for reasons too numerous to name. Let's start with the primary one (other than one is a corporate shill and the other isn't) is that these are two East Coast politicians. In politics you need to spread it around -- each one has to represent different parts of the country to bring in the votes from that part of the country.

roots are in Illinois and Elizabeth is from Oklahoma. Also, Hillary has an obvious association with Arkansas.

Seems very diverse (or spread around as you put it) to me.

Most Oklahomans wouldn't recognize her as one of them. To them, she's a Harvard Professor, and an East Coast Liberal. I was there last summer and, let's just say this Californian got an education. Also, Hillary would never let her on the ticket. She wants to be boss lady and Elizabeth Warren is too independent minded to fall into lockstep with Hillary's corporate-friendly politics. There is no way this will happen.

Your comments like "boss lady" and "corporate-friendly" are just internet drivel plus your disdain for the fly-over states is showing.

jftr - I lived in Oklahoma for many years and when Elizabeth first announced her run for the Senate I dug through my Rolodex and called friends in OKC and Norman and was able to not only get donations for her but some of them volunteered to make phone calls for her. One of my friends had debated against her in high school and he went on and on about how freaky smart she was/is. He also raised money for her and it was almost entirely from well-heeled Republicans in OKC.

I am not saying that Democrats can win the state, I am just saying there is more to Elizabeth than "east coast Lib" or "Harvard professor". Once and Okie, always an Okie.

YOU'RE the one who used the term "flyover state." I would NEVER use the derogatory term that YOU just used. You just read a whole lot into that post that WAS NOT there. You are entitled to your own opinions, sir/madam, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Are there bastions of liberalism in Oklahoma? Yes. Are they mostly conservative, Bible-thumping right-wingers? Well, take a look at their Senators, Congressmen and Governor and you tell me. Having said that, I met many of those Bible-thumping right wingers and happened to like most of them. Well, all except for the one who said that she didn't understand why the KKK didn't just shoot Obama and get it over with.

The Oklahomans I spoke with about Warren acknowledge that she was born in the state but don't recognize her as one of "them." They consider her an east-coast liberal and, in that part of the country, that's not a compliment. I know this because I talked to them. There were several that didn't even know who she was. SHE may see herself as an "Okie," but the people in Oklahoma don't see her that way.

As for Hillary Clinton, I call 'em as I see 'em. She does turn a deaf ear to any dissenters -- remember the "hide like a rhinoceros" line?. The problem with having a "hide like a rhinoceros" is that it doesn't let anything IN, as in dissent, as in a difference of opinion. She firmly believes hers is the only opinion that counts. And the fact that she is a corporate-friendly shill isn't news. She was on the board of Wal Mart fer crissakes. She loves the TPP. She though NAFTA was a nifty idea. She loves the XL-pipeline. Her largest donor was Goldman-Sachs. You think that comes for free? It doesn't GET any more corporate than that.
.
Elizabeth Warren is a smart-as-hell, sassy, opinionated woman with the chops to back it up. She would SO outshine Hillary that Hillary would soon become irrelevant. And Hillary KNOWS that. Hillary will pick some corporate shill milquetoast too afraid to say "no" to her (not that it would have any affect) but, likely, from one of the Southern states to balance out the ticket.

These are not facts...they are just your opinion, or should I say propaganda.

It's the emoticon-when-they-have-no-point.

Nevermind. I didn't realize I was wasting my time. Have a nice day.

Quite apart from the regional problem the guy above me pointed out, Warren would be considered unelectable by the Very Serious People who decide these things.

Hillary is going to do what she always done anyway, and the same thing Obama does and go so far out of her way to prove she's not too liberal or soft. So there's no way 1) She'll have a liberal on her ticket if and when she's the nome, and 2) Have another woman.

2, is Sanders as no. 1.

There are MORE women than men voters for starters. Then, add college kids, your middle aged smart progressives and older folks like me that work their collective asses off to assure a woman would get elected, and...as a bonus, another woman, as VEEP . Your statement is sexist, at the very least.