Elizabeth Warren/Brian Schweitzer 2016

[musiclawyer]

What do you think?

I know this is premature. But these two are the anti-Jeb. They are his kryptonite.

These two would so energize the base and raise so much money from individual contributions alone.............. I cannot even fathom

[FSogol]

1. How about MD Governor, Martin O'Malley? n/t

[PragmaticLiberal]

25. Yep...

It will be Martin O'Malley.

[grasswire]

2. I'm in.

But it frightens me to talk about it. Small planes, etc.

[sasha031]

3. I love it, what a brilliant idea

I have always hoped Schweitzer would run.

[CTyankee]

5. He's great. I first heard him on Al Franken's radio show back in 2005.

I love the pairing: Mountain West and Southwest/East. That covers lots of U.S. territory!

[sasha031]

15. Rachel showed Brian vetoing tea bagger legislation with a branding iron

:)

[cascadiance]

4. I was thinking of then Wisconsin governor Russ Feingold/Elizabeth Warren then...

... after Wisconsinites replace the bum that's infecting the state house there now this coming year...

[dmallind]

6. Like it. Would probably reverse it, but ok for me either way. nt

[musiclawyer]

7. I'm not the one who has targeted the Montana Gov.

Others have seen his potential up close. But the game changer is Warren. She's like when Rachel Maddow first showed up on TV-- natural. Like born to do it. Even if that was not her youth's ambition.
A republican can't debate her. Can't outsmart her. Can't appear more authentic.
But the Democratic machine is broken and infiltrated by dino's. So Warren/Schweitzer would have to be pushed from the grassroots, bottom up, and very early--like sometime in 2013 assuming Warren wins the seat from Brown , which I think she will

[SheilaT]

8. First of all, it is impossible

to have any idea what the world and this country will be like in 2014 or 2015, which is when anyone should even begin to get serious about running for President in 2016.

Other than that, I personally like the idea that Elizabeth Warren could be a realistic Presidential contender six years from now.

[CTyankee]

16. Of course. You are right. However, the time to dream is NOW.

WE have to plan and prepare. Eisenhower said "PLans are nothing. Planning is everything." Let's just do it. We can.

[SheilaT]

20. I think what bothers me is that it feels as

if people here are just dreaming and not doing the hard work needed to win elections.

I hope I'm wrong.

[CTyankee]

23. I thinkmost of us will be re-energized with the right candidate but there has to be

a starting place. You are right. There is hard work needed, but I think that will come. First, we've got to see what we've got to work WITH...

[digitaln3rd]

9. How about 2012?

It'd be nice to have a Democrat in the White House. :|

[musiclawyer]

10. If POTUS gets a democratic house again

--which will mean the senate does not flip-- he will act more like a Democrat. He won't let his advisers screw it up again. POTUS saeems to be learning from his mistakes. That is why being united against the teabaggers is so important and calling out their craziness everyday is so imortant. They are so nuts that with just a little enthusiasm the House can be flipped.

[digitaln3rd]

12. I hope you're right!

Though I doubt that the Senate won't flip over to Republican control (I'm thinking House goes Democratic, Senate goes Republican).

I'm crossing my fingers that we get all three, though.

[digitaln3rd]

13. Duplicate post

n/t

[jmowreader]

17. He will need AT LEAST 65 Democrats in the Senate

Obama's biggest problem, and it's been a problem since the opening day of the 2009 session, is the Republican requirement for 60 Senate votes to pass any bill. Think back to 1993, when Clinton raised taxes. He needed a vice-presidential tiebreaker to get that bill out of the Senate, because six Democrats and all 44 Republicans voted against it.

In the 2009-2010 Congress, the Republicans had either 41 (before Kennedy died--40 Repukes plus Lieberman) or 42 (41 Repukes plus Lieberman) reliably anti-Obama votes--plus, we're Democrats, we don't vote as a bloc on ANYTHING. If it weren't for the Republicans automatically filibustering everything, we could have gotten a lot of good legislation through.

So...the recipe for success in 2013-2016 is to reelect this president, take back the House, and defeat sixteen Republican senators.

[cascadiance]

22. No, then progressives need to DEMAND the shutdown of filibuster rules...

... in the Senate at the beginning of the term. There certainly will be ample justification for doing so given the history of how its been used for the last 4 years as just a means of obstruction. Needs to change to not allow this sort of constant obstruction to happen again if the House goes Democratic.

However, even with the filibuster rules, they will still need that kind of majority or some means to twist some Republican arms in the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment overturning corporate personhood, which should be high up on the list of todo's to get done then.

[Cal33]

14. I don't think Elizabeth Warren would even consider running for president

next year. She'd have my vote if she would run in 2016, though.

[UTUSN]

11. You *did* ask, "What do you think?" So is a contrarian opinion acceptable?

:scared: and :hide:



First, I submit the following:

* In the '08 primaries I was for somebody else and thought OBAMA was trading off beautiful speechifying and that the skinny-jeans girls organizing for him were superficial and actually was taken aback in hearing him make like SCORES of promises that added up to impossible-to-deliver-on. I hasten to add that, like the lifelong, stalwart Dem I am, I whole heartedly committed to him for the General Election and now find myself MORE of a supporter than many of his original supporters.

* When I saw Jeremiah WRIGHT performing HIS shtick, back when OBAMA's original supporters defended everything to the hilt, I said that WRIGHT was a clinker. And I hasten to add that OBAMA himself kicked him to the curb and OBAMA's original supporters were left in the lurch.

* When the WELLSTONE funeral went the way it did, the supporters were in full bravissimo voice and I said that this was going to backfire.


*******************So now, re: Elizabeth WARREN, I say:

Until a couple of days ago I had never heard her speak, just heard the kudos here, and I just accepted the kudos without doing my own research. I hasten to add that I WELCOMED the news of a new, strong voice on OUR side. (And believe me I myself really AM on OUR side.)

Then I saw the video clip of her on the SCABS circus, with HALPERIN (whom I detest) baiting to trap her with the "military not economic" thing about China and his DISGUST that she skated out, clearly faking out of answering, although I found his trap LAME. Then I claim that she "talked down" to more than just Willie GEIST, and I detest all of the SCABS crew but Willie is the least objectionable of them, even if he started out as sidekick for Fucker CARLSON. She said with a cutting, condescending, snooty tone, "Willie, please don't tell me you're asking me to quit before I start trying to do something!1" Willie looked pissed at her condescension, not "like a fool" as her supporters here have claimed.

Going back to the examples of my track record (above), I'm saying that I hope she wins and will enjoy that wingnuts and 'Baggers will be subjected to her scorn, besides that she will carry forward OUR interests. But she lacks the common touch, DOES seem to me to be arrogant and abrasive and elitist. Repeating, my track record above...


HooKAY, have at it!1 (I'll be gone for quite awhile!1)

[Auntie Bush]

19. Hundreds of lashes with a stiff noodle.

Plus a good swift kick in the ........you know where!

[CTyankee]

26. I think you are feverish, UT. Just calm down.

Take a couple of aspirin. You'll feel better. Then we can talk about Elizabeth Warren. I'm sure you are not the only one for whom a refreshing bucket of water in the face is interpreted wrongly...

hee, hee...had to laugh at your "elitist" rant...she's gonna go "good ole gal from Oklahoma" on your ass, buddy...then you REALLY won't know what hit you!!!

:rofl:

[blkmusclmachine]

18. We need somebody for 2012 first.

n/t

[Zorra]

21. Oh, heck yeah. The Progressive Dream Team. nt

[LWolf]

24. 2012. nt

[madinmaryland]

27. O'Malley/Warren 2016. nt

[MontanaGuy]

28. Hold your horses

Those high on Schweitzer may want to do a little research. Check out his "progressive" stance on coal, for example. Also note he's a bit of a loose cannon and a grandstander with an overbearing ego. His schtick is entertaining in small doses, but grows tiresome. In a national campaign, he wouldn't stand up to serious vetting.