And she does have a "clue" about a lot of things. So does Warren, so does Obama. Characterizing politicians as stupid and uninformed doesn't help your argument.

I don't have a "problem" with Warren. I worked to get her elected. I think she's doing a fine job. I don't think she's QUALIFIED for the Executive Branch. She gives great speeches about Wall Street, but she's never been called upon to engage in diplomacy with other nations and she's still a junior politician. Even Obama had political experience in the IL legislature--Warren has taught at Harvard. Sorry, that's not preparation for the most powerful leadership role in the world. "Controversy"--as you term it--is what the GOP would SUCCESSFULLY use to derail her candidacy should she be so foolish to think she could run and win. She cannot overcome that stuff. It's not news here in MA, but it would be news to the rest of the country, who--despite all the hoopla here at DU--don't know who the hell she is, most of them.

When TR was coming up, USA was an isolationist nation. He did send out the fleet to go hither and yon, and he did say "Speak softly and carry a big stick" (how charming) but he would have been ill-equipped to handle the leadership of USA in this nuclear day and age. He was a man for his time, but his time ain't now--and it's not Warren's, either. She can do a lot, she just can't do it from the White House.

The RFH Pac has gotten MILLIONS of small donations for Clinton--these people have already contributed, they are going to vote for her. Getting out the vote won't be a problem--she's got Howard "Fifty State Strategy" Dean with all his connections and influence ON her team.