conservative" economic policy.

I encourage him to run.

Howard Dean is also worthy of consideration.

Why has Wesley Clark been forgotten as a potential sec state or defense?

Not this Jerry Brown. The one who dated Linda Ronstadt is long gone and has been replaced by a Third Way austerity backer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023046761

Plus, he's 75 (i.e. would be 78 by 2016).

When he ran last time, I supported him. I liked his idea about having a requirement for national service of some sort for all American young people. I think that would be a good idea for integrating immigrants into our national life, allowing people to know what it really means to be American.

Hillary only if it's the choice of the lesser evil.

Even though we are gaining Hispanic and young voters, as it was made evident in 2012, we are having some problems in rural areas, and whoever runs for President affects other Democrats running for Congress and the Senate. Hillary Clinton would help us in rural areas, where I don't think Elizabeth Warren would.

Don't get me wrong, I like Elizabeth Warren, and there is a lot of criticism of Hillary for being a "Third way Democrat", but for a while in the 80s and 90s, Elizabeth Warren was a Republican. She may be fighting against economic injustices now, but 30 years ago she was voting for people that were contributing to the problem, when Bill and Hillary were fighting against Reagan-Bush policies she was voting for.

Warren.



But if Hilary is the nominee of my party, I will support her.

He is great, and not too old. Otherwise, Warren. Hillary loves war too much.

I really, really like Warren but I do not think she can take Jeb Bush. Al Gore with President Obama's election team and Elizabeth Warren as his VP could take it. I think a lot of Democrats would crawl out of a hole, even some Southerners, to support Gore and block another Bush. Gore has the experience, the credentials, the reputation as being very trustworthy and most of all -- he now has his own money. He has been making some political noise lately so I am wondering if he is now interested and ready.

There are others I really like, like O'Malley, but I just don't seem him having a huge national backing. I don't think Biden will run if Hillary is in, and I do think she is definitely thinking of running.

This is going to be interesting. But if push comes to shove, if Jeb Bush decides to run, I will go ALL OUT to support the Democratic nominee even if he or she is not my first choice. A Jeb Bush nomination will unite Democrats in ways not previously seen in 2016.

Sam

Also, Jimmy Carter did not have a huge national backing in 1976 and he won. A winning message and an honest, passionate persona can win one or two states and end up winning it all.

let's just say you made it all so obvious with that one word, put together with that post about Jimmy Carter(who doesn't apply in 2016 talk).

So obvious.

You are indirectly directly calling President Obama, Richard Nixon.

That from a thread where the OP says no flaming.

end of my discussions with you (unless I feel otherwise at another time).

(not to mention you lead people on with the OP saying Hillary45 vs. Warren, and then hoist the person you actually want,
when you did not mention that in the OP.
Slick.

would have his mouth running. Warren for me.

and 99% of the real world wouldn't even know who the others are.

Here is a board that is not what the outside world is.

In the real world, 95% of the people love the President, his agenda, his team. And even more so Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.

Which is why in the real world, the 80-20 is going to happen and quite soon.

Nothing gets by that eagle eye of yours...

and apparently not corruptible because of greed. If that force was strong enough to block her from being the head of the Consumer Protection Bureau, just how strong would that same group of opposition grow to block her from being President? I do not know if she has the support to win against the Republicans because too many corporations as well just don't want her to have ANY power. I think a stronger candidate might be necessary because if Jeb does run we both know the Republicans will drag everything they have out to situate him in the Oval Office. Look what they did for his brother in 2000; they will go at least that far if not farther to seat Jeb. It is going to be ugly. So we will be up against it then...that is why we need a true heavy weight.

Sam

and strong and forthright. He might be ready to do that. He has certainly matured a lot, and I mean that in a good way. But Warren has more public attention at this time.

I suspect that Al Gore doesn't have much stomach for another run. But maybe I'm wrong. He won the first time. He could do it again.

He is a heavyweight who would not be in the least intimidated by taking on a Bush. He also has accumulated a boatload of money. He is beholden to no one. I really, really like Warren - I just do not think she can win. But if she were to be on the ticket with Al Gore and serve as VP for 8 years, she would be ready. I think she is great but does not have the tools in her political tool bag to win.

I have followed Al Gore for decades. He would be a stellar choice and there is no question he would challenge those who oppose climate change. We desperately need someone to do this and refuse to back down. I think that he is probably the only one we could count on for that.

Sam

I do like his environmental stance, his conviction on this.

and started to make a few public comments on important subjects. I do think he realizes that no one is going to do what needs to be done in saving the environment except him. So perhaps he is thinking about it. I have no clue. If he is, we will find out in coming months. I would support him over all other candidates because of the reasons I previously mentioned, and I would like to see Warren in the VP seat.

When he previously served, he held no investments which would present a conflict of interest in the exercise of his responsibilities. He had a reputation for being one of the cleanest politicians in town. That is exactly why Clinton chose Gore to run with him in 1992 because he had a stellar reputation for personal integrity. Clinton thought that was exactly what he needed to offset some of baggage dragging down his own reputation. Many Dems here in DC thought the order of that 1992 should have been reversed.

Sam

if she keeps going like she has. Clinton is not an option for me.

she might make a great President but she doesn't have either the natural political skills or the political experience, or the heavy hitter support she'd need to make a run.

and Warren is just my hope. Biden, I hope not, but I'm sure that's who it will be.

She'll be another 4 years of Shrub policies.

Warren? Who knows. But at least we have a chance with her.

Somebody I had never heard of in '92 (Bill), I heard/saw the spark. Then immediately began the drip drip drip of disappointments, but I stayed solid for them both, on through the culmination of the FAKE impeachment. The HUGH!1 disappointment was not the sex, it was that he chose to put his personal appetite ABOVE focusing on working on our Dem agenda.

But then, despite Hillary's also stream of little scandals, which I still believe are largely partisan targets, I was solid for her in the '08 primary. I was taken off guard by OBAMA's coming out of nowhere and stayed strong for her, but when he wrapped it up it was clear that she had run a lousy campaign with inside-the-box tactics and mismanaging millions of bucks thrown away on insider p.r. "experts."

Then for four years I kept hearing what a stupendous Secty of State she was, but all I saw was her flying around the globe with no concrete results, just traveling and having tea.

I'm glad the O.P. is open minded to note that everybody, including WARREN, has cons besides pros, and WARREN does have an EDGE, but it will take an edge to battle Jeb Crow Shrub.

Joe BIDEN, no. Please, I'm in his age group and can we please not have us in these positions, I said please. He's very nice, will be shredded by Jeb Crow Shrub.

I would vote for Jerry Brown in a heartbeat and I think he is Biden's age. I would also support Biden. But I don't think either of them could gin up the machine to beat the Bush machine.

Jerry Brown is an incredibly smart, experienced politician and would make a great President. He is a true liberal. Biden would as well. I really, really like Warren but I don't think she can beat the Bush machine either, but she would make a wonderful Vice Presidential candidate. And after eight years, she would be ready, ready, ready.

Sam

Warren is wonderful but doesn't have the experience...especially Foreign experience.
I wouldn't want to take a chance on losing the election to Jeb.

Remember, Clinton ran to the right of Obama in the primaries. I really don't think we need anyone who's to the right of Obama.

Lou

... Grayson/Warren. Or another STRONG progressive.

I will not vote for another Republican Lite any candidate that is willing to compromise our Constitution Rights for the illusion of security, for any office, ever.

Hillary will kill the Democratic Party by making sure that anyone left of Barry Goldwater to leave.

and has served our nation well, as a first lady, a senator and a secretary of state

she has as an advisor, one of the most successful presidents in history

she will be a superb president

Hillary absolutely is.

So, there's that.

but he might be able to bring Ohio in.

Warren/Sherrod Brown would be a good ticket. Could work the other way around, but I think a woman should be president sooner rather than later.

My dream ticket for 2016 is Brown/Warren (Jerry, not Sherrod - just for clarification)

will 'eat' Warren's lunch. It has to be a harden, experianced pol who can laugh Christie off.
Its going to have to be Hillary if any woman runs.

It's long past time we had a Cherokee in the White House.

That our nominee is going to be a progressive and a populist that will have no one pulling for him except the people.

She's tough and smart.

I would probably choose Hillary. I'm not sure Warren is very well known but she would be a wonderful candidate as well.

I wouldn't just vote based on gender but I love the idea of seeing a female President on my lifetime. I'm still shocked we elected a non-white male (twice)!

I don't know who I will support.

My feelings right now?

Hillary: didn't support her in 2008. Don't know if I could in 2016. Way too early anyway. Plus, what's with spouses and progeny of Presidents running for President these days? Not sure I like that on principle.

Warren: I think she'll do very well in the Senate, thank you. In 2016 she won't even be through her first term.

But I tend to agree with you about the wives and progeny of former presidents...

Just like I won't support Warren either for the same reason. Not enough experience. And from the last four plus years, my fears were correct. He doesn't know how to handle the Republicans at all.

I hope the Dems do not make that mistake two times in a row. Anyway, Liz looks like she's going to be a great senator. We need her there.

Warren. By a mile.

We have a better chance of seeing Jesus Christ come back and play power forward tonight for the San Antonio Spurs though!

But not going to happen.

personality for the presidency. She strikes me as just another politico.

Chasing ideals that would never win in a general election. Remember that Obama is a centrist, no liberal is he.

Warren never ran for anything until she barely won her seat in a blue state. Dean, are you kidding? Biden? He's already 70 years old. The Democratic party will not choose as their nominee a 74 year old white man with foot in mouth disease (although I think that he's a great guy otherwise).

Might as well just hand over the keys to the Bagger (no, it won't be Jeb) who they nominate.

Would support Dean again if he got in.

In the end, however, either one would be infinitely better than another Bush.

I suspect Warren would beat Clinton here about 2-1, but that's just a ballpark guess.

in her closet. She has to have known about the surveillance net and said nothing. She strongly supported the Iraq War. She was on Walmart's board of directors at a time when it discriminated against women. She has a lot of problems when it comes to attracting liberal and disaffected independent votes. She and Bill were not wealthy when Bill was governor of Arkansas. Somehow since leaving the White House they have become very wealthy. Clearly, Hillary Clinton owes the 1% unbelievable political debts. Bound to influence her actions should she become president.

Warren is an expert on consumer affairs and banking. She speaks intelligently, forthrightly and with great courage. She stands up for ordinary people. By 2016, she will be ready. I support Warren for 2016. We need someone fresh who doesn't owe political debts to every corporation in the country. And that is Elizabeth Warren. She would represent the 99%. And that is what we need.

We've had enough Bushes. We've had enough Clintons.

We're ready for someone who will stand up for us against the neoliberal elites.

Warren.

Hilary is pro-offshoring and was very happy with the prospect that people would have to be forced to prove they have health insurance in a job interview. Papers, please.

Corporate ThirdWayers need to go back to the GOP where they belong!

I refuse to support the corporate dems any longer and no I do not give a crap if it means a Pub gets elected instead. Both corporate dems and pubs support the same destructive policies that I will have nothing to do with.

End the Savior/Messiah complex over the Presidency.

There is one outcome that can energize me, motivate me, engage me in the '16 election.

The Democrats can nominate a CLEAR LEFT-OF-CENTER NON-DLC/CENTRIST/CORPORATIST/3RD WAY/NEW DEM/NEO-LIBERAL.

I don't care which one. There are a few left. Any one of them will do. I don't fucking care about any other factor.

If there is one in the primary, I'll back him or her as long as I can. Of course, by the time my primary rolled around in '08, it was too late. There was nobody left on the ballot I wanted to see get the nomination, and it had already been decided.

The likelihood of that one outcome is so small as to be laughable. But my attention, my $$, my time, my support, and my vote depend on it.

We're trying to get Barbara Buono in Chris Christie's seat in NJ. I'll answer in November.

He's still got one term to go.

Followed by 8 years of a Warren presidency...