Couldn't agree more, we need a real progressive for the first time ever in any of our lifetimes.
We have already tried every thing else.

I'd vote for Krystal Ball.

Refreshing that at least one of the MSNBC talking heads is unwilling to treat the 2016 election as a Hillary Clinton coronation.

While Ball mentions Elizabeth Warren, who insists she will not run, I believe the best hope for progressives would be Bernie Sanders, provided he could be persuaded to drop his independent status and register as a Democrat in order to challenge Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries.

How does she know Hillary would be a bad President? Does she have some sort of crystal ball? (Sorry.)

OK, as a Massachusetts resident, hands off Elizabeth Warren! Given that she has never held public office before, is it too much to ask that she at least finish her first term as a Senator before we pull her away from that?

I understand the pie-in-the-sky wishing for a real progressive in the White House. But if we ever got such a person, don't we want them to already have political connections they can call on to get things done?

Patience. Best case, Warren's time to run is still a good 8-10 years away.

Ernie Canning said @ 3:

While Ball mentions Elizabeth Warren, who insists she will not run, I believe the best hope for progressives would be Bernie Sanders

"Hope" would be a good word there. If he were to become a Democrat and somehow win the nomination, I couldn't imagine him being able to win a general election. Elizabeth Warren on the other hand...

For the record, yes, Warren has said she will not run, but that was while Hillary was presumed to be running. If Hillary didn't (as Krystal Ball requests), I suspect we'd see a whole new ballgame.

Randy D said @ 4:

I understand the pie-in-the-sky wishing for a real progressive in the White House. But if we ever got such a person, don't we want them to already have political connections they can call on to get things done?

Not particularly. I'd MUCH prefer they had a huge election mandate from the people, instead.

So, for example, if someone like Warren to run on a very specific plan to: a) Restore Glass-Steagall, b) Raise the minimum wage and tie it cost of living, c) Promise accountability for scofflaw white collar executives, d) Raise taxes on the wealthy and shore up social safety nets, e) Push a Constitutional amendment to apply Constitutional rights only to actual human beings f) Restore civil liberties such as union rights and voting rights, etc. etc. etc. and then actually won a huge victory on those specific mandates, I suspect she'd have a lot more power to get those things done than an insider with fair weather politico friends and lobbyists like Clinton.

That said, I also appreciate your call for Warren to be left alone to build her political career for 5 or 10 minutes before being thrust fully onto the national stage.

Randy D writes:

How does she know Hillary would be a bad President? Does she have some sort of crystal ball?

There are a myriad of reasons why one can predict that a corporatist like Hillary Clinton would continue on the same weaseling, pro-corporate tact that we've seen from Obama.

Krystal Ball mentioned one of them--Hillary Clinton's six year service on the Board of Directors of Wal*Mart, one of the principle beneficiaries of NAFTA and perhaps the greatest example of how the one percent can destroy the middle class aspirations of the vast majority of Americans.

Also, Randy D, this notion that progressives must wait, again, for the time when someone not beholden to the corporate interests can run is a fool's errand. We've been hearing that crap every year since Ralph Nader was erroneously blamed for Al Gore's loss in 2000.

If not now, when?

Finally, I respectfully disagree with Brad's assessment. There is no reason why Sanders, Warren or another true progressive should not challenge Clinton, who is certain to run, in the primaries.

My reasoning was set forth in Paging Eugene McCarthy.

The choice as to who will be the nominee of the Democratic Party should not rest with one person --- Hillary Clinton --- or with the MSM. In a real democracy, that choice belongs to the people!

Ernie Canning said @ 7:

Finally, I respectfully disagree with Brad's assessment. There is no reason why Sanders, Warren or another true progressive should not challenge Clinton, who is certain to run, in the primaries.

To be clear, I didn't say anyone shouldn't challenge Clinton. I hope many do (if Hillary runs). I was speculating on general election issues, not on whether Sanders or Warren or anybody else should run in the primary.

Hillary is boooooring. And a life long hawk with few convictions. She's good on women's stuff, but the campaign alone offers to be a replay of old garbage. yawn. I'll vote for her though, never canvas, like I did for BO.

The clarity of Krystal Ball's statement on MSNBC was wonderful and I thank her very much. That helps make a decision. Hilary, unfortunately, would be more of the same. If we will have a true Progressive, Bernie Sanders would be my first choice because he has been a consistent warrior for Progressive actions and has lots of experience of Washington D.C. He would have to become a Dem in order to defeat Hilary. Elizabeth Warren is also a good choice for her steadfast stances to correct the big bank robbers. We do have alternatives this time, it seems. But not Hilary.

I have been saying for years that I will NEVER vote for Hillary. If my State's ballot does not have a third party choice for President, I will not hesitate to leave the Presidency blank, rather than tacitly endorse another Clinton. The Clintons spent eight years selling average, working Americans down the river. From NAFTA to the repeal of Glass-Steagall, they made the rise of the 1% to near-untouchableness possible.

As for alternatives, I don't think Bernie, as much as I generally agree with him, is the right choice either. He will be 75 by Inauguration Day 2017. While I don't believe in agism generally, I also remember how much liberals screamed about how Reagan was too old to become President at 69 (same age Hillary would be in 2016, incidentally). The Presidency really requires a first-time candidate who is late 40's/early 50's. What I want to know is, where is the upcoming generation of younger, liberal lions who would have a realistic chance of winning? There is an undercurrent of talk that for all her vaunted independence and anti-Wall St. posturing, Sen. Warren would not be all that great of a reformer. Grayson and Ellison are great, but House members never become President(at least not since Antebellum times). Perhaps Wyden? No, as long as Hillary sucks all the PR oxygen out of the Democratic nominee talk, none will have a chance to gain traction.

My own analysis is the best we can hope for is an LBJ-type candidate, which Hilary Clinton could be. She may have less lofty ambitions compared to Obama's rhetoric, but she will be better at mobilizing congress to get things done. (Best case.)

In the imaginary (wholly) scenario where Warren or Sanders were elected, we would soon long for the days of Obama Congress, compared to the obstruction they would face from all Republicans, and about a third of the Democrats. That sort of sabotage would only serve to undermine progressive ideas in the popular imagination.

If the plan is that somehow, in the same election, the existing Congress would be replaced with hundreds of Warren/Sanders clones, then I am all for it. But, in the absence of that miracle, I don't see the value of taking one of the few bright spots of Congress out of action for no good purpose.

Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party candidate. Doctor Stein and the Green Party offer the best option.

Whatever rumors you choose to believe, Hillary's health hasn't been good lately. She doesn't look good on television; at least she hasn't for a while.
Sadly, looks count nowadays. Her health issues could all blow over, she could finish recovering, she could get light plastic surgery and bring in the makeup artists and all of that; but right now she doesn't look as if she could make it through a grueling campaign.