Elizabeth... hands down. She is a TRUE socialist. Hillary is just self-serving and will do and say whatever is popular to gain power. Warren is a true believer. She, like Ocasio-Cortez, is anti-business, anti-American, anti-free enterprise. With the "free" press to spread her ideology, she can destroy this country very easily.

Why would anyone, who can think, vote for (1) anyone from Taxachusetts for any office outside that state, or (2) for someone who supports a ideology that has always failed in practice?

Universal suffrage is a very bad idea.

The evil hag because destroying America is what she did as SOS ,She was selling out our country to any and all who contributed to her families piggy bank the CF or CGI.
Pocahontas is just a cheater, using her made up heritage to gain advantage at Harvard and with the minority’s . Her evil anti capitalism pales in comparison to The evil witch’s murderous ways.

the way the employees who have been voted to "run" the us government for over 100 years are the culprits. it matters not what "party" is in power they are birds of a feather. i used to think that the demos would do it faster the the repubs but as we have seen it matters not. h and e have lots of helpers if they were ever the president.

Had a horrible thought—What if one became President and the other one became Vice President?

Don't know solver...might be a tie but in totally different ways.
Warren is just lookin for another feather in her head so she can muster up enough indian heritage to be called pokerherhontas legitimately...

Warren. Hillary was in it for control, but mostly to line her own pockets. Elizabeth Warren wants wholesale change to the Constitution - preferably its elimination in favor of a socialist dictatorship.

....the destruction is already assured...it is a question of "when"...not "if"...the repubs and dems are unified in this...the decifit has grown under Trump...not decreased...

Hilary is a has been. She would be able to get nothing done as no one would really fear her or love her.

Warren is scary should she win. She would have a great deal of support, and she is a true believer in the collectivist plan. She is seen as an up and comer rather than a has been which with the libs is all important.

I think Hillary, as she has the players in place to pull all the Constitutional rights we count on, from day one. Elizabeth has a big big mouth, but not much in the way of facts and shady contacts, to rival Hillary. They could not even work together, two big egos, mass destruction.

It's a draw. Elizabeth is a late blooming socialist, but Hillary was very socialist in college. That's why Hillary has been showing signs of making a third try, because now she can go into full throated socialist war cry, rather than masking her desires in muddled left of center policy statements. She really did despise Bill's centrism, and would be delighted to come out of the closet.

Hillary, because she would sell our govenment out quickly for contributions to the clinton foundation. Warren would just be a moron and straddle business with useless regulations that would slowly kill us.

Hillary

I was at one of Warren's fundraisers a year ago. I haven't been to a Clinton event since 2008, and I think she's irrelevant b/c of her age. As I read the article linked to this post, more and more I do not care. Even if I contributed loads of money and got to know every staffer, which I surely do not want to do, I don't think I could move the needle much.

I remember that Warren event because like my wife she's an attorney who taught law and who had a solo practice focused on estate planning and real estate. We ended up just networking with people in our industries and never talked to Warren. We were kind of down when we left because Warren's story is so much like my wife's, but Warren's up there selling socialism to an audience making business contacts, i.e. generating the taxes that make those promises possible. People who send a third or more of what they make donate their money to be spent riling up people who mostly pay no income taxes about how they'll spend our taxes.

I went to a more recent fundraiser for Harris. I thought she was a better speaker. She's like I imagine Reagan or Bill Clinton, would have been to meet in person. They remember names, seem interested and interesting, just great politicians. That's great for Harris, but I don't care.

I'm pretty disillusioned. I used to be thrilled if I lobbied them successfully on some minor issue, but it just doesn't move the needle enough to be worthwhile. I believe there's a deeper structural problem of the very definition of the role of gov't, and no one's even mentioning it.