Skip to main content

If I could have a "dream team" for the 2016 Presidential election, it would be:

President:  Elizabeth Warren

Vice President:  Robert Reich

When I look for a candidate, I look for a some basic things:

1.  Intellectual capacity - someone who has a rational, scientific brain that's not clouded by ideology.  Someone who can think on their feet and speak with clarity, and speak in a way that ordinary people can understand them.  Someone who's well written.

2.  Empathy toward people from all walks of life.

3. An understanding of the reality of people's lives, from poverty to healthcare to lack of income to lack of opportunity to advance, to the effects of discrimination (past and present), income inequality, voting rights, the daily indignities and struggles that people deal with, and so forth.  And a commitment to do something about it.

4.  Toughness - the ability to speak the truth to the powerful and the high and mighty, be it Wall Street, Health Care Industry, Insurance Companies, businesses, politicians, foreign leaders, or big-money financiers in politics.

Continued below the fold...

5.  Fearlessness - the willingness and the ability to take on the powerful, the big corporations, the lobbyist, the financiers and Wall Street and be unafraid of them.

6.  Humility about the United States role in the world, how we have abused our power in the past, how we have not been the beacon on human rights and abuses, and how we have exacerbated problems around the world instead of helping them.  Until the US apologizes for everything from it's involvement in overthrowing governments to install leaders (dictators, many times) that we wanted, to bringing in arms and destabilizing a country for our own agenda, to propping up dictators that were "friendly" toward us, to interfering in the democratic process in other nations, to invading nations for spurious and false reasons, the world is always going to resent us.  We can make it right.

7.  Honesty and integrity both within our own government and with our dealings with other nations and leaders.  Part of honesty and integrity is having an "open" process where people can see what's going on within their government and the halls of congress.  There is no reason the people can't see more information that could be put online and/or streamed online.  On a side note, we should be able to view what happens in the Supreme Court via cameras.

8.  Commitment to human rights, both at home (looking at you Guantanamo), our prisons system, our justice system from local police to the courts, our treatment of migrants and undocumented people, the unjust system of minority arrests and incarcerations, as well as a strong commitment to human rights abroad, no matter where they occur (friend or foe).  I want our country to be the brightest beacon in the world for human rights at home and abroad.

9.  Commitment to privacy and security, both at home and abroad.  Everything from data collection, to monitoring and surveillance, to warrants, to search and seizure, to the increased militarization of the local police, to the allowance of internet companies to collect private data, to consumer friendly privacy laws, to a high wall between big business and government regarding data sharing, to NET NEUTRALITY, to how we treat foreign countries and leaders, to putting a citizens advocate on the FISA court.

10.  Involvement of the people in their government - a commitment to bring regular Americans to Washington to speak before committees on how legislation will affect their lives.  Hearings around the country where the people speak on what is important and what our elected officials can do to make our lives better.  Fewer meetings of lobbyists and one-sided hearings in Washington.

I honestly believe that Elizabeth Warren and Robert Reich would be the ones who would be favorable to the things I've mentioned.  I've listened to them both for a long time, especially Robert Reich, and I've been impressed with their knowledge, their philosophy, and their understanding and empathy toward regular people in this country.

I know a lot of people are "gung-ho" on Hillary Clinton, but I just think Ms. Warren and Mr. Reich would be more to the liking of liberals like myself.  Your thoughts are welcome.

Originally posted to voices carry on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 11:23 AM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Ideally yes, politically not so much. (15+ / 0-)

    Does us no good to field candidates that can't get enough Electoral College votes.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 11:33:42 AM PDT

  •  I would vote for that ticket. (16+ / 0-)

    I strongly prefer Hillary Clinton as president and would love Julian Castro as her Veep.  

    But Warren and Reich are both wonderful Democrats with great leadership skills and values.

    My "Super Dream Team" is for DC Dems to go the full New Hampshire and have three ladies running the show:

    President Hillary Clinton
    Senate Majority Leader Elizabeth Warren
    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

    •  Castro is a good VP candidate (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, ditsylilg, thanatokephaloides

      My Hillary VP shortlist has two names on it now

      1. Julian Castro -- being a big city mayor is good executive experience, and I also believe the Democrats should be trying in Texas with voter registration among Latinos and a big turnout effort in general. We may not win but we can force Republicans to the defensive, which is the next best thing. Every dollar they spend in Texas is a dollar they can't spend in Ohio or Florida.

      Speaking of Ohio…

      2. Sherrod Brown -- a solid member of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, would motivate progressives who have reservations about Hillary being too comfortable with the corporate elite. He also is not up for re-election in 2016, having been re-elected in 2012.

      A third possibility for totally different reasons would be Charlie Crist as a nod towards a national unity ticket. To support that I would need to see the need for a national unity ticket, which at this point I don't. It's more important to reach out to the progressive wing of the party than across party lines. Barack Obama has tried that and it failed, so it would be a true crisis before I saw the need to nominate Crist.

      Hit hard, hit fast, hit often -- Adm. William Halsey

      by fulcrum on Tue Jun 17, 2014 at 06:42:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  But you can't get a damn thing accomplished... (5+ / 0-)

    if you don't get on the inside.

    A Warren/Reich ticket would lose 47 states -- and perhaps I'm being generous.

    No, thanks.

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 11:38:32 AM PDT

    •  I think they'd do a lot better than that. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      patbahn, elwior, ditsylilg

      Could possibly even win.  I wouldn't anticipate the same coattails as Hillary, who has passionate support as a person that transcends some partisan boundaries, but Warren could certainly tap into some of that.

      I think Clinton puts some additional states into play that Warren doesn't, but I can't imagine Warren losing any reliably blue state.  I think there are some candidates we could put up that could put some of the rust belt states into play that we usually take for granted, but Warren's populism would play well in those states anyway.

      I'd also add that Warren's reputation as a liberal has been built on her economic agenda, which is New Deal Democrat all the way.   Her foreign policy seems straight down (what used to be) the middle.

      Even if she ran against Hillary, I think people would be surprised at how similar it was to 2008, with not a lot of space between the candidates. (I also believe it would be the most cordial and mutually respectful primary in Democratic history.)

      •  Irrelevant! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Angie in WA State

        How are you going to elect them if they don't run?!? You're wasting your time fantasizing about your "perfect" candidate.

        "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for a real Republican every time." Harry Truman

        by MargaretPOA on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 03:18:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Reich woudn't be a strong candidate (0+ / 0-)

        He's intelligent but a Former Labor secretary a heartbeat away from the presidency? That alone would raise negative press for the ticket. And Warren's a very risky #1. I think they would be decided underdogs if nominated.

    •  Meh, they could win, perhaps (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lysis, FG, Dr Swig Mcjigger

      It'd take a pretty favorable year for us, and coming off of eight years of a Democratic President who hasn't exactly been popular, I doubt 2016 will be that year. The only reason why it seems we'll have a wave in 2016 is because Hillary is personally popular with a broad range of constituencies even in the south. I want that wave. I want to hold the House again. I want to do mid-decade redistricting if we can and make 2018 even better for us.

      You could have Warren and Reich on a ticket, but with a Republican House, you're gonna get precisely zero progressive accomplishments - and you know it.

    •  Really? (10+ / 0-)

      You think Jeb Bush would win 47 states? Which 3 do you think he would lose?

      How about Ted Cruz? Rick Santorum? Rick Perry? Chris Christie? You really think they could sweep all but 3 states?

      The one thing more tiresome than the demand that we all accept Hillary as the inevitable Dem nominee is the bizarre claim that these muppets would beat any other Dem.

      •  Never forget Mondale in 84 (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Angie in WA State, Urizen

        Reagan had been at best a disaster. We had 200 dead marines in Beirut and an economy that was kindly in the toilet. We ran a terribly inept candidate who would not fight back against a terrible monster.

        Reagan won 49 states and this nation has never recovered and may never recover.

        We have to run candidates who can win. Until the GOP is restored to some semblance of sanity it is up to us, the Democratic Party, to run candidates who are viable and can win. We simply cannot allow another W.

        •  To Summarize . . . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lying eyes

          we have to run candidates who can win.

          "A famous person once said, 'You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.' But as I once said, "If you don't teach them to read, you can fool them whenever you like." – Max Headroom

          by midnight lurker on Tue Jun 17, 2014 at 09:37:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Is Warren a red herring for the left? (7+ / 0-)

    Warren has the kind of economic populist politics the left want right now. But she would be a horrible national candidate. She makes liberals feel smart, but most Americans don't want an Ivy League lecturer from Massachusetts talking down to them. Dukakis, Kerry, Romney. How many times do we have to make the Massachusetts elitist mistake before people get it?

    Focusing on Warren is keeping liberals from finding a serious candidate who can run and win.

    •  I watched her last night on C-SPAN... (9+ / 0-)

      talking with Thomas Piketty (by the way, I bet you anything there isn't a single human who's read his book the whole way through. It's like Hawking's "A Brief History of Time").

      Anyway, after hearing her for about an hour, I got the feeling I was in a college classroom. Smart as she is and much as I agree with her, there's no way in hell her tone will resonate with 50.1% of the voting population.

      Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are masters of knowing how to relate without coming across as the smartest person in the room, even though they are.

      How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

      by BenderRodriguez on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 11:51:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. (2+ / 0-)

        Her audience is limited to liberal intellectuals who like how smart she makes them feel.

        Also, I meant to write that her politics are what the public want right now, far beyond just the left. A Wall Street Corporate War Hawk is the absolute wrong candidate for the current mood of the electorate, and no one who fits that description would have any chance of winning the Democratic nomination or the general election, except Clinton.
        We need to look elsewhere for a liberal who can win. Sherrod Brown. Martin O'Malley. Hilda Solis.

      •  Who was the audience? (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Skyye, mwm341, elwior, ditsylilg, karma13612

        I can't imagine Warren and Piketty having a Joe6Pack level discussion on C-SPAN. Do you have an example of her being overly professorial when talking to ordinary voters?

        Obi Ben Ghazi to House Republicans: "Use the Farce."

        by edg on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 08:28:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  My sentiments exactly... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Senator Warren is a brilliant public speaker and deeply informed economic analyst who is logically an above-and-beyond college professor; the primary problem (pun intended) is how she'll respond to several of the other complex issues of the moment (something that Bill & Barack are quite simply, the very best at all other shortcomomgs aside). Her left populism is timely and well-needed, but the other fact of the matter is she'll inevitably have to campaign and govern more centrist were she to win in a American political environment where dark money essentially buys candidates and elections, to say nothing of the lobbyists setting our legislative agenda (or lack thereof). Warren could in fact be better than either of the aforementioned at it but only empirical evidence only time will convince a wider range of demographic support. I don't mind the scholarly tone she takes but given right wing populism's vehement anti-intellectualism, Americans will wrongly slight her as a know-it-all elitist. We did elect George W. After all, and on the premise of he's the guy we'd rather have a beer with. Good God we're screwed in that sense, but if she runs, she's gonna have to want it and pursue the power more than anyone can imagine to make it happen...

        "Life is indeed a mystery; everyone must stand alone....Dearly beloved, we are gathered today to get through this thing called life!"

        by Politikator09 on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 06:54:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I realize I'm in a minority in wanting... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      awcomeon, aseth, mwm341

      smart candidates, not typical politicians.  Just because the right considers anyone from Massachusetts to be an "elitist" is no reason to buy into that.  I realize that being educated and smart is not held in high esteem by many voters these days.  I find that sad.

      In any event, I did say "Dream Team", not reality.  I know that there is no way that those two would get elected.  The powers that be would never allow it.

      I don't see any liberal that could be a serious candidate because this country isn't ready for a truly liberal candidate in my opinion.

      Still, am I not allowed to dream?

      •  Obama ran as a smart liberal (3+ / 0-)

        and got elected in '08, so the public is most certainly ready. Maybe even more so today.

        It's not about being smart. It's about having a public persona and mannerisms that come off as elitist and condescending. Whether it's fair or not, candidates from Massachusetts have a real problem with that. Warren would have to make an extra effort not come off that way because she has literally been an Ivy League Massachusetts lecturer. I've seen no evidence that she can escape the stereotype of the arrogant New England elitist.

      •  Unfortunately it's not about "smart" candidates (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gfre, TrueBlueMajority, Superpole

        It's about ELECTABLE candidates. If they managed to attain office, they would no doubt be a true dream team. Lemme know when you figure out how to A) Get them to run, B) Get them nominated and C) Get them elected.

        "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for a real Republican every time." Harry Truman

        by MargaretPOA on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 03:17:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This comment belongs in a diary (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          about Barack about 6 years ago.

          Hillary is making the same inevitability mistake she did before.  She will get a bigger and more humiliating defeat if she tries it again.

          She will not run. She is teasing in order to sell books and make money. She could care less about the common citizen out there and they know it.

          I hope Elizabeth runs.

          •  No. (0+ / 0-)

            Obama is one of the greatest speakers of our era...he was and is a captivating candidate with an inspiring personal story.  Warren and Reich are both awkward as hell when they get in front of the public.  I like Warren but her in-crowd populist rhetoric is not going to translate to great stumping.  And, like it or not, that matters.  We had the same issue with Dean - awesome mind, just a lousy candidate. I supported him...but he never connected with the "regular" voters.  

            No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. - Edward R. Murrow

            by CrazyHorse on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 07:21:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, you are. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        congenitalefty, ditsylilg, lotlizard

        And Warren could easily win because of the wide appeal in her message of economic populism and because she is genuine and that appeals to people. And she is caring about the People and very committed.
           She wouldn't choose Reich as her running mate though. He is absolutely fantastic, but his appeal is not broad the way hers is.
           She's far more likely to choose someone like Sherrod Brown, who is also great, a seasoned politician, and from the key state of Ohio.
           Or maybe even Hillary Clinton, if the primary stays relatively clean.

        "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

        by elwior on Tue Jun 17, 2014 at 07:52:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe it's because I'm a lib intellectual (4+ / 0-)

      but I never felt Warren talks down to anyone.

      She speaks straightforwardly about the real world. If she had a big enough platform she'd be very attractive to a wide range of Americans.

      Clinton, on the other hand, exudes elitist entitlement.

      "I've had all I can stands, and I can't stands no more." - Popeye the Sailor Man

      by congenitalefty on Tue Jun 17, 2014 at 09:36:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I admire them both (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BenderRodriguez, keyscritter, mwm341

    but, again, Warren hasn't indicated she wants to run and I've never heard anything about Reich aspiring to public office.

    the woman who is easily irritated

    by chicago minx on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 11:46:00 AM PDT

  •  Warren -- DeBlasio would be even better (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    but of the three, only Reich will actually run.  If Bernie Sanders doesn't, I expect Reich will get my primary vote.

    The Stars and Bars and the red swastika banner are both offerings to the same barbaric god.

    by amyzex on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 11:53:58 AM PDT

  •  People With So Little Electoral Experience Might B (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, mwm341

    better for us on the Court where ideas count for the max, and it's not important to get yourself elected while bringing scores of others into offices with you.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 11:54:04 AM PDT

  •  Not standing for a smear against HRC is not being (5+ / 0-)

    gung-ho HRC.

    Your diary gives mojo to the Democratic party. The HRC smear diaries do not.  Your diary is gladly T&RECed

    Democrats really need to learn how to close ranks when the smear tactics are being used against Democrats.

    Don't send a teddy bear to the Martinez family, they don't want you to intrude on their grief - send a postcard to a politician Not One More

    by 88kathy on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 12:44:20 PM PDT

    •  so true... (0+ / 0-)

      Though most would say they have the right 2 be a soap box ideologue for their favorite candidates or dream agenda instead of focusing on real world problem, their roots and pragmatic, informed solutions to them. In that sense, for many rank and file liberals are only separated from our Right Wing counterparts by the fact we don't follow our best instincts, stay persistent and succumb easily to voter's apathy. U.S. Conservatives both within and beyond the Republican Party will vote and advocate for their retrogade, intolerant policies no matter how draconian and ridiculous they are...

      "Life is indeed a mystery; everyone must stand alone....Dearly beloved, we are gathered today to get through this thing called life!"

      by Politikator09 on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 09:15:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  As a follow-up to my comments (7+ / 0-)

    I realize that my "dream team" is just that - a dream. I'm guessing others have their own "dream team".  And some people have a "nightmare team".

    Given the current political landscape, I fully expect Ms. Clinton to be the candidate, and I will support her if she is.  My biggest concern is that people may be tired of the Clinton name in politics.  Also, we already know that there is a huge amount of op-research being done on her right now.  It's gonna be a gigantic mud bath and get real nasty.

    As for the comments that a liberal team would spell doom for the Democratic Party, I'd say not necessarily.  If they're considered populists and ordinary people see them as going to fight for them, it might work.  It all depends on your message and communicating it to regular people.

    I do plead guilty to liking smart, educated liberals with a populist bent.

    I don't pretend to be any kind of sage or seer or anything other than a liberal with a dream for my country.

  •  The one thing your diary doesn't mention (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gfre, Angie in WA State

    Is the one most salient point: Elizabeth Warren and Robert Reich are not running! Couple that with the fact that I doubt either of them have the name recognition to beat a Republican with high name recognition. Yes, ideally that would be a wonderful team to have in the White House but I don't think they would be a wonderful (winning) ticket. I've been back and forth on these ridiculously premature diaries but my position has always been that we should stick to reality. If either run for the nomination, then I would likely vote for that person but since neither are as likely to run as a snowball is to survive in my oven set on "Broil", this comment is all the effort I'm willing to expend in this exercise.

    "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for a real Republican every time." Harry Truman

    by MargaretPOA on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 03:14:16 PM PDT

  •  Dream Big: No Teabaggers in the House or Senate (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elfling, elwior, ditsylilg

    That would be a stupendous dream

  •  I really like the way you approached the subject (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mwm341, elwior

    as a very positive, this is what I am looking for and here are two people who have these qualities. I would love to see more diaries like this.

    One of my personal concerns is that when I look at the options for 2016, I don't perceive a very deep bench. I would love to hear more about potential candidates and why people are attracted to them, even if perhaps they're too young for this presidential cycle.

    Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

    by elfling on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 03:36:37 PM PDT

    •  I agree. (0+ / 0-)

      But I think any discussion about why people are attracted to them must include some analysis of just WHO is attracted to them (which Democrats) and how easy it would be for Republicans to demolish them.

      This is a fearful country. For the life of me, I can't understand how Obama got elected in 2008, other than the idea that McCain seemed too old and too crazy, and Palin just seemed crazy. America finally took a chance in 2008, and I'll be forever grateful for that.

      But White Man Gravitas is a powerful tool because so many Americans are looking for an authoritarian Daddy to take care of them. Not in the nanny-state way, but in the Cowboy way.

      Just as it took a rare-bird like Obama to break the Presidential color barrier, it will take a phenomenal woman to break the gender barrier. I'm not necessarily in favor of HRC for president, but I think few women are capable of getting elected as the FIRST female president, and she might be the only one who could do it.

      "I think in America, the opposite of poverty is justice." Bryan Stevenson

      by gfre on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 03:49:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How Obama Won General Election (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        midnight lurker, ditsylilg

        Step 1.  Step 2.  Step 3.  
        He won the democratic nomination.   No mean feat considering his opponent was the "inevitable nominee," Hillary Clinton.  He won because Axelrod and Plouffe figured out how to use caucus states to best advantage in locking up delegates.  Because of Clinton fatigue (which has diminished in past 8 years).  Because of internet savvy fund raising and organization.   Because he had not voted in favor of Iraq war.

        Step 4.  
        Have an opponent who picks someone unprepared and unqualified to be president and who displays those qualities whenever she's off her minders' leashes.

        Step 5.
        Have an opponent who does a good Chicken Little impression during the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression.

        Step 6.
        Have the ability to be calm (or do a helluva job faking calm) while others are losing their shit.

        Step 7.
        Right time, right place.  Arc of History.   We were ready for a black president.  In 2106, that Arc of History will bend to Hillary -- if she wants it.

  •  how about Senator Webb? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    he'd be awesome.

  •  I admire Secretary Reich immensely (0+ / 0-)

    but,  I believe it's important, that he has never
    won election as a dog catcher.

    I think a candidate lie Sen Webb would be better.

    Been blooded on the trail.

  •  "Could possibly even win" doesn't cut it! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bahaba, Angie in WA State

    Sure, I love Elizabeth Warren; and Robert Reich is on my short list of great Dems. But it's hard to believe that electability isn't anywhere in your top ten criteria for a Presidential candidate. Hillary is a probable winner, Warren at least a slight underdog - by your own admission. Given the extremism of today's Republican Party and its likely nominee, four years of governance by those quasi-fascists is more than our country, and quite possibly the planet Earth, can endure. We don't have the luxury of wishful thinking, and can't afford to fool around.

    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson

    by Blue Boomer on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 04:10:59 PM PDT

  •  well that was a surprise (0+ / 0-)

    i was expecting another Warren/Sanders pipe dream

    Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
    Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 04:25:53 PM PDT

  •  What people say about Warren now (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    edg, mwm341, ditsylilg

    is what people were saying early on about Barack Obama. And he got easily elected President. Twice.

    I think the time is right for a female President (but it won't be Hillary).

    And yes, I know Elizabeth Warren isn't going to run. Sad to say.

  •  Ted Cruz/Rick Santorum (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Is kinda the equivalent for the other side.  Individually unelectable, together they are a train wreck.  Now consider the happy dance that would be happening here if at the end of the 2016 primaries Cruz-Santorum was the Republican ticket.  

    It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

    by ksuwildkat on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 06:39:02 PM PDT

  •  Must be Electable (0+ / 0-)

    Nice qualities, but I do not want a Republican picking Supreme Court nominees.  Period.  Democrats have to run a person who can win.  That takes thick skin, discipline, talented advisors and guts.

    Once in, figure out how to use the power of the office to actually get something accomplished.

    Then talk about empathy & humility.

    •  Who has those qualities, though? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, ditsylilg

      We know Hillary doesn't have thick skin ("What difference does it make?"), we know she doesn't have talented advisors or else she would have won in 2008. Granted, she had discipline and guts, but without the other two, she did not win.

      Obi Ben Ghazi to House Republicans: "Use the Farce."

      by edg on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 08:54:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm starting to think (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that what is needed at this point in time is someone with the will and the toughness to rein in the NSA and (finally!) prosecute some of the Wall St. casino hustlers.

    I don't know if Warren fits the bill.  I know there's a chance she would actually try, which is why the powers that be will never let her run.

    190 milliseconds....

    by Kingsmeg on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 06:53:17 PM PDT

  •  Brown and Brown. (0+ / 0-)

    And Jerry might be running.  

    To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

    by joesig on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 09:07:08 PM PDT

  •  With you all the way (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, ditsylilg, karma13612

    I would love to have President Warren. The cure.

  •  Liz + mayor of San Antonio (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mwm341, elwior, ditsylilg
  •  These are great candidates, but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I wish we could come up with someone younger.  (That comment applies not only to Warren and Reich, but also to Sanders and HRC.)  

    I don't think it hurt Obama that he seemed young and energetic, especially next to McCain.  

  •  Robert Reich (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Smart guy.  but,

    He got 25% of the vote in the Democratic primary for Gov in Massachusetts in 2002.

  •  As a MA resident, I would like nothing more than (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to see Elizabeth run for president.  Although I admire Reich he is far too pedantic for most of the nation.

    I was hoping that one of the supreme court justices would retire giving President Obama an opportunity to put Hillary on the bench.  

    Personally, I would prefer a Warren/Grayson ticket, but a Warren/Castro (either of the brothers) would work for me too.

    I won't be voting for Hillary...

    And to those who think that people wouldn't vote for a liberal from MA, don't forget that it was Ted Kennedy that brought President Obama to the nation's attention...

    "We know too much to go back and pretend" - Helen Reddy (humble cosmos shaker)

    by ditsylilg on Tue Jun 17, 2014 at 10:04:16 AM PDT

  •  I'd Vote For This Ticket In A Heartbeat (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I used to consider myself a truly independent voter.  I have, in the past, voted three times for a Republican candidate for president*.  No longer.  The only Republican I have voted for in the last twenty years was a candidate for sheriff who was running against a Democratic incumbent who makes Joe Arpiao look like a leftist.

  •  I, too, find MA Senator Elizabeth Warren to be (0+ / 0-)

    a tremendously great politician for us on the Left.

    But she had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the race for MA Senator. Really.

    She has publicly stated numerous times that she has NO INTEREST whatsoever in running for president.

    If she were a long-time, life-long politician, we might consider that what she really means is "MAKE ME DO IT".

    But she isn't. This is her first political, elected office run ever. She is brash and blunt when she speaks about the issues she supports or opposes. What make you think that she doesn't mean it when she says, "I'm not running for president"?

    Robert Reich, while a fine analyst and thinker on the Left, is not and never has been a politician. He was Labor Secretary under President Clinton. He has been published in nearly every reputable national paper and magazine on issues of economy and labor for about two decades now. If he wanted to run for office, he would have done it a long, long time ago.

    You are day dreaming.

    Go ahead. But pretty soon you'll need to stop dreaming about the 'perfect 2016 team' and get to work to elect whomever it is who ends up as our candidates.

    I guarantee you, neither of them will be named Elizabeth Warren or Robert Reich.

    "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

    by Angie in WA State on Tue Jun 17, 2014 at 01:26:30 PM PDT

  •  HRC and Julian Castro would be a dream ticket (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    for winning an election; second place for dream ticket would be Charlie Crist and Julian Castro.

    I love Sherrod Brown, love love love him.  But he is too good a man to run for President-- I don't want him being torn apart by baying pundit wolves, or mocked and miscast by media.

    That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

    by concernedamerican on Tue Jun 17, 2014 at 01:54:00 PM PDT

  •  Really (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Waste of time and literary talent

  •  My team: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drmah, Politikator09

    Pres: Hillary Clinton
    VP: Michelle Obama

    (can you imagine....2 liberal, well-educated former First Ladies running the show?!)

    Then, you put Elizabeth Warren in charge of anything financial.

    Put Bernie Sanders in charge of Health & Human Services.

    And then you sit back and watch Republican/TeaBagger heads explode.

Click here for the mobile view of the site