I'd prefer to see Elizabeth Warren as our next Vice President.

[trumad]

Two women at the top--- now that would be cool.

[global1]

1. I Was Going To Ask That Question......

I'm assuming that Hillary will be the Dem nominee in 2016. What about her VP choice? Could it be a female or does it need to be a male? Would the American People go for both a female President and VP or does it need to be mixed - female/male?

[PoliticAverse]

2. You don't think she'd be more effective as a senator? n/t

[longship]

6. Yup! She is needed in the Senate.

Apparently that's what she thinks, too, since she has already said she is not interested in federal office. But that won't stop people from advocating that she abandon her post mid term for higher aspirations. And why won't those same people just take her at her word?

It's a puzzlement.

[hack89]

3. VP is waste of her talents - we need her in the Senate.

She can be the next Ted Kennedy for years to come.

[rurallib]

4. Amen to that

she needs to be where she can do some good.

[Vashta Nerada]

5. I'd prefer to get through 2014 first.

[beachbum bob]

7. She be way more effective as FED Reserve chairman

[Auntie Bush]

9. I agree. She's much to valuable where she is. We NEED her there for a few more years till

she gets things straightened out and some crooks headed for jail. I can't think of anyone who could fill her shoes.

[beachbum bob]

11. totally agree, Warren best serves the country

right now in the senate. She is the role model for democratic congress people we must get elected

[woo me with science]

8. No Hillary, period.

No more corporatists and warmongers.

[warrior1]

10. I don't want another

republican in Mass. to replace her. She could do more work in the Senate. She would be wasted as a VP.

[FSogol]

12. Martin O'Malley. Warren can be his VP candidate after Hillary's 8 years.

Let's have a 32 year period of Democratic Presidents, reshape the courts and move the country forward.

We start with winning in 2014.