The theft perpetrated against Hillary Clinton is astonishing and I feel deeply sorry for her, not just for 2016 but the prior 3 decades or so of character assassination and sexism at the hands of various factions of the right/Republicans. Having said that, I think we are all ready for a new chapter.
With respect to Elizabeth Warren, let me be very clear: if she is the nominee running against Trump, there would not be a millisecond of doubt as to whom I would vote for. Zero. If I could, I would volunteer, donate money, do what needs to be done. Nobody on our planet has the luxury of waffling here. In the words of my 3-year-old, "this isn't funny." Having said that, she wouldn't be my first choice. I'm not too concerned about the "she's too liberal" complaint. The reality is that the 20% or so of voters who are Trump's base are a lost cause and I wouldn't even think about them come election time. They are the ones screaming about owning libruls from San Francisco. The squishy middle, I don't think really cares that much, they will either vote on the basis of being sick to their stomach of Trump, or on the basis of their wallets. Warren is populist enough to appeal to them. My concern with her is that she is a policy wonk and tends to sound professorial/not brief enough. She has decent soundbytes on Twitter but I don't know that it translates the same way to speaking on the stump. Since the eventual nominee will have to do battle for media time against that orange whore in office, you really need somebody who is either enigmatic and attractive like Obama or somebody who is loud and brash and takes it to Trump 24/7. Everybody else will just cede time - on covers of newspapers, on the Sunday morning talk shows, the weekly news, etc. Remember how much free advertising Trump got because he attended like 99 Republican primary debates for months and months and then he was so outrageous they started covering his rallies as well. I just don't see Warren as somebody who would give him a run for his money.