Here are three suggestions for Democratic presidential candidates for 2016 whose names aren't Warren or Clinton...
(1) Tammy Baldwin: Tammy Baldwin is currently senator from Wisconsin, and she also has experience in the House. She's only 52 years old, for those of you worried about the age of the Democratic bench. Cribbing from wikipedia: "She is the first woman elected to represent Wisconsin in the Senate and the first openly gay U.S. Senator in history. As of 2012, Baldwin's voting record makes her one of the most liberal members of Congress."
(2) Kathleen Sebelius: Sebelius was governor of Kansas for six years, and worked in the Obama administration as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Her name might need some rehabilitation, because she fell on her sword to give Obama a scapegoat for the problems with the website rollout. There doesn't seem to be much on the record about her foreign policy opinions, but she pissed off the Republicans by daring to suggest that the lame response to Katrina had to do with US resources being overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(3) Michelle Obama: During the last election season, the Democrats were sending out Michelle rather than Barack because she apparently polls really well. She's certainly got name and face recognition, and you're not going to get anyone arguing that she's too old to take on Paul Ryan or some such. And if you want to argue that being First Lady doesn't count as political experience, well that's where you-know-who got her start.
And those are just three to start with... I've got some other ideas I may post about in the next few days.
About Elizabeth Warren
Could we please leave Elizabeth Warren alone? She's doing a great job where she is, and I have the impression she's the kind of person who says what she means and sticks to her decisions.
Why a woman?
There may not be much that needs to be said about this (but that never stops me): is this exclusive focus on female candidates obnoxious reverse sexism, or sensible "affirmative action" to counter historical sexism? Myself, I'm focusing on women because:
(1) I agree with laborlou, that as a political reality, it's likely the Democrats will go with a woman in 2016.
(2) This is a glass ceiling that it really would be nice to see broken as a blow for equality, and at this point in history there really is no shortage of qualified women.
(3) As long term political strategy, electing a female president right after a black president would be an excellent one-two punch. This would position the Democrats as the clear alternative to the olde white men of the GOP.