General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama ran after only 2 years in the Senate. Why is this a tougher prospect for Warren? Here's why:
Like him or not, Obama is a once in a generation politician. He's not only possessed of impressive political and communication skills, he has that ineffable something; call it charisma or presence or whatever you will.
Governing skills and political skills are two entirely different things.
I like Warren, though she's still a bit of a cipher. In many areas, she hasn't really fleshed out a position and she doesn't have a record yet. Obama had more of a record due to his having run for the U.S. House and serving for 8 years in the Illinois Senate.
Warren's campaign for Senate, though she won decisively with nearly 54% of the vote showed her inexperience in the campaigning sphere. And that is not a dig. She was running for office for the first time.
There's also Warren's history as a Republican, though I don't see that as such a big deal, she was a Republican until 1995.
Warren may have what it takes to be President- though I don't see that as just being about philosophy and positions. It's also about leadership and delegation and coalition building and communication and and and. Perhaps over the next year or so she'll demonstrate that she has those skills. But that's really all the time she has and it's a short period of time.
Note: This is not about Hillary. Though I've come to a greater appreciation of her through her service as SoS, I can't envision supporting anyone in the primaries who voted for the IWR. It's such a huge lapse in judgment that I can't let it go. In any case, my guess is that if Clinton runs, Warren will be one of those who is swiftly on board.
Personally, I think Warren is too smart to run in 2016.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
w4rma
(31,700 posts)If she can win the general election, we'll know by the end of the primary.
cali
(114,904 posts)If she wants to run, she should go for it. I think it's highly unlikely however.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)That is the question no one seems to want to answer.
Everything from the minute she would attempt it, would be looked at politically, and not issue.
So she would be margionalized.
As she is a single issue candidate, if she wasn't able to accomplish that single issue,
what would she run on?
Tough questions, but don't think Karl Rove is going to ask them when Jeb runs.
(and don't think the other demcoratic candidates won't do that either.
After all, it was Al Gore that brought up the Willie Horton issue(not by name) in the race with Mike Dukakis, and that issue singlehandedly destroyed Dukakis later on (thereby the phrase getting Dukakissed like I like to call it started).
That brings to mind soemthing else-
Dukakis, tsongis, Mitt- Mass. candidates don't seem to do well lately.
Also, if one is talking Mass. well, Deval Patrick has a much deeper record, and would be a natural to run.
(not to mention a certain other person who was born and raised in Mass and is a major liberal though some seem to think not).
dsc
(52,152 posts)The issue Gore brought up was furloughing murderers for weekend passes. Every case he brought up was a white murderer and one had a black victim. To say it is the same issue as those ads is totally dishonest. The ads featured a black murderer who later raped a white woman, and all the prisoners in the revolving door ad were black. Gore brought up the perfectly reasonable issue of the lack of judgement that releasing murderers on furlough. The Bush campaign turned it into a racial matter.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Didn't know she was a republican. Never felt a need to delve into her past as it was irrelevant to anything. I have a sneaky suspicion 99% of her mega fans did not know this either.
Now, That is not a deal breaker to me,as I am a big Charlie Crist fan, but it is why any candidate UNVETTED is a big no no in these days (especially after Paul Tsongas and John Edwards).
The story about Ed Markey yesterday brought the truth home.
Here is someone one would think everyone in the nation would know.
Yet in his own Mass. he is unknown to a wide section of his own state.
Most people are unknown nationwide. Except for political junkies, and historians, who really knows people hundreds/thousands miles away.
Elizabeth Warren is on the same team as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
I don't know why a small subsection of the democratic party thinks otherwise.
I fully expect Hillary and Elizabeth working side by side for her 8 year term.
And as said in the OP, I fully expect, that with Hillary running, no other woman, including Elizabeth Warren would even think of running against her.
And to her megafans-(now I like her, but am not a megafan like they are)-I still would love to know why they want her to give up the perfect job she is in to spend 3 years running for president.
She can't do what she is doing as President. It is why President Obama can't do what her mega fans hope she can accomplish as President. It takes a Senator to do that. Not a President.
I am hoping all the other candidates don't even start a campaign, and the party emerges as one very early, very quickly and let the other side have their civil war.
And to remind people, I was avidly against Hillary in 2008.
She EARNED my respect and vote in the 4 years since then.
But I do wish those megafans of any candidate do some homework.
Hillary has 100% of all her dirt out there, the public already knows it, fully vetted.
However, NONE of the other candidates has ever been vetted whatsoever.
(just look at what people did not know about Andrew Cuomo that they only found out
after Mayor Ed Koch died.) That would be used 100 times over were Andrew to run.
(and he won't run against Hillary, none of them will).
I wouldn't mind Joe running just to take the air away from others, and being the 1st term VP for Hillary to set double history.
BTW, Elizabeth Warren's megafans also keep mentioning some other person for her VP.
Now, it took me 3 seconds to find 3 things about him that ironically enough, if they knew that, one would think would instantly disqualify that person from someone they would want on a national ticket.
Vetting. It should be done and those things then weighted to see if those things make a national run impossible.
imho
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I'm sure many DUers did, too. The Republican party was much saner back then.
cali
(114,904 posts)could have voted for Reagan.
retread
(3,761 posts)OceanEcosystem
(275 posts)And more than 50 million votes in the 1984 election.
I'm sure at least a few of those voters were 'compassionate' and 'sane.'
EastKYLiberal
(429 posts)
FleetwoodMac
(351 posts)We've only seen glimpses of her politics and temperament.
She may very well be a brilliant candidate for president, but after only 50 days as Senator and a single hearing under her belt, I will reserve my judgement.
And you are absolutely right, @cali. Mr. Obama is indeed a once in a generation politician.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)to bush.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)She thought she had to do that to run for office. Obama outsmarted her.
jerseyjack
(1,361 posts)One of them voted for the Iraq war even knowing (or should have known like we did) that it was bullshit.
She voted for that way for political reasons.
cali
(114,904 posts)no contemporaneous statements from her on the subject.
But of course none of that has anything to do with Warren's lack of political and campaign experience.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)lose the White House for us. But it's purity that's important! Just ask the Teabaggers.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... for political purposes.
And I'm still bugged that it was the Clintons that helped start the DLC back when Bill Clinton became president, and it has since been shown that the Koch brothers had financed the DLC significantly during their history too, which explains a lot of their corporatist stances...
We need a candidate that can distance themselves from corporatist influences. In my book Hillary isn't a candidate that can do so as much as I or many out there would like, where someone like Elizabeth has a history that isn't tainted like that. Obama won the primaries because he was more of a "clean slate" that wasn't committing himself towards hawkish foreign policies, or had as much intimate ties to corporatist organizations like the DLC (though he had enough ties to the DLC that had me supporting Edwards in the primaries then). I think what he's done (or not done) since then with people like Rahm Emmanuel and someone like Salazar as secretary of the Interior (instead of someone like RFK, Jr.) have shown he's not the real leadership we need to make these significant changes, even if he was a refreshing change from Bush in many areas.
Now, Hillary versus any Republican at this point gets my vote hands down. But I think we can do better, and need to do better to really do a sea change that is needed to change the whole system on how the "ownership" class of banksters, etc. are governed and regulated (or NOT regulated) at this point. Elizabeth Warren is far better for that job than either Hillary or Biden is (Biden has his own skeletons with items like the bankruptcy bill, etc. that he put together when he was a senator that represented the state where many of the CC companies had headquarters in).
Now, there is a question on whether in 2016 Ms. Warren has the necessary political experience to take over that high office at that point. That's a fair point of contention. But I think she would really solidify a ticket with someone like a Russ Feingold heading it up where those who are looking for new leadership to make significant changes will get behind. Being a VP for such an administration would be the perfect preparation for her to run for president after that person's term then and provide us perhaps four terms of continuous leadership to make these changes that we were able to do with one progressive leader like FDR did the last time the country faced such challenges.
I don't dislike Hillary, but I don't think she's the right choice if we want real change in 2014. There are many other places where she can provide us good leadership. Perhaps she could change the way the World Bank or IMF is being run, which at one point was what was rumored she was looking at taking over.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)utterly hypocritical. Why is her vote a millstone around her neck while his duplicate vote a recommendation for him to run the military? Her vote means she likes war, his means he will cut the budget and make sure we never go to war?
cali
(114,904 posts)I don't have a voice in who is Defense Sec. I think it's completely apples and olives.
JGug1
(320 posts)Nonsense. LOTS of otherwise thoughtful people were hoaxed into supporting the attack in Iraq. Besides, what they voted for was to give the judgement to invade to shrub Bush. At the time, no one really KNEW that he had intended to attack Hussein from BEFORE he was even nominated. Yes, there was plenty of information out there indicating that the supposed cause for the invasion did not exist but there were a lot of supposedly honest people who had convinced themselves that Iraq was a nail because the only tool they had was a hammer. Like many other politicians, Clinton got sucked in. Had she been President, it would NOT have happened. She apparently CAN win and win easily. IF she runs she will be a lot like Obama has been. I'll take THAT in a heartbeat.
cali
(114,904 posts)or Byrd's or Kennedy's.
Hell, even my Republican Senator voted against it.
Hillary and Kerry voted for it for expedience.
I voted for Kerry in the general and I'd do the same re Hillary. I will not support her during the primary.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Saddam Hussein has also made no secret of his hatred of the United States, and should he acquire a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it, he would pose a grave threat to the lives of all Americans, as well as to our closest allies.
The question is not whether Saddam Hussein should be disarmed; it is how imminent is this threat and how should we deal with it? Do we go it alone, as some in the Administration are eager to do because they see Iraq as their first opportunity to apply the President's strategy of preemptive military force?
Do we do that, potentially jeopardizing the support of those nations we need to combat terrorism and further antagonizing Muslim populations who already deeply resent our policies in the Middle East?
<...>
Despite disagreements on our policy toward Iraq, there is no question that if a decision is made to send troops into battle every Member of Congress will unite behind the President and our armed forces.
But that time has not come, and based on what I know today, I believe that in order to solve this problem without potentially creating more terrorists, and more enemies, we must act deliberately, not precipitously. The way the United States responds to the threat posed by Iraq will have consequences for our country and the world for years to come.
Authorizing a United States attack to overthrow another government, while negotiations at the United Nations are ongoing, and before exhausting other options, could damage our standing in the world as a country that recognizes the importance of international solutions to global problems and that respects international law. It would be, I am afraid, what the world has come to expect of a super power that seems increasingly disdainful of world opinion, or cooperation and collective diplomacy.
What a dramatic shift from just one year ago, when the world was united in its expressions of sympathy toward the United States and would have welcomed the opportunity to work with us on a wide agenda of common problems.
I remember the Star-Spangled Banner being played and sung by crowds of people outside Buckingham Palace. The leading French newspaper, Le Monde, declared "We are all Americans." And, China's President Jiang Zemin was one of the first world leaders to call Washington and express his sympathies.
Why squander this goodwill and this unity? Why not build on it?
If September 11th taught us anything, it is that protecting our security involves much more than military might. It involves cooperation with other nations to break up terrorist rings, dry up the sources of funding, and address the conditions of ignorance and despair that create breeding grounds for terrorists. We are far more likely to achieve these goals by working with the rest of the world, than by going it alone.
I am optimistic that the Administration's efforts at the UN will succeed and that the Security Council will adopt a strong resolution. If Saddam Hussein refuses to comply, then force may be justified and it may be required. But we are a great nation, with a wide range of resources available to us and with the goodwill of most of the world.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0210/S00095.htm
Like I said, every Senator bought the WMD lie based on the bogus intelligence.
Iraq: Bush lied
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022389965
Hubris: Selling the Iraq War - The Rumsfeld memos
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022394769
cali
(114,904 posts)but, I'll play. And my excerpts are a lot more honest than yours. Your habit of selective quoting is pretty dishonest, dear. You should be embarrassed to try and foist this off as a sense of the speech. You are intentionally attempting to change the meaning of his speech. I find that contemptible. Please note that I have far, far, far more to choose from. And no, he did not buy into the WMD, as your attempt at being clever seeks to prove.
Today we are considering a resolution offered by Senator Lieberman to authorize the use of force. Article I of the Constitution gives the Congress the sole power to declare war. Yet instead of exercising this responsibility and voting up or down on a declaration of war, we have chosen to delegate this authority to the Executive Branch.
This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything. It tells the President "you decide." This resolution, when you get through the pages of whereas clauses, is nothing more than a blank check. The President can decide when to use military force, how to use it, and for how long.
<snip>
Diplomacy is often tedious. It does not usually make the headlines or the evening news, and much has been made of past diplomatic failures. But history has shown over and over that diplomatic pressure can not only protect our national interests, it can also enhance the effectiveness of military force when force becomes necessary.
More importantly, the resolution now before the Senate goes well beyond what the President said on Monday about working through the United Nations. It would permit the Administration to take precipitous, unilateral action without following through at the UN.
Many respected and knowledgeable people - former senior military officers and diplomats among them - have expressed strong reservations about this resolution. They agree that if there were credible evidence that Saddam Hussein were planning to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or one of our allies, the American people and the Congress would overwhelmingly support the use of American military power to stop him. But they have not seen that evidence, and neither have I.
We have heard a lot of bellicose rhetoric, but what are the facts? I am not asking for 100 percent proof. But the Administration is asking Congress to make a decision to go to war based on conflicting statements, angry assertions, and assumptions based on speculation.
The Administration has also been vague, evasive and contradictory about its plans. Speaking here in Washington, the President and his advisors continue to say this issue is about disarming Saddam Hussein; that he has made no decision to use force. But the President paints a different picture when he is on the campaign trail, where he often talks about regime change. The Vice President said on national television that "The President's made it clear that the goal of the United States is regime change. He said that on many occasions."
Proponents of this resolution argue that it does put diplomacy first. They point to section 3, which requires the President to determine that further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone will not adequately protect the national security, before he resorts to military force. They say that this ensures that we will act only in a deliberative way, in concert with our allies.
But they fail to point out that the resolution permits the President to use unilateral military force if he determines that reliance on diplomacy alone "is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq . . .."
Unfortunately, we have learned that the phrase "not likely" can be used to justify just about anything. So let us not pretend we are doing something we are not. This resolution permits the President to take whatever military action he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants. It is a blank check.
<snip>
But if we have learned anything from history, it is that wars are unpredictable. They can trigger consequences that none of us would intend or expect. Is it fair to the American people, who have become accustomed to wars waged from 30,000 feet lasting a few weeks with few casualties, that we not discuss what else could happen? We could be involved in urban warfare where large numbers of our troops are killed.
And what of the critical issue of rebuilding a post-Saddam Iraq, about which the Administration has said virtually nothing? As I have said over and over again, it is one thing to topple a regime, but it is equally important, and sometimes far more difficult, to rebuild a country to prevent it from becoming engulfed by factional fighting.
If these nations cannot successfully rebuild, then they will once again become havens for terrorists. To ensure that does not happen, does the Administration foresee basing thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq after the war, and if so, for how many years and for how many billions of dollars? Are the American people prepared to spend what it will take to rebuild Iraq even when the Administration is failing to budget what is needed to rebuild Afghanistan? Or to budget what is needed here at home for homeland defense, drought aid for farmers, and other domestic priorities, for that matter.
And who will replace Saddam Hussein? The leading coalition of opposition groups, the Iraqi National Congress, is divided, has questionable support among the Iraqi people, and has made little headway in overthrowing Saddam. While Iraq has a strong civil society, in the chaos of a post-Saddam Iraq another dictator could rise to the top or the country could splinter along ethnic or religious lines.
These are the questions the American people are asking and these are the issues we should be debating. They are difficult issues of war and peace, but the Administration, and the proponents of this resolution, would rather leave them for another day. They say: Vote! And let the President decide. Don't give the UN time to do its job. Don't worry that the resolution is a blank check.
Mr. President, I can count votes, and I can see that the Senate will pass this resolution and give the President the authority to send U.S. troops to Iraq, if he chooses. But before he takes that step, I hope he will consider the questions that have been asked here. I hope he will consider the concerns raised by former Generals, senior diplomats, and intelligence officers in testimony before Congress. Above all, I hope that he will listen to the American people who are urging him to proceed cautiously, and to not act alone.
<snip>
But that time has not come, and based on what I know today, I believe that in order to solve this problem without potentially creating more terrorists, and more enemies, we must act deliberately, not precipitously. The way the United States responds to the threat posed by Iraq will have consequences for our country and the world for years to come.
Authorizing a United States attack to overthrow another government, while negotiations at the United Nations are ongoing, and before exhausting other options, could damage our standing in the world as a country that recognizes the importance of international solutions to global problems and that respects international law. It would be, I am afraid, what the world has come to expect of a super power that seems increasingly disdainful of world opinion, or cooperation and collective diplomacy.
What a dramatic shift from just one year ago, when the world was united in its expressions of sympathy toward the United States and would have welcomed the opportunity to work with us on a wide agenda of common problems.
I remember the Star-Spangled Banner being played and sung by crowds of people outside Buckingham Palace. The leading French newspaper, Le Monde, declared "We are all Americans." And, China's President Jiang Zemin was one of the first world leaders to call Washington and express his sympathies.
If September 11th taught us anything, it is that protecting our security involves much more than military might. It involves cooperation with other nations to break up terrorist rings, dry up the sources of funding, and address the conditions of ignorance and despair that create breeding grounds for terrorists. We are far more likely to achieve these goals by working with the rest of the world, than by going it alone.
<snip>
Let us proceed deliberately, moving as close to our goal as we can by working with our allies and the United Nations, rather than writing a blank check today that is premature for us to write, and which would continue the trend of abdicating our constitutional authority and responsibility.
Mr. President, that trend started many years ago, and I have gone back and read some of the speeches Senators made. For example, and I quote:
"The resolution now pending is an expression of American unity in this time of crisis."
"It is a vote of confidence . . . but is not a blank check for policies that might in the future be carried on by the executive branch of the Government . . . without full consultation by the Congress."
Those quotes were not about Iraq. They were spoken thirty-eight years ago, when I was still a prosecutor in Vermont. At the end of that debate, the Senate passed the Tonkin Gulf resolution by a vote of 88 to 2.
That resolution was used by both the Johnson and Nixon Administrations as carte blanche to wage war in Vietnam, ultimately involving more than half a million American troops, and resulting in the deaths of more than 58,000 Americans.
This is not to say that the Administration is trying to mislead the Congress about the situation in Iraq. Nor am I comparing a possible war in Iraq to the Vietnam War. They are very different countries with different histories and different military capabilities.
But the key words in the resolution we are considering today are remarkably similar to that infamous resolution of 38 years ago, which so many Senators came to regret.
Let us not make that mistake again.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"That's about as selective as you could get. but, I'll play. And my excerpts are a lot more honest than yours. Your habit of selective quoting is pretty dishonest, dear. You should be embarrassed to try and foist this off as a sense of the speech. You are intentionally attempting to change the meaning of his speech. I find that contemptible. Please note that I have far, far, far more to choose from. And no, he did not buy into the WMD, as your attempt at being clever seeks to prove. "
...matter if he claimed it was a "blank check." My point is that all the Senators spoke about the need to disarm Saddam and his possession of WMD. And all the Senators voted for one or more versions of the authorization to use force.
Here is the Durbin Amendment, which only got 30 votes, including Feingold, Leahy and Kennedy.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236
And you have a lot of nerve calling someone "dishonest" because the facts show you're wrong. You're the one who should be "embarrassed."
retread
(3,761 posts)on his flight suit and invaded! Right? That is what happened?
Or was it all those WMD's cleverly concealed from all the scientists and experts looking for them?
I am disgusted by pols murdering women and children in my name in order to further their own ambitions!
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Obama did have the backing of a significant number of power brokers. HRC did too, but it was not unanimous. Warren is going to have to fight to get that backing, and will have many opposed because of her stances on the banksters.
I heard the 'once in a generation' thing about Bill Clinton, too. Winners get that tag.
zazen
(2,978 posts)Miller didn't have the backing of the Democratic powers that be in North Carolina, though he had a much stronger track record than Price. He had criticized the banks far too effectively and was threatening to be a national leader on this topic when he hailed from a state with Charlotte in it. So when they double-bunked Price and Miller with redistricting, Miller was shut out and Price, who had previously given every indication he was going to retire up to that point, dug in and kept the seat.
However, I think there's a large progressive movement in this country (and a sizable group in NC) that could (and is desperate to be) mobilized around the right leadership, and that Warren could put up a hell of a primary and help move the mainstream party a little more to the left--at least we'd have a much more informed national conversation about what neoliberalism is, about how capitalism in fact rigs the system that most Americans think is so fair, etc., etc. Just to get that in the national discourse day and day out will help.
Now, whether she wants to spend all of that energy and money doing that is another matter. It's a helluva lot to ask of a person.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)If she gets the contributions, and the volunteers, she can make a run at it (if she wants to). But it will have to be from below, like you note. Obama leveraged his numerous small individual contributions a lot in 2008. It can be done again.
Ian_rd
(2,124 posts)... Obama's immense skill at politics. You cannot discount that as a major factor in his two victories. Demographics and evolving public opinion on many topics is spelling doom for the GOP, but remember that they are very, very good at getting people to vote against their own interest and ideology.
treestar
(82,383 posts)This mentality that a great white hope President can do all is absurd. Obama could realistically sign a lot of great laws with a D Congress starting in 2014.
Ignoring that and just hoping that Elizabeth Warren can create miracles as of 2017 as President just makes no sense. And of course no attention is paid to the 2016 elected Congress either. So Elizabeth Warren could be dealing with an R Congress too. Then she'd be a "disappointment."
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)
Jennicut
(25,415 posts)The good thing is, the Dems have plenty of people and they would all make better Presidents then whoever the Republican nominee will end up being.
I worry about the Senate in 2014. We have a lot of Dem Senators in red states that will have to defend their seats. I doubt we will take back the House with the way it is gerrymandered.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That state houses and governorships, too. That's where the gerrymandering and splitting Electoral College votes comes in. Along with the insane laws like not giving Fs for creation science. That threat that Pennsylvania's electoral votes could be split - they can get that through with enough Republicans on the local level.
And agreed absolutely about the Dems having good candidates for the Presidency. The Republican clown car every four years just proves how hopeless the R party is. Even when their candidate "wins" it's a moron like Dubya or his Daddy.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)Those are the ones that will determine the '16 winner.
Governorships up for grabs:
We NEED a LOT of these back....
2 Term-limited Republican incumbents (3)
2.1 Jan Brewer (Arizona)
2.2 Dave Heineman (Nebraska)
2.3 Benigno Fitial (Northern Mariana Islands)
3 Retiring and term-limited Democratic incumbents (4)
3.1 Mike Beebe (Arkansas)
3.2 Martin O'Malley (Maryland)
3.3 Deval Patrick (Massachusetts)
3.4 John de Jongh (United States Virgin Islands)
4 Republican incumbents running for re-election (6)
4.1 Robert Bentley (Alabama)
4.2 Rick Scott (Florida)
4.3 Butch Otter (Idaho)
4.4 Paul LePage (Maine)
4.5 Brian Sandoval (Nevada)
4.6 John Kasich (Ohio)
5 Republican incumbents eligible for re-election (15)
5.1 Sean Parnell (Alaska)
5.2 Nathan Deal (Georgia)
5.3 Eddie Calvo (Guam)
5.4 Terry Branstad (Iowa)
5.5 Sam Brownback (Kansas)
5.6 Rick Snyder (Michigan)
5.7 Susana Martinez (New Mexico)
5.8 Mary Fallin (Oklahoma)
5.9 Tom Corbett (Pennsylvania)
5.10 Nikki Haley (South Carolina)
5.11 Dennis Daugaard (South Dakota)
5.12 Bill Haslam (Tennessee)
5.13 Rick Perry (Texas)
5.14 Scott Walker (Wisconsin)
5.15 Matt Mead (Wyoming)
6 Democratic incumbents running for re-election (2)
6.1 Pat Quinn (Illinois)
6.2 Mark Dayton (Minnesota)
7 Democratic incumbents eligible for re-election (8)
7.1 Jerry Brown (California)
7.2 John Hickenlooper (Colorado)
7.3 Dan Malloy (Connecticut)
7.4 Neil Abercrombie (Hawaii)
7.5 Maggie Hassan (New Hampshire)
7.6 Andrew Cuomo (New York)
7.7 John Kitzhaber (Oregon)
7.8 Peter Shumlin (Vermont)
8 Independent incumbent eligible for re-election (1)
8.1 Lincoln Chafee (Rhode Island)
treestar
(82,383 posts)And some blue presidential states have red governors! It's scary. Republicans pay attention to this level. Bet they're not wondering which clown to run in 2016.
Great list.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)can ruin millions of lives..
Tarheel_Dem
(31,221 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)
Tarheel_Dem
(31,221 posts) 
Arkana
(24,347 posts)Please, just let us keep her for a little while. We're so tired of having to win special elections here.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)in the sense of being someone who gets angry on TV so that progressives swoon, but then actually governs as a moderate.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)It is too bad she didn't become more active politically (running for office) earlier because with the right experience she would have been a good candidate. I think given her age, she's probably going to remain in the Senate as long as the voters keep reelecting her. She's in good health maybe she'll make through three or four terms and outlive some of her old male geezers counterparts. There's nothing wrong with that.
I have doubts about Biden and Clinton running as well. I love Joe Biden and whether he runs or not it doesn't matter because I'll still love the guy. He came in and brought sanity back to the office of the vice-president. 36 years in the Senate and 8 years as VP that is a long career.
I'm not tying myself to any primary candidate this early. I joined Obama's campaign about two months after he announced which still was pretty early to pick your candidate.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The one percent would not allow her to win.
Either she would have to fall in line to support their protection of the banks and their pillaging of this country, or they would destroy her candidacy. It is that simple.
All our efforts between now and 2016 need to be on reforming the system and getting corporate money and power out of elections and out of the halls of our government. We already know what we will get in 2016 if we don't. We will get another corporatist and warmonger, who will continue the very same agenda that Obama has continued from Bush. And everyone will vote for it, because the only alternative will be worse.
Absent real reform between now and then, all this speculation is useless.
PADemD
(4,482 posts)And PA's Kathleen Kane as Attorney General.
CTyankee
(63,889 posts)blm
(113,010 posts)election cycle. ANY Dem nominee. It wasn't specific to Obama or Hillary. Gore would have won, Kerry would have won, Dean, Biden or Gephardt would have won. 2008 was the year ANY Dem nominee was certain to win.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)That's the major difference. The "charisma" business is laughable.
OceanEcosystem
(275 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)I'll agree that if Mrs. Clinton runs that most will step aside for her, including Sen. Warren.
Her being an (R) until 1995 could be a plus for independents.
If she is up against someone like Gov. Christie then her lack of campaign experience could even be a plus. The ~400# loud mouth male out there losing his temper over the soft spoken woman will turn a lot of voters off.
I like E. Warren for POTUS. I think she has what it takes to argue economics in a way that kills conservative economic principles for a generation or more. I think we should go for it.
graywarrior
(59,440 posts)CTyankee
(63,889 posts)for a bit? We can never tell what will happen, even with the best of plans and the best of intentions. Hillary and Elizabeth are both in their sixties and if I've learned one thing, stuff happens to you when you get in your late sixties. That's only one thing. There is also twists of fate that render some candidates (of any age and gender) non viable for a presidential run. I've seen that happen, too, in my own life despite all my planning (as when the fiscal crisis hit and changed my life).
Right now, it looks good for Hillary to have a shot at the WH in 2016. I'm not going to rain on that parade one bit. I'm just warning folks that things change and that's the only "certainty" we have...
maxsolomon
(33,244 posts)She's too old (so was Romney & McCain, so is Hillary), she doesn't have the rhetorical gifts a democratic president needs, and she's a wonk.
She's in the perfect job for her skills, and should stay there until she retires.
There has GOT to be another viable female candidate. Why not Kirsten Gillebrand? She'll be 50 in 2016.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Other presidents were never elected to public office prior to serving as president. Being a long term politician doesn't necessarily make anyone a better candidate or president.
"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians. Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn't be wise." Mark Twain
cali
(114,904 posts)and was very involved in state politics. He also ran for U.S. Senate. Twice. In other words, he had some depth of experience in campaigning. Not to mention that comparing the challenge of a 19th century campaign to a late 20th or 21st century campaign is more than a little difficult.
Taylor, Grant, Taft , Hoover and Eisenhower never served in elected office prior to becoming President. the only modern one of that group, Eisenhower, was a huge war hero.
And of course experience counts in making a good politician. I like Warren, but she didn't knock me out with her campaign. It looked pretty amateurish on more than a few occasions- and that's fine. It's to be expected.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)we can't allow Iran to get nuclear weapons? Why yes she did. In fact, her statements on defense have been pretty darn hawkish.
<snip>
Bob Kerrey, a former U.S. Navy SEAL and two-term senator from Nebraska who is running to win back his former seat, released an ad on Tuesday strongly opposing an attack on Iran, which he said would be "a disaster."
Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic Senate hopeful in Massachusetts, came under fire for a hawkish statement on Iran that contradicts intelligence assertions by senior U.S. defense officials.
Warren's campaign website features a policy statement declaring that "Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons" and "Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is unacceptable because a nuclear Iran would be a threat to the United States, our allies, the region, and the world."
<snip>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/elizabeth-warren-iran-bob-kerrey_n_1449926.html
I steer clear of adulation of politicians.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)unblock
(52,116 posts)and in fact many people took his senatorial candidacy simply as an effort to build up his resume.
obama's rise to the top was meteoric and rather atypical.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Warren reminds me of my favorite teachers. She doesn't come across as at all artificial, I can't say the same thing about either Clinton or Obama.
Can Warren be an effective administrator of the federal machine? I don't know. I do know that she has a good feel for the impact of various economic policies on the public. She is a great senator.
cali
(114,904 posts)been in the Senate for a month is a great Senator.
And she appears to be slightly hawkish on defense.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Everyone's starting grade is an A. The challenge is maintaining that grade.
cali
(114,904 posts)No, it's not. You don't get a grade until there's something to grade. By your way of thinking every teabagger nutcase repuke who was elected is an "A" Senator.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)I can't think of any modern politician right now that can touch President Obama's ability to inspire a movement and get people behind his ideas. A black man with a middle eastern name does not become President, in this country, in this current era, without having something seriously special to back him up. Elizabeth Warren does not have that. And really, I don't know of anyone that has "that" right now, not at President Obama's level anyway.
