Obama ran after only 2 years in the Senate. Why is this a tougher prospect for Warren? Here's why:

[cascadiance]

50. Hillary was also very hawkish towards Iran as well...

... for political purposes.

And I'm still bugged that it was the Clintons that helped start the DLC back when Bill Clinton became president, and it has since been shown that the Koch brothers had financed the DLC significantly during their history too, which explains a lot of their corporatist stances...

We need a candidate that can distance themselves from corporatist influences. In my book Hillary isn't a candidate that can do so as much as I or many out there would like, where someone like Elizabeth has a history that isn't tainted like that. Obama won the primaries because he was more of a "clean slate" that wasn't committing himself towards hawkish foreign policies, or had as much intimate ties to corporatist organizations like the DLC (though he had enough ties to the DLC that had me supporting Edwards in the primaries then). I think what he's done (or not done) since then with people like Rahm Emmanuel and someone like Salazar as secretary of the Interior (instead of someone like RFK, Jr.) have shown he's not the real leadership we need to make these significant changes, even if he was a refreshing change from Bush in many areas.

Now, Hillary versus any Republican at this point gets my vote hands down. But I think we can do better, and need to do better to really do a sea change that is needed to change the whole system on how the "ownership" class of banksters, etc. are governed and regulated (or NOT regulated) at this point. Elizabeth Warren is far better for that job than either Hillary or Biden is (Biden has his own skeletons with items like the bankruptcy bill, etc. that he put together when he was a senator that represented the state where many of the CC companies had headquarters in).

Now, there is a question on whether in 2016 Ms. Warren has the necessary political experience to take over that high office at that point. That's a fair point of contention. But I think she would really solidify a ticket with someone like a Russ Feingold heading it up where those who are looking for new leadership to make significant changes will get behind. Being a VP for such an administration would be the perfect preparation for her to run for president after that person's term then and provide us perhaps four terms of continuous leadership to make these changes that we were able to do with one progressive leader like FDR did the last time the country faced such challenges.

I don't dislike Hillary, but I don't think she's the right choice if we want real change in 2014. There are many other places where she can provide us good leadership. Perhaps she could change the way the World Bank or IMF is being run, which at one point was what was rumored she was looking at taking over.