By Sal Bommarito

The New York Post entered the debate about the next Democratic candidate for president. It is possible that history will repeat itself, and Hillary Clinton will once again lose out to an untested and more liberal primary candidate.

The odds of this happening are dependent upon the current perspectives of liberal voters and their desire to participate in the process- will black and young people to turn out to vote?

If the liberal base is more concerned with progressive government that is principally focused on income inequality and slaying the dragons of Wall Street, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) will have an advantage. If the base wants a person who might be successful in a general election, less radical and more experienced, Hillary Clinton should be the choice.

Since I am not going to vote for either of these candidates, my analysis is relatively unbiased (sort of). So, in that vein, it should be noted that Democrats are facing the same dilemma as Republicans, which is, can a radical candidate who has an advantage in the primaries win the general election without morphing into a more moderate contender?

You may recall that Mitt Romney had to lean to the right in 2008 to secure the Republican nomination. But, this tactic hurt him dearly in the general election. If Warren is successful against Clinton, she will likely have the same problem.

Regarding Warren, I hasten to point out that her resume is very similar to President Obama. Frankly, she has little experience applicable to being the leader of the free world, and we all have witnessed how a president performs when he or she has scant political and business acumen.

Warren was elected a U.S. senator in 2013, so her congressional knowledge is virtually nil. Previously, she was a Harvard Law professor specializing in bankruptcies. The only other important credit apparent in a Google search is that she served as an adviser for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. So, one might ask, how will she deal with the ISIS crisis, nuclear proliferation and Russian aggression? I hope American voters will not make the same mistake again and elect a person who brings little to the presidency other than hostility towards the financial services industry and affluent Americans.

Hillary Clinton is a known quantity. She is experienced, yet marginally successful as a senator and Secretary of State (in my opinion). Her claim to fame is that she is married and greatly supported by the most famous politician in recent history. But, she has lived in the White House as First Lady; she served in the Senate and led the State Department. A vote for Warren over Hillary would be strange and illogical decision.

Clinton has been around the block a few times. She lost in 2008 when she was expected to run away with the election. Some say she is a sub-par campaigner. Also, in recent months, Clinton has made several blunders on the road peddling her not so successful novel. She is starting to look tired and very beatable when stacked up against Warren’s liberal, bellicose and enthusiastic rhetoric.

My conclusion is that Democrats should find a third candidate to run for president because neither of the aforementioned can win the general election. Not that it matters, but I would not vote for either person if I were a Democrat.