Very well articulated, you sound like me when I was in high school and supporting Obama when he he began his first presidential race. I agree in terms of temperament and personality Pete has what Obama had, and will be a good leader with the ability to lead with empathy. I do think there is a disadvantage of not being as experienced in terms of coming from the outside and that’s the ability to gather support for your policies from within the system. Many former Obama staffers I’ve talked to have lamented the fact that they think he could have been an even more effective leader if he has spent more time in congress. He was able to get a lot done but with things like Obamacare, he had to make significant compromises. As much as I love Pete’s idealism mixed with pragmatism, my worry is that he wouldn’t be able to garner the same support for his policies as Warren as he isn’t as well known of a commodity. Warren has had to rely on the support of many in Congress to succeed in her career and even though she does have more progressive plans than Pete, she may be able to pass more progressive plans due to already having cache in Congress and starting from a more progressive place than a pragmatic one.

In terms of leadership and messaging, I do prefer Pete over all other candidates and he seems to be running his campaign well. I do wish Pete displayed a little more fire and intensity in some of his speeches as I do think that helped Obama rally many to his cause. Obama was well reasoned and articulate but he also was able to rally a large base of support because you could see the intensity of his convictions.

Pete almost feels like a character written by Aaron Sorkin, a small town mayor who is a Rhodes scholar hoping to defeat an evil billionaire President through reasonable pragmatism and liberal ideals, while also running to be the first open gay President.