Would you like to see Elizabeth Warren run for President in 2016?

It will be too soon. She needs to have a very successful Senate career for a while, and then run.

Of course, if she decides to run in 2016, I will support her.

She can do (and is doing) much good work in the Senate.

Warren has been elected to office ONLY once so far.

It is too soon for her to run for the office of the presidency.

We don't even know Warren's stance on most issues, other than financial ones.

but didn't get a basic grasp of the whole "due process" thing.

In any case, how does being in a state legislature prepare one for the Presidency?

And which issues are Warren's views not known?

Warren / issues : http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm

Thanks.

The LINK is in my previous comment.

I do not have time to 'play the game' right now

I'm pretty sure that she's sounded off on all major topics.

I'd be happy to support Elizabeth Warren for president. If she disappoints us before then, then I may just change my mind.

I think it's gonna be Jeb on the other ticket. He will be a formidable opponent because he's got that well-oiled machine and the world's most powerful family backing him up.

The plain truth.

Devastating, in the right hands.

Hey, I like Bernie a lot, but I know he's not perfect. You have put Warren on a ridiculously high pedestal.

and she said it often during her campaign.

up her creds.

DO want to see her as POTUS.

Warren was born in 1949.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren

Hillary Clinton was born in 1947.

In four years -- they will both be in their late 60s, In 12 years, even older.

They don't seem old now, but that would be a problem looking into the future.

yes yes yes

I hope there are other good contenders as well. A race between fine opponents would be awesome.

she has the kind of deep understanding of how this Ponzi Scheme works, that she could, and might use the Presidential megaphone to frame and bring this scam into focus.

Besides, Grayson is the only other politico I see in a blue jersey that I want within a mile of the Presidency right now.

Depends on if you can make things happen. Teddy Kennedy never became President but his impact was huge. And Mass would lose another great Senator. I had to put up with Lieberman in CT for years.

The odds she'd win are low; she'd look overly ambitious running only two years into her term, and her chances of running again when she's more seasoned and better known would be damaged.

As noone did the job that she can do, why are some so quick to want her to leave that job?

It makes no sense.

When Hillary will be President and Warren can be the top senator, working together.

Because Warren has the gravitas as Senior Senator to do the job she is doing.

But she would need to campaign for 3 years meaning she can't do the job at hand.

So someone else would do her job, most likely the same people that the people who love Warren the most, did not like doing that job they did.

I don't know the age group, however, I come from the time when strong senators were a great job to aspire to.

Warren, should she want to serve til she is in her 80s, can serve 3 or possibly 4 terms.

And as Warren is part of Team Obama (to use a kiddies phrase), and Hillary is part of the same team, Warren won't run against Hillary.

Any more so then Janet Napolitano(who has a much bigger resume than Warren has, and who wanted to run for higher office at some point while being Gov.), would run against Hillary (or any of the others).

So I want her to be the great Senator she appears to be.

On the level of Ted Kennedy and LBJ. Perhaps she can be the greatest woman Senator of all time.

So my vote is YES to 3 or 4 terms as Senator(now Senior Senator from Mass.) and no to chucking the seat and the work and running for higher office.

Though I of course would enthusiastically vote for Warren were she on the ticket,
or a Clinton/Warren ticket. (there are already bumper stickers and buttons saying just that).

But Senate is the #1 best area for getting real change done for Elizabeth Warren, working
side by side with President Clinton.
After all, they already ARE on the same team.

Can't understand why some think they are opponents, when they are not.

and wont be able to do much in the Senate. she would have to start campaigning in 2014 by latest.

it was ok for Obama because his 2004 Speech gave him such huge support which allowed him to start so early.

but elizabeth warren wouldn't have that.

She might be able to do some small good in her present position. The owners will never let her be President.

She'd make a fine President, but if she'd rather serve in the senate for a bajillion years, I'd be good with that, too.

This ongoing self dialog we've been having about who's running or who should we get to run in 2016, is useless. Elizabeth Warren's election to the senate is a new era of democratic electoral responsibility. No longer can we afford to wait for an executive savior. Its time to change the game from the inside out...

Elizabeth Warren on the Senate Banking Committee is just the beginning. Senator Warren needs to stay in the Senate and we need to elect her a league of colleagues to assist her.

Good phrasing. That is how too many DUers look at the Presidency. They want someone "strong" enough to bend even an opposing Congress to their will. As if such a person wouldn't be another Stalin.

It gets really tiring. There is at least one "Elizabeth Warren is our savior of 2016" post per day, and it's only 2013. There's a Congressional election in 2014 and with a good Congress, Obama could sign more progressive laws. But that gets ignored in favor of who is going to be our Great Savior in 2016, together with complete unconcern about the 2016 Congress as well.

The Republicans will not appreciate that she used to be a Republican and left the fold, and the Democrats who discover that she used to be a Republican and have a problem with her willingness to compromise and cooperate might not like her for that reason, either.

I think she's shaping up to be a fine Senator, but let's give her a moment--this is, after all, her first foray into elective politics, and her time in the Senate is still counted in WEEKS.

If Hillary runs, Warren won't. Even if Hillary doesn't, Elizabeth probably won't but if she does she certainly has my vote. I voted "other"

When it was Hillary vs Obama i thought she was too hawkish, but I don't see how Obama has been so much better on war than I expected from Hillary.

So I am now ready to support her.

Unless Howard Dean runs. He is always my top choice

But both Hillary and Howard Dean are cognizant of the risks of debt. I don't have the feeling Elizabeth Warren takes it seriously.

OTOH if she decides to be a damned fine Senator for life, I'd be so proud of her. She has it in her to be great for a lifetime. And I fully recognize the limitations of the presidency. Those limitations added to a 4-year or 8-year term if lucky, can take so much of the potential away. How many times do we have to see it before we accept it?

But, as it stands now, if she decided to run I'd be happy about it.

I'm not sure if she'll get far as someone fairly new on the scene, but I think she can at least bring up some important issues on the table that aren't normally discussed.

my liking.

life and her own needs and life plans could change. I think she is better able to fight her fights after that experience with the consumer office she midwifed into existence and the poltical storm that ensued. But you never know what twists and turns life turns out to take.

Right now, the smart money is on Hillary, so let's all simmer down and see what happens. I have great expectations for Elizabeth, along with heartfelt best wishes for her success.

Also, she would likely be too polarizing to win over the middle, i.e., independents.
I like her style and think she'll make a fine Senator.
She knows how to think on her feet, and is articulate.

I think she is able to do much more as a Senator than President. I don't necessarily want to see her run in 2016, because I think she'll be a very powerful and influential Senator. Though of course I'd support her if she did choose to run for President.

She's run one (statewide) campaign in her life, and she's been in the Senate less than two months.

While she's a hero on the left, I guess her national name-recognition is still low.

I think it's way to soon for her to run for President.

There is no indication in her history that she has the political chops necessary to successfully do so. She has run exactly one campaign and she had her struggles with that. The inevitable but Obama had no more experience than she will have had, is off the mark. Obama had run for the U.S. House and had been elected to several terms in the Illinois Senate. He knew the ins and outs of running a campaign. He was also one of the most high profile dems in the country. I remember going to see him speak at UVM and the place was jammed to the rafters and spilling out on to the quad. That kind of star power is both rare and potent. As of now, Warren doesn't have it.

She might make a very good President, but it takes more than that to run and win a primary, let alone the Presidency. She would be running against people who have a much greater grasp of what it entails.

You're a little bit, uh, obsessive about your devotion to your Senator. Give her a break. And as I said, she's not stupid.

She won't run.

People are already saying clear the field for a certain candidate (who shall remain unnamed).

Me personally, I'd like to see a competitive primary. If Warren runs I'd definitely consider voting for her in a primary.

and I don't mean the experience to govern. I mean the experience to be a candidate for the Presidency. She has run in one campaign and she struggled with that.

There are plenty of other people who could though.

She was running against the (then) most popular politician in MA, started way behind, then won by 8%.

If that's struggling...

ready; have to see more. Or, something that support for Hillary has no link to Warren. Why should it.

I may be the only person here who is not gotten on the Warren bandwagon yet. I think it is naive to
concentrate on prosecutions...the focus should be on what laws have been broken...specifically. Bush
raped Wall Street and Banking regulations. Obama said it himself...the problem is finding laws that
they broke.

Chastising govt officials who have no power to file criminal action, to me, shows a level of unpreparedness

I think she'd be great on the court.

We need a D Congress in 2014. And 2016 for that matter. Obsession with the Presidency leads nowhere, since Congress is always involved.