Blogs Jan 24, 2013 at 6:00 am


I dunno. That is a hard choice. Clinton, for sure, would be an excellent president (voted for her and sent her money previously), but I am in awe of Warren's smarts and think she, too, would rock the presidency. I am voting for Hillary in your poll, however, because she has the experience in D.C. to know how things work and maybe get along with assholes long enough to get things done. I think Warren will be just as capable in two or three years, so maybe...but we'll have to wait and see on that one.

I love Uncle Joe, and would be open to him as president, though he really is the absolute PERFECT vice-president. Definitely: vice-president for life!
That is one tough choice.
Elizabeth Warren kicks ass. I like Hillary but she is to politic in conversation. Warren is aggressive and smart enough to pull it off.

The timber (I think that is the right word for what I'm looking for) of her voice causes her to never sound shrill either. A point in favor for a woman in these times of misogynistic news corporations.
How about a Clinton/Warren ticket?
It's not that tough a choice.

I'm from Massachusetts, and think Elizabeth Warren was a terrific candidate (and expect her to be an excellent senator). Ideologically, I line up with Warren very well, and will enthusiastically support her candidacy. She may make a terrific President. In 2020 (or 2024).

I don't line up all that well with Hillary Clinton ideologically. However, she has been an excellent New York Senator, and has done a very good job in representing US foreign policy interests in the world as Sec of State. (keep in mind that those foreign policy interests don't always line up with my ideological interests, but this country is far too right wing for my interests to be properly represented)

So between the political, domestic policy and foreign policy experience, I will support Hillary Clinton in 2016 (assuming she runs), regardless of who runs against her in the primary. I think she will represent the center of the country very well, and perhaps continue pushing it ever so slightly to the left.
I would like a Clinton/Warren ticket. But I still want Liz Warren to by my Senator for a full term.
Let's see how Warren does in office first.

Clinton's got a track record now, both as Senator and as Secretary of State. I personally think her time at the State Department has vastly improved her attractiveness as a candidate.

In 2008, you could still make the argument that she was running off her husband's coattails, at least to some extent. Now she can point to an outstanding job in the foreign policy arena, which is arguably the most important job a President has.
After watching Hillary's impassioned defense AND taking responsibility yesterday, there is no question I would support Hillary. That woman's got some major spunk.

No aspersions on warren though. I love her too, but I really want President Hillary.

Who knows? We may even finally get single payer health care reform under Hillary as well.
I know the story about Warren doesn't bother most people regarding her wannabe Indian identity. Most people don't really understand why that would be a problem to Native people. And since it is a common romantic fiction of many families, people can often sympathize with her. It doesn't help that Brown made it an ugly part of his campaign, but I think when you decide to fake your heritage it says something about you as a person. It went so far into her post college life that Harvard listed her as a Native professor, so she got some official mileage out of it.

The Cherokee tribe, since it is most often the subject of claims by people with no lineage or connection, has a pretty solid family and genealogy department. If they research your family and can't find a connection, then there is no connection.

They were none too pleased at how this election went, and how they were used as a political punch line for Brown's campaign and how Warren went out of her way to avoid the subject.

Because it is such a common thing for Americans to do, I don't think it will have any impact on her career, until she does something super bone-headed (which seems unlikely). But I put her in the same camp as Ward Churchill.
Warren hands down. I pushed for Obama in 2008 because I didn't want a proven corporate drone as the Democratic nominee for President.

And Hillary hasn't changed. Elizabeth Warren is an easy choice. Maybe Warren/Biden 2016?
@9 - I counted four lies and/or distortions in your post before I gave up on it entirely. In future, perhaps instead of regurgitating Republican talking points, you could actually research the thing you're talking about - otherwise you look like a misinformed tool of the media.
I don't like dynasties. Since Hillary's husband was President, I don't want another Clinton in the job, in the same way I didn't want Dubya and don't want Jeb.

But I do think a Clinton/Biden ticket would be unstoppable, and it's better to go with what wins. I dread the thought of the current bunch of rightwing thugs getting the White House.
Right now I think experience in D.C. and being a "reasonable person" is the most damning indictment possible of a potential leader. There's a level of groupthink and lack of accountability that genuinely scares the hell out of me. Warren all the way.
Are there term limits for VP? I would love to see a Warren/Biden ticket.
Actually Obama didn't complete a full Senate term (6 years). He was elected in 04' and essentially served 3 years with the final year full time campaiging in 08'. Most editorials that I read at the time mentioned that he couldn't run on his record. He ran as the anti-Bush/GOP.

I prefer Clinton over Warren. Warren is too far to the left. While it's entirely possible that Clinton will enter the 16' race, I don't believe she'll run. She'll be 69 y/o and she just recovered from a blood clot. She's got her legacy already. She deserves a rest.
Why not Al Franken?
Elizabeth Warren!! Time for Clinton to retire.
Clinton's history with the whole "Hot Coffee" fiasco ruined her for me for life.

After the release of GTA:San Andreas - a game where you can have sex with a hooker, then murder her to get your cash back - it was revealed that there had been a mini-game that was not playable without 3rd party addons that allowed you to have consensual sex with your girlfriend.

Hilary went on a tear, trying to get legislation passed that would make it illegal to sell video games to children, which on its face seems like a good thing, but it would have moved video games from the same category that movies and tv and music are in, and put it in the same category as pornography. Basically, her law would get video games targeted at adults (AKA, most of them) removed from the majority of retailers that sell them.

It was stupid reactionary politics aimed more at self-publicity than solving a problem. That's not what I want from a president.
@15 "She deserves a rest."

Uh, if she chooses to run, then she has decided that she wants the job. She doesn't want the rest.
Did someone go back in time and change the fact that Hillary (and Joe Biden) voted for the invasion of Iraq in 2002? No, they did not. End of discussion: nobody who voted "yes" that day is qualified to be dogcatcher, never mind President.

Elizabeth Warren? Sure, why not.
@9 My heritage is pretty similar to Warrens in that My great great grandmother was Sioux but you would never be able to tell from looking at me. I'd never list on a form personally but if someone asked me straight out if I had Native American heritage, it would be a lie to say no.
I can only dream about making such a tough choice.
Of the two, Clinton is much more qualified, having spent the last 20 years working at the highest levels of the federal government. I like Warren, but I think she would exhibit a lot of the same growing pains that Obama did. Clinton would be ready to hit the ground running.

I'm not happy that that's my choice, but if it comes down to these two, it's Clinton.
@21: "a lie" is pretty much the exact opposite of what saying no would be, both in your case and Warren's.

Not a hard choice at all Warren is no Obama, stay in the Senate she can do some good there
@ 12 That's a kinda bs if the person is qualified does it matter if a family member was president.

@ 20 Mistakes happen

Also I know people here are in a bubble but Warren might be too liberal to win.
@26: Mistakes happen. But when your little oopsie kills upwards of a million people and burns a trillion dollars for nothing, I don't think it's unreasonable that it should limit your future employment opportunities.
@14, no term limits for the VP. Remember the only reason the President has one is because (imagine this) the Republicans never wanted a Democrat as popular as FDR to ever get more than a couple of terms. That amendment was the GOP's "FUCK YOU FDR"
You guys are hilarious! How about a Warren/Nader ticket. Or a Nader/Warren ticket. Or just to go all in, a Nader/Chomsky ticket with Warren as attorney general!

Picking Elizabeth Warren to run the top of the ticket would be on par with the Republicans going with Perry or even Santorum. Not even they are that dumb.
I WANT Warren, but I think Clinton has a better chance. I like Warrens politics better, but I can see her getting slammed as an ultra lefty. I'd still vote for Clinton though, quite happily I might add, even if she's not as liberal as i'd like.

The last time dems won three terms in a row was with FDR. Highly doubtful that the pendulum won't swing back to the right.
@29 The entire left-right paradigm is a joke made believable only by excluding as many views as possible from the discourse.

Why do you think Elizabeth Warren is too extreme to win the White House? Is it her eloquent compassion for the poor and disappearing middle class (… Her support of womens' and gay rights? Those aren't extremist positions, my friend. We have the highest level of income inequality since the Great Depression, which our current lesser of two evils has done nothing t address. Not supporting gay and womens' rights are actually the fringe positions at this point. If I were you, I'd question who is really in the bubble.

This is what makes me sick about liberals. It's already time to abandon conviction before we've even selected leaders. Why would we expect anything but the mess we're in with this attitude?
@31 he won 4 times not 3

@33: Yes, both our statement are correct.
Warren would be an excellent choice if you want to lose by thirty points and destroy the entire party's chances on down the line. Ooh, a Republican President, Senate and House! Think how awesome that will be!

@5, 2024? Warren will be 75 in 2024.

@32, allow me to introduce you to my friends. They're called "voters". Why don't you ask them how they feel about Elizabeth Warren.

And get back to me when your potential candidate isn't in his or her seventies, either now or by the time the term ends. You want someone who is ten or twenty years younger than Warren -- and someone who has won more than one fight.
How sad to see people who are normally liberal become frothing conservatives in order to beat Republicans. Because, it seems, hatred of Republicans is more powerful than a passion for peace and justice.

Yes, I understand, "the lesser of two evils." But can you at least stop pretending that Clinton is admirable? How many lies does one have to tell, how many innocent lives must one destroy before one stops qualifying as "admirable?"

I guess, in politics, the sky's the limit.
I am looking forward to the debates between Elisabeth Warren and Chelsea Clinton, when they run.
@31 Right now I'm optimistic that Democrats can make it three in a row, barring major catastrophe or scandal. Mostly, this is a reflection of continuing weakness on the Republican side. Their reaction to losing the race this year has mostly been a combination of "we haven't been conservative enough" with a little bit of "let's throw a bone to Hispanics".

If immigration reform fails to happen (and I'd give it 50/50 at this point) then the Dems win 2016, period. Maybe even the House too, as the GOP approaches the limits of gerrymandering and voter suppression.

The GOP just reelected the exact same leadership to the RNC that lost them the last election. They have not learned a thing.
@38, the RNC leadership doesn't mean shit. The party is not going to drag itself back into the (semi) mainstream; they're going to be dragged. A moderate candidate is going to do the dragging, against the will of both the Christianist kooks and the party leadership. That's how it works. That's in fact the first test of a candidate -- how well he or she can wrest control of the "regulars" left over from the last effort.

That's why someone like Chris Christie is a threat. He's positioned; he could still screw it up, or turn out to be too weak, but he's in the pivot point. If he can do a turn on immigration, he can win. If he can't, they are indeed screwed, maybe forever. Fingers crossed!

The Democrats are in a more difficult position in a way, because they don't have anything to push against. They're already in. They're going to have to run against the Republican House -- a ripe target but a difficult one. They also need to keep the shameless Republican voter suppression in the forefront of people's minds.

@36, if your politics isn't about winning, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution, no matter how "admirable" you think you are. "Admirable" gets eaten alive; "Admirable" gets you Nixon and Reagan and Bush. The best thing Clinton has going for her is she's a mean fighter. I don't expect her to get the nomination but I hope she's on the side of the one who does.
@40 Half of the eligible voting population does not vote in Presidential elections. This group of nonvoters is overwhelmingly poor. Here's a thought: maybe they would vote if a major party candidate who actually represented their interests was running.

Also, why are you incapable of talking about politics as anything but an extended sports metaphor? Is that some kind of disability I should be ashamed of pointing out in public? Because it strikes me as sociopathic if not.
@32 why do you assume anyone who thinks Elizabeth Warren would be poison at the top of a Democratic ticket is a faltering liberal? That's the kind of thinking that gets us the the tea party, putting ideological purity above all else, including winning which is what really matters when you're talking about power.

You know who would fucking cream in his tailored suit over a Warren candidacy? Mark Rubio. Good thing the one thing the current cynical Dem leadership cares about is winning.
To be viable candidates, people are now expected to be able to serve for 8 years. That means being of an age where you could reasonably do so (Reagan should have taught us that, and it may have been a factor in McCain losing). Clinton and Biden will be too old.
@41 I'd urge you to reexamine the idea that winning is all that matters in terms of politics. For example, Richard Nixon started the EPA, withdrew from Vietnam, and was in general more leftist than our current President. I'm sure this had nothing to do with Nixon being a crypto-socialist, and everything to do with outside social pressure. Running a far-left (here I am using the term as well, for lack of a better word) candidate who lost against Nixon didn't hurt the progressive cause at all. Hell, Goldwater spawned a conservative rebirth in this country by losing to LBJ, but sticking to his principles.

This unaccountable political process that has risen up inside Washington is a malignancy on our country. The Tea Party (fascism) is just one symptom. Can you people seriously not feel the popular anger out there? Is Seattle that much of a bubble that the status quo seems sustainable?
@40, it's not a sports metaphor, it's a REALITY metaphor. If you can't win you are fucked. I've been fucked before and I didn't like it, and it's not going to happen again, not without a fight. If you don't care about winning, you've already lost. Get a fucking clue. Learn what you are up against. THIS IS HOW YOUR GOVERNMENT WORKS.

By all means, work to expand voting by the poor and downtrodden. But, you know, there are people who are in positions of great power and authority who are working twice as hard to disenfranchise them. Check out Jon Husted, Secretary of State of Ohio. Check out Florida. You're not going to beat those people with more compassionate (or more logical, or more intelligent, or more anything) policy positions.

I swear, too many Democrats don't understand that they even have enemies.

Look, I think Warren is terrific. If I lived in Massachusetts, I would have voted for her. If she gets nominated, I'll vote for her (and then drink myself to death before the inauguration of her opponent and his new filibuster-proof majorities in the Senate and House). But she's too liberal.

And she's too old. Even if she was able to rally a working-class revival around her, which is what she needs to do, she's not going to be able to move it forward. She's already HAD a career. She's eligible for Social Security now; in four years she'll be 67. How many 67-year-old kickboxers do you know?
I much prefer Warren's politics, but I don't think she could win, and she seems less presidential than Clinton. Hillary can give a rousing speech to a large crowd, and credibly fulfill the role of head of state. Warren seems more like a minister in a parliamentary government. Her stage is smaller, at least for now. We'll see what happens over the next couple of years in the Senate.

Right now, I want Clinton to run, and I think she would win. I say this as a big lefty who thinks she (and even more her husband) are way too far to the right. But this is a center-left country on a good day, and a center-right one the rest of the time. If a real progressive can win and govern effectively, he or she will have to have once-in-a-generation charisma. Warren doesn't have that.

I am concerned about Hillary's age, but less so than if she were a man. Women do much better than men into their 70s, in my experience.

Now, if she doesn't run, I really start to hope that Warren can find a way to put together a winning campaign in short order. Because while I like Biden personally, I think he's too old and too established to make either a good candidate or a good president. And there's nobody else. Not yet.
Hillary lost the nomination in 2008 to a young upstart who out-campaigned her at ever turn. Why would anyone think Hillary could win against a Republican? She couldn't even win the parties nomination 8 years ago?
Hillary Clinton should obviously run for vice-president, backing up a female candidate like Kirsten Gillibrand.

There's 2 basic scenarios for 2016:

1) Obama executes his strategy, everything's basically on-track, and what the country will need is a feel-good president. Think 1960 or 2000.

2) Some huge disaster, like a lost military confrontation, has people scared, and what the country will want is a strong president. Think 1968.

In case #1, I want Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. She'll be 49 on Election Day 2016, her two boys will be 10 and 7, she is beautiful, her husband is handsome and rich and British, and they could give JFK and Jackie a run for their money. Hillary Clinton's role there is to bring experience and gravitas to the ticket, while going all-in on women leading the nation. Gillibrand/Clinton 2016.

In case #2, the Democrats will be in trouble. Every electoral vote will count, and for that reason I'll want Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia. A Virginian starts with an awesome map -- 255 electoral votes and five independent paths to 270 -- and we will need that advantage. We'll also need to shore up Wisconsin and not disappoint women, so probably Senator Tammy Baldwin for veep. Kaine/Baldwin 2016.

On down the line, if it's Gillibrand/Clinton 2017-2025, then I'm hoping for an epic battle in 2024 between Cory Booker of New Jersey, who will likely run for and win Lautenberg's Senate seat in 2014, and either Julian or Joaquin Castro of Texas. If Julian Castro becomes president in 2025, it'll provide a nice symmetry, first black president followed by first female president followed by first Latino president. If there are any Republican heads left to be exploded, then a "President Castro" should do it.

By 2032 Generation X will be passing out of national affairs. Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who will be 51 on Election Day 2032, could be the first president from the Millenial Generation, as well as the second female president, the first female veteran, and the first Hindu president.
You guys have a limited imagination. Four years is a long way off. Plenty of time for big time players to emerge/recede.
@47 I love you.
Hey Johnjjeeves @11, I don't do republican talking points. Those are the Cherokee Tribe talking points.

The Cherokee Tribe uses lineal descent for tribal citizenship. Anyone on the rolls during Dawes and their descendents should be considered Cherokee citizens. Warren has no such ancestor.

Brown was a complete dick for being a racist in the process of campaigning against Warren. He used ugly, mocking anti-Indian jabs to make fun of Indians in the process of trying to make Warren look bad, however, the fact of the matter is that an individual person has no right to claim tribal affiliation of a tribe that doesn't claim them. It is the absolute right of every single tribe to establish who is a citizen of their tribe.

Since most people can afford to remain intentionally ignorant of all things Native American, the pretenders get away with it.

I'm the furthest away from republican that you can be so the "republican talking points" jab doesn't work. How about liberals learn to think for themselves instead of blindly adhering to people just because they get all squirmy squealy excited about their latest shiny progressive? That she has skeletons is a reality. It is a reality she brought on herself. Ignoring it is stupid. Telling others who notice that they are lemmings is moronic.

I dread the day that she does run and the republican machine employs the racism again. Native people end up being the punch line for a regular old Okie.
Hillary, while certainly powerful, is still the Wal-Mart Republican lite persona. We already have Obama, someone more left-leaning would be nice.
@3: "sounds shrill" has nothing to do with timbre, and everything to do with misogyny. "She sounds like my nagging wife/MIL!" will come from the Fox and Fox-lites at MSNBC.
@52: PLEASE. Only the most narrow-minded progressive would characterize Obama's administration as Republican-lite. If there's been a better advocate for the left in the White House in the modern era, I haven't heard of them. As Maddow herself as said, this presidency is already historic in that regard. (And no, this does not mean Obama is beyond reproach. It means considering all viable alternatives, he's the best we've ever had. And we still haven't seen what he's capable of free from the specter of reelection.) Obama's a good idea, not the messiah. He deserves credit as such, nothing more, nothing less.
Um I was pretty open in 2009-2010 when the Democrats, with the President as their leader, didn't close Guantanamo, instituted a disastrous "surge" in AfPak, gave himself the Star Chamber powers of secret trial and execution of citizens out of battle, gave multi-trillion dollar swindlers the sweetest deal in history by buying their shitty investments, created the biggest windfall for private insurance and the pharmaceutical industry while requiring that citizens buy those private plans, hired many of Bush's political appointees, accelerated deportation and the awful war on drugs, so after all that I decided people can shove "historic presidency" and "pragmatics" apologetics straight up their ass.

@55: Like I said, not above reproach. I would add to that list the completely unnecessary early backing of DOMA. But in international politics, I've always known my vote was for the administration that fucked me and my ideals (which I share with you) over the LEAST, not at all. Call it "pragmatics" if you must, but politics, is the art of the possible, not the realm of the pure at heart. To expect more than that- and to deny what has been accomplished- is foolishly naïve. And that's neither cynicism or defeatism- just realism.
nader/warren/chomsky. That would be something!

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.