General Discussion

maxsolomon

(33,316 posts)

47. God love her, she's not a good candidate

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:43 PM

Feb 2013

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

66 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama ran after only 2 years in the Senate. Why is this a tougher prospect for Warren? Here's why: [View all] cali Feb 2013 OP

It's not very tough to run. It's tough to win. I hope she, at the very least, makes a run. w4rma Feb 2013 #1

You're right. It's tough to compete as a serious candidate. cali Feb 2013 #2

Who will do her job while she spends 3 years running? graham4anything Feb 2013 #6

the remark about Gore is a load of crap dsc Feb 2013 #66

See that, one learns something new in a second, never knew she was a Republican. graham4anything Feb 2013 #3

I don't hold her voting for Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush against her. Nye Bevan Feb 2013 #4

I'm one of those that is incredulous that any compassionate, sane person cali Feb 2013 #7

Yes! Then after 8 years of that nightmare voted for senior. n/t retread Feb 2013 #21

Well, Reagan did get more than 40 million votes in the 1980 election. OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #39

Good analysis. Her time will come. 2016 just isn't it. nt EastKYLiberal Feb 2013 #5

Personally speaking, I feel all this talk of Warren is premature... FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #8

IWR? UnrepentantLiberal Feb 2013 #9

Iraqi War Resolution. Or as my Senator referred to it, a blank check cali Feb 2013 #10

OK. UnrepentantLiberal Feb 2013 #13

Why Elizabeth instead of Hilary? jerseyjack Feb 2013 #11

well, Warren wasn't in office at the time and as far as I know there are cali Feb 2013 #14

One of them can win against Chris Christie and the other will... Walk away Feb 2013 #27

Hillary was also very hawkish towards Iran as well... cascadiance Feb 2013 #50

I think supporting Hagel in spite of his war vote makes snarking at Hillary for the same thing Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #12

I don't. He's not running for President. He's appointed, not elected. cali Feb 2013 #15

Not Voting For Anyone Who Voted For Ware Against Iraq JGug1 Feb 2013 #16

We sure as fuck did know. Go read Leahy's pre-vote speech cali Feb 2013 #18

Here is Leahy's speech ProSense Feb 2013 #25

That's about as selective as you could get. cali Feb 2013 #36

It really doesn't ProSense Feb 2013 #41

Yeah! When Saddam Hussein attacked the World Trade Center George Bush put retread Feb 2013 #22

She doesn't have the backing of the party powers n2doc Feb 2013 #17

**this** +10,000 zazen Feb 2013 #23

What it will take, is money and time n2doc Feb 2013 #24

True. Lost in all the left-leaning celebration about the end of the Republican Party is ... Ian_rd Feb 2013 #19

People should be concentrating on 2014. treestar Feb 2013 #20

^^^ THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS ^^^ WilliamPitt Feb 2013 #28

I could care less about 2016 right now. Jennicut Feb 2013 #31

Exactly! treestar Feb 2013 #35

2014 gubernatorial/statehouses/senate/house are the MOST important elections in a LONG time SoCalDem Feb 2013 #40

Red presidential states have red governors treestar Feb 2013 #54

and it's serious;ly about those states' statehouses too.. a one vote majority SoCalDem Feb 2013 #56

Nailed It!!!!!! Tarheel_Dem Feb 2013 #52

Hi TD! treestar Feb 2013 #55

Hey tree! Tarheel_Dem Feb 2013 #64

She's older and doesn't have his charisma. Arkana Feb 2013 #26

Let's see how she does. I'm worried she'll turn out to be a Dean Recursion Feb 2013 #29

As I said before I agree I don't think Warren will run davidpdx Feb 2013 #30

It's a tough prospect for one reason only. woo me with science Feb 2013 #32

I would rather see Sen. Warren be Treasury Secretary in Hillary's cabinet. PADemD Feb 2013 #33

WOW. That sounds like music to my ears! CTyankee Feb 2013 #44

After 8yrs of Bush's policies destroying the country's economy ANY Dem nominee was winning 2008 blm Feb 2013 #34

It's because Warren would be *opposed* by Wall Street... Romulox Feb 2013 #37

but wouldn't that be true of most liberal candidates anyway? N/t. OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #45

Yes. That's the point of contrast I was attempting to make. nt Romulox Feb 2013 #46

If she runs she has my vote in the primary. Motown_Johnny Feb 2013 #38

Call me selfish, but I'd like to keep her as my senator for as long as possible. graywarrior Feb 2013 #42

I don't want to be a stick in the mud, but can't we see how this thing is going to play out, just CTyankee Feb 2013 #43

God love her, she's not a good candidate maxsolomon Feb 2013 #47

Abraham Lincoln served only one 2 year term in the House. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #48

No. He served 4 terms in the State Legislature cali Feb 2013 #53

Hopefully, her "inexperience" has kept her from learning to triangulate. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #57

I doubt it. Didn't she say during her campaign that cali Feb 2013 #59

Thanks for the info. My already nebulous support for her dropped a couple notches. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #60

I would like to see her as Senate Majority leader at least. /nt Ash_F Feb 2013 #49

people were already talking about obama being president someday before he was even a senator unblock Feb 2013 #51

Obama's lack of history in the Senate was a plus. No embarrassing votes. lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #58

She's not a great Senator yet. I hope she will be, but no one who has cali Feb 2013 #61

Yes, she is and can. lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #62

uh, what??? "Everyone's starting grade is an A" cali Feb 2013 #63

I love Elizabeth Warren... but Barack Obama was/is a POWERHOUSE of charisma. phleshdef Feb 2013 #65