It’s hard to avoid the perception that Elizabeth Warren’s name is being given an aggressive test drive as Hillary Clinton’s potential running mate. Some opponents of the idea were quick to leap out of the weeds, like former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, who says that Warren is “not in any way, shape, or form ready to be commander-in-chief.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, on the other hand, seems decidedly enthusiastic about the idea.
I’ve written tepidly about the idea in the past, but I think Warren would be the most electrifying possible pick and would do a lot to unite the Clinton and Sanders wings of the party.
What I think would be a bad idea is to let the idea float out there and then not deliver on it.
The perception that Clinton seriously considered Warren but then rejected her would not be helpful for party unity. What reason would be given for passing on someone who is so clearly beloved by the base?
That a two-woman ticket is too much? That there’s something wrong with Warren? That, as Rendell says, she’s not good enough?
I have to think that there’s a real shot of this happening. Either that, or this is a misguided trial balloon.
I see no benefit for Clinton in nominating Warren. She knows that the great majority of Sanders supporters will suppress their gag reflex long enough to lodge their anti-Trump vote with her. And the rest of us won’t find her any less unacceptable after that insincere sop.
So, apparently picking a VP isn’t a strategic or political decision, but one borne of ‘sincerity’? Since when?
I see your point. But my impression, possibly mistaken, is that those strategic or political decisions were generally not as cynical as Clinton nominating Warren would be.
Whatever Obama had in mind when he picked Biden, I assume “suckering progressive rubes” wasn’t it.
I don’t see how a Warren pick would be any more ‘cynical’ than pretty much anyone that Clinton might go with. Would it be ‘cynical’ to go with Castro since it could be viewed as a play for minority voters? Anyone that gets picked for a VP slot is picked for strategic or utility reasons.
The upsides for a Warren pick are that she’s a useful “attack dog” for going after trump as she’s good at getting under his skin and that she provides a voice to people who’re concerned that Clinton might go too easy on the finance industry.
The big downsides of a Warren pick are that Dems would lose her strong voice in the Senate, her seat to a republican appointee (probably), and that two northeastern white, liberal women might not make for the most useful optics so far as a Presidential ticket goes.
Absolutely Warren would be a more cynical pick than Castro.
Sounds like he’s just Hillary’s type.
Texas Dems are still bidness Dems. Our Hispanics are pretty comfortable with Rockefeller Republicanism. Lots of strong Catholics. Not that similar to West Coast Latinos. César Chávez has been mainstreamed like MLK. Mostly they don’t vote.
Why does Warren have to be the Hillary’s running mate to go after Trump? She’s already going after Trump very well, thank you.
She doesn’t need to be, but being in the VP slot gives her a higher profile, more microphones and some likely excellent entertainment in the VP debates.
Since when?
1992. At the appearance level (as long as it looks authentic which was mostly lacking in 1992) and at least for the winners.
Dole-Kemp was probably sincere, but didn’t matter as Dole never had much of a chance anyway.
Lieberman, Edwards, Palin, and Ryan were calculated and the candidate and the veep could barely fake personal respect and likely.
Not to mention Dukakis-Bentsen and Kennedy-LBJ.
1960 was thirty-two years before 1992 back in the days when the POTUS and Veep could hate each others guts and still win a general election. (The loathing between FDR and Garner may have exceeded that of JKF and LBJ.) So, a good choice in 1960 and a terrible one in 1988 (even if Dukakis and Bentsen liked each other).
We know that Dan Quayle was no John Kennedy, but I suspect Lloyd Bentsen may have been an LBJ (if you don’t think of the better side of his presidency).
Both Lloyd and Lyndon came from the corporate-conservative wing of the party, but I doubt Bentsen would have sought out a war to prove his manhood and take care of his corporate benefactors, lIke LBJ did.
A good pick, Bentsen, but ultimately irrelevant, even with his destruction of Danny Quayle. We all know why 1988 was a disaster.
With Warren as VP, she would be a little more on the same page on DP with Hillary than previous corporatist picks like Lyndon, Lloyd and Lieberman. Possibly VP Warren could also dissuade Hillary from rushing into creating regime change in Syria, the next disaster waiting to happen.
Overall, Warren would provide excellent assassination insurance for Hillary, who would make for a very despised and hated president among 45% of the country.
Apparently Reagan didn’t much care for HW Bush, and Ike had little use for Nixon. As for Bush II-Cheney, I’ve always understand that Poppy and friends essentially selected Cheney to nursemaid the inexperienced and callow W.
If Hillary chooses a VP for pragmatic reasons, she would be following a familiar pattern rather than being unusually calculating.
So on Reagan-Bush, Reagan LOATHED Bush. And that was before the son of one of Bush’s close business partners nearly assassinated Reagan. (Look up the relationship.) Bush was forced on Reagan by establishment Republicans who threatened to withhold support for Reagan in the general if they didn’t get to choose the VP.
On Bush-Cheney, the Elder Bush had actually grown to have a severe distrust of Cheney in the years since they worked together in the white house, and probably it started during the Elder Bush’s term as President, as the top military brass would often go around Cheney to talk directly to Bush. Schwartzkopf actually took a subtle, but unmistakable shot at Cheney in his memoirs for being so dense about military matters yet thinking he knew more than he did. In particular, Cheney would make recommendations based on the PBS Civil War series.
Thus Cheney represented the new faction of oil robber barons, and the Elder Bush the old Rockefeller-Eisenhower style. Cheney was a key part of PNAC while the Elder Bush was not. For most of the younger Bush’s presidency daddy tried to council junior to follow a more traditional, rational path on foreign policy. However, junior didn’t go along with this until the 2006 election losses. At that point junior fired Rove and told Cheney that all of the powers he’d assumed were no longer his – he would have a ceremonial staff and that was all. Daddy’s connections then took over the white house for the last 2 years.
Unfortunately, some voters in the electorate chose Bush over Gore because they thought that Cheney would bring the sort of consensus-building center-right foreign policy that had been the hallmark of GHWB, not realizing how radical Cheney had become. it wasn’t that many, but in an election that close it probably made the difference.
I see no benefit for Elizabeth Warren to accept the VP.
No one should think this is the time to drain the Senate or House of reliable, and in her case, intelligent & persuasive, Democrats.
Wall Street does. She is a thorn in their side and making her VP removes that thorn. You think that Hillary doesn’t listen to Lloyd Blankfein after all the millions he has given her? Not to mention Citibank.
Voice, you’ve just given the best reason why she shouldn’t accept, and if she does, I’d be amazed — and very disappointed. There’s certainly logic to Booman’s reasons, but it’s a short-term logic.
Terrible trial balloon. I have said this many times: She would be replaced in the Senate by a Republican since her governor is a Republican. I’ve often suggested Merkley as a possibility because he was the only Senator to endorse Sanders, so could be influential with the disappointed folks. He is younger and could carry the banner for the movement. TarheelDem wants Solis or Perez, who I also like, as well as Castro. But Clinton doesn’t need help with Hispanics. She needs the disappointed Bernie folks. So unless she picks another Sanders endorser and thus gets his support for “the ticket,” I think Merkley is the best choice.
Remind me of the special election time-frame?
Amazing to think there are two recent examples. Ted Kennedy died August 5 2009 and the special election was January 19; Kerry resigned February 1 2013 and the special election was June 25. So they do get it over with pretty quickly. Also, Warren’s term end 2018 so even a bad special election with result (like the one that produced Scott Brown) can be fixed fairly quickly.
Disagree on Merkley but appreciate the thoughtfulness of your comment.
My only suggestion for a HRC running mate is that she/he looks and sounds like an authentic partner with HRC. Cutesy and/or obvious pandering to any demographic (including regional) in a Veep pick is a loser.
IMO, WJC raised the bar on what a Veep should look like. And Obama raised it again as there is no doubt that the mutual regard and liking between him and Biden is real.
I am a strong Sanders supporter and don’t give a rat’s behind about who Hillary selects for her VP. To begin with, she’d never select another woman who outshines her in every way. Articulate. Authentic. Doesn’t feel compelled to dress in designer outfits. Bright orange, no less. Doesn’t have a hubby with baggage. And so on.
No VP will have any power whatsoever in a Clinton administration. Bill will have vastly more power than any VP could possibly have.
In addition, she is powerful without having to show how tough she is. Ofr masculine.
I was against it before, but I’m coming around. I think it’s worth the risk of the Senate seat.
I think the two-woman ticket will be a net positive.
>>Warren would be the most electrifying possible pick and would do a lot to unite the Clinton and Sanders wings of the party
both of these are true statements. But everything in your WM article is also true and I’m standing with that. Warren is more valuable where she is.
100% for it. Think the Republicans are going to make idiot noises about women and score own goal after own goal for you? Double down. Need to blend Bernie’s idealism with some hard nosed policy wonk realism? Warren’s your gal. Want to erase some of the stigma from all those stupid paid speeches? Warren Warren Warren. Absolutely no downside for the Clinton campaign here. Just do it.
I’ve changed my mind too. I was really opposed on the grounds that Warren is needed in the Senate, vice presidents are useless, etc. I still don’t absolutely prefer her in the abstract–I think the greatest possible pick would be the moderate pro-Bernie Keith Ellison (who would be leaving a safe House seat). But it struck me when this new trial balloon went up it sounded as if Warren herself might be cooperating with the rumor because she’s actually interested this time–like she might have some positive idea, as Gore, and (alas!) Cheney, and (yay!) Biden have had, of what a VP can do, and if she’s for it so am I.
I agree that Liz is valuable in the Senate, and giving up that seat would not be helpful.
She is valuable where she is, but she serves a wonderful function as attack dog on Trump. She can say and tweet things about him that will drive him to0 public psychotic events, because the is:
This drives him bonkers. The only defense Trump has is to call her Pocahontas. She knows this and will incorporate it into her strategy of twisting the knife every chance she gets.
she can do all that just about as well as Senator?
Veep as attack dog is too traditional for thinking about this weird election. Clinton doesn’t need Warren as an attack dog. She does an excellent job herself, as we saw in her recent speech and ad. Usually, Presidents are expected to be more above the fray but 1) Trump will be attacking constantly and viciously, so a personal response is just returning fire and will be so seen, 2) as Sarah Palin proved in her gubernatorial run, a woman can actually get away with kinds of viciousness a man cannot, particularly when attacking a man. A man who complains of a woman’s attacks looks weak. 3) Much of the attack will come from surrogates and PACs anyway, so they are not things Clinton need say with her own mouth.
Who will get her Banking spot?
Someone at Goldman Sachs who has enough in his/her bio that he/she can be presented to the public as someone who doesn’t work at Sachs. Didn’t Deval Patrick leave office to work for a big, big, big bank? That kind of guy.
Don’t get me wrong. I would vote for Warren for President, but she’ll be tucked away at the Navy Observatory, coming out of hiding to cut ribbons, sent to foreign capitals to gladhand.
Unless Clinton had health issues which might lead to her stepping down or dying you are wasting Warren as VP.
The decision will have been made after much triangulation. I think that for people who support Hillary because she is a woman won’t support her more because there’s another woman on the ticket. I’m not sure how much Warren would convince lefties who had been Sanders supporters, maybe a little.
I suspect it was be a Latino, probably a man who has centrist Democratic credits which would chip away at Republican support in the Southwest and Mountain states.
Pray it’s not Lieberman or someone like him, although at the time banning Lieberman to the Naval Observatory wouldn’t have been a bad idea as long as he promised not to come out.
Can HRC and team stand a politician who is as popular and charismatic as the top of the ticket?
Will Warren be her own person and be an opposing voice on the trail when HRC invariably turns right and comes out against the issues she and Sanders campaigned on?
And how will Warren fit in an admin that will be big business/big bank friendly? i.e. a 3rd Nixon Admin; good on social and environmental, good for big corps and Wall Street.
I think she, Sanders and others will make a effective advocacy block in the Senate and act as a check on the Rockefeller Repub. tendencies of Hillary.
R
I think it’s not as bad as all that (esp. the latter part of your statement). I do think she is so powerful a speaker that she might upstate Hillary. Warren would draw bigger crowds, etc. Palin on the reverse end of the spectrum. She’s also approximately same age as Clinton and I’m rooting for a younger candidate. I do like Perez too, pro-labor, and I like his wife’s resume. Castro might help register many in Texas moving it’s progress toward blue (or at least purple). So, short game or long game, folks?
A think you ask all the right questions, and agree also that Warren’s selection would leave a bit of a vacuum in the Senate (Bernie himself should end up with a bigger role if he plays nice enough and if we retake the Senate). But the idea of moving someone as unique as Warren, who is a charismatic progressive advocate on many important issues, into the executive leadership structure (and potentially in line to run for President in 4 or 8 years) is in my opinion far too good to pass up, especially if the interest from Clinton is genuine. Here is how I put it last month in the “Picking the Veep” discussion here at Booman:
Re: Picking the Veep (none / 1)
“Hillary is lucky: she has an opportunity to do great things by moving the country sharply in a progressive direction. Is that really who she is, with so much evidence to the contrary? I don’t really think so, but the opportunity is there for her to be a consequential President. With the country at a tipping point demographically, authentic progressive middle and lower class policies could secure the Democratic coalition, at least in presidential elections, for the foreseeable future.
So if somehow Clinton IS someone we’re all convinced she’s probably not, i.e. if she has an interest in being of consequence in a positive way, she won’t choose Castro, Kaine, Warner or any of the other tired choices being floated, she’ll go for a win that could actually make a difference. Choose Elizabeth Warren and make it clear that Warren would have a consequential portfolio of responsibilities in her administration (with the possibility of ascending to the presidency herself).
Sanders has created the climate in which such a choice makes sense politically, although Clinton could pick Warren simply as a calculated gesture and then immediately set to work marginalizing her. I’m talking about an affirmative choice, and although there is virtually no evidence of Hillary doing this on important issues throughout her career, the opportunity sits there, waiting.
So in other words, “do no harm” may be enough this cycle to beat Trump, but defensive choices could also be the very things that cause Clinton to blow it and bring about the unthinkable. If there was ever a moment to be bold, this is it.”
by Fighting Bill on Mon May 16th, 2016 at 11:48:37 AM EST
Love your optimism, but seriously, no 69 year old person that has a long-standing investment in anything that has worked well and continues to work well for him/herself is going to change. Even without the personal advantages of a way of being, a 69 year old brain doesn’t have enough plasticity left to make the sorts of sharp changes that you hope HRC can make.
If she chooses Warren, I’d be pretty cynical about why–a desire to silence her anti-banking and Wall St. voice.
If Warren were asked and accepted, I would give up all hope for change in my lifetime. I haven’t decades left for Hillary’s incrementalism. From Dante: “Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate.” Abandon all hope — Ye Who Enter Here.
In any case, I doubt Hillary or her advisers would want a two-woman ticket.
There are a few of us sprinkled here and there, still cursed with another 45-50 years on earth, given the average US lifespan.
I do have children and grand children I care about. But I myself like to see some change for the better before I depart this life.
Some of us have been cursed in having already had to fight the same the old shit for the past 45 to 50 years. Our inability to make any progress in this area is because there are always too many like you that are quick to sell out for promised small incremental change and when that’s not delivered to fall for the same sales pitch the next time.
Progressives aren’t narcissists and care about the past, present, and the future; regardless if it directly impacts ourselves and our close relatives. So, unfortunately, I continue to care about those like you that will be hear after I’m gone. A shame you don’t care half as much.
Jesus. Fucking. Christ.
Listen to yourself.
You’ve jumped the fucking shark in your self-righteousness.
Get a fucking grip.
Learn the meaning of “jump the shark” and avoid using it improperly again.
You’re the one that has supported the do-nothing/little-on-climate-change party and also whining about having to live with the consequences of do-nothing. You’re not on the side of those that for decades have tried to avoid this and other major crises. We failed in our efforts because there are too few of us, and at each point where a big step in the right direction could have been and wasn’t taken, we’ve heard the same rationalizations from the do-nothing folks, different from what the denialists (GOP) spout, but the outcomes will be the same.
I used the phrase correctly enough for an online comment board. Again, you need to get a grip, and, perhaps, stop telling people what to do.
Your ability to tell people that they’ve, “sold out”, without you having the faintest notion of who that person is, what that person does for a living, and their place in the world, is amazing, and an absolute low point in your ability to have a substantive conversation with someone regarding politics.
Hence, yes, you’ve absolutely jumped the shark in your self-righteous display of superior principles, ethics, and morals, by trying to attack me, and others here, as somehow less “good” than you are.
Of course, that doesn’t matter.
You sit there and make shit up out of whole cloth, such as that “You’re not on the side of those that for decades have tried to avoid this and other major crises”. And all I can say is, how can you know that I am or am not? Because I’m not willing to sit out the election and let Trump walk into the White House?
Here’s a pro-tip:
One of the main reasons you and your ethically superior best buds are “too few”, is this bullshit holier-than-thou attitude you spit and spew against the people like me, who are just as committed as you are for progressive change, who also realize that it isn’t going to happen over night, regardless of whichever personality you’ve attached your hopes and dreams onto.
I never had any notion that Obama was going to fix the world, nor do I think Clinton will either. But neither of them are McCain/Palin, Rmoney/Ryan, or Trump/Arpaio, who like Bush/Cheney before them, would certainly make the world worse than it was before.
Progress doesn’t involve letting the world burn for a bit, whether 4 years, or 8.
While I don’t want to , I tend lean toward what our colleagues say in their responses. But there is a counter vailing argument. I think it is possible that Trump will not be the nominee. If he continues to talk crazy, they may dump Trump to save the party. Sure, that may mean a riot in the Cleveland Hall, with clouds of tear gas and everything…but they could turn it around to seem as Patriots and put up a 1/2 way sane candidate. If they do so with the message of “Stand with us, for America’s sake”; maybe with a bloody rag tied around their forehead. What a great visual.
It could work and Hillary could have a real race on her hands. Latest Fox poll has her beating Trump by only 3-4%. After all the race talk and nonsense. Anyone else and she could be behind.
So she may need all the voters Warren or Sanders could round up. Which is what I’ve been saying all along. It will be no cakewalk and talk of a blow out could not come true.
R
Many ways that it could be managed, but the problem remains the same today as it was a year ago — they don’t have a candidate that the always loyal GOP voters will rally around. The dominate in governor’s mansions and the Senate, and with the possible exception of fewer than five, none of them have game. Training for the big leagues takes months if not years and they don’t have that much time left.
So, who do you see them putting up as the compromise candidate?
Retired military? If Republicans don’t care about Trump’s nonsense, why would they object to Petraeus’s. Hillary would be carrying baggage of the same sort, no?
More charismatic and definitely more articulate.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
I want her to stay in the Senate.
At 9:25 watching MSNBC: I think you get your wish and it’s for the best.
And NOT THAT SHE DOESN’T THINK SHE’S QUALIFIED because she’s pretty secure on that score.
I wonder if O’Malley burned too many bridges with her. That would have the advantage of not taking a sitting Senator or Governor.
I wonder what the split among Democratic politicians is between those who would like Warren to be President of the Senate only to get her out of the Senate and those who would like her in the administration to provide a channel to a President Hillary Clinton.
And then there are folks like Rendell who likely would want both Warren out of the Senate AND not the Vice President.
LOL I know what side Chuckie is on…
The former are savvy (echoes of FDR choosing Garner for VP. The latter are naifs. For practical purposes, HCR already has her VP and she isn’t about elevate anyone that can outshine her.
Eddie often reveals the real thinking of the Democratic elites.
Marie. So it’s easy to shoot people down, but who would you think is a good choice? Who do you feel is in the list of young enough, compatible enough, a sincere partner enough? If it’s someone who could be strategic as well, that would be good. But I’m running out of ideas that don’t get shot down.
Good question. And I don’t have a good answer because those that HRC appears to be most comfortable with don’t fit the other criteria. There’s a paucity of younger, elected Democrats from which she can draw from. O’Malley wouldn’t be a poor choice. (heh — another 1968 echo for me.) Not outside her comfort zone.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the spouse of the veep nominee can’t avoid the campaign trail. Generally, the spouse of a governor is more used to the spotlight than the spouse of a member of congress.
Good point about VP spouses. And there is an at least internal issue of vetting VP spouses for PR problems. Jill Biden passed that vetting very well.
Hey, there’s an out-of-the-blue name, and they wouldn’t even have to move.
About Hilda Solis: In Washington, she met Sam H. Sayyad, whom she subsequently married. He owns an automobile repair center in Irwindale, California The couple lives in a modest house in El Monte, California, not far from where she grew up.
Any oppo research out there on Sayyad?
Have Clinton and Solis ever worked together on any Democratic Party assignment or government committee?
Don’t know anything about Solis’ husband but guess that he hasn’t been active in her political career. However, what makes anyone thing that a labor/union/environmental politician is a good fit for veep with HRC? IMO she’d rather have a retired general.
Brilliant. Retired military would be a very pragmatic choice for her.
The spouse of the VP nominee matters?? Say what??
Except for 1984, that John Sirocco (?) spouse of Ferraro, with all his complicated and alleged crooked financial ventures, have any others mattered, and did anyone notice or care when they weren’t out on the stump very often?
Maybe I’m forgetting, but it seems consideration of the spouse of the VP nominee and his/her ability to go out on the stump should rank rather low in terms of all other considerations in picking someone.
Yep.
The linked story reads as if this is a trial balloon being floated by Warren’s people rather than Clintons’, and is a prelude to Warren endorsing Clinton. Clinton’s campaign can’t and shouldn’t try to knock down every trial balloon being floated by others. Her campaign should be flattered by the positive attention it is receiving and should appear open to all suggestions. It keeps the Clinton campaign in the headlines in a positive way and shows the Dem party starting to come together. Why piss off Warren supporters by ruling her out? Later, when you do make your pick, you can talk about the deep bench of available talent, how tough the choice was and how wonderful your final pick is.
I belong to the school of thought which holds that your Veep pick should complement the Nominee in as many ways as possible – i.e. be strong where she is week. There are still a lot of misogynists out there who might make an exception for Hillary because of her wide experience but for whom two women on the ticket is way to much – almost the political equivalent of a lesbian marriage which they are also not thrilled about.
So sorry, it has to be a man, for purely strategic reasons – nothing at all against Warren who can still perform her attack dog role off-ticket. So the next question is which demographics does Clinton still need to bring over to her side? Where is her greatest potential additional vote going to come from? (i.e. persuadable people who have not yet come on Board). Is she going to look right and woo independents and moderate Republicans horrified by Trump or left and woo Sander’s supporters?
One theory is she will look right because every vote she gets from Independent/moderate Republicans is a vote Trump can’t get, whereas the worst that can happen with Sander’s supporters is that they will stay at home. Minority voters are already largely in the tank, so she can go for a white man if she wants – someone who is younger, charismatic, not overly identified with Washington or the establishment, and populist rather than ideologically left wing. Perhaps even a businessman with a better business track record than Trump.
A lot will also depend on who Trump picks and who he further pisses off with his pick. A Kasich/Gringrich establishment pick will open the way for a younger more charismatic pick, but knowing Trump, he could pick Miss World, in which case almost any pick by Hillary would look more solid in comparison. The big deal for Hillary is that, given her age, her pick has to be credible as a potential President and as the next leader of the Dem Party. He has to represent the next generation and a vision for the future, a degree of idealism she can no longer exhibit, and a voice for the many who feel they have been screwed by the system. A younger version of Sanders will do nicely.
My guess will try to do both
I seriously doubt it’s a trial balloon by the Warren people. Rather, it’s being floated by the Clinton people, because Hillary wants Warren. It would serve a double purpose — using Warren’s greater popularity to shore up her own, AND getting Warren out of the Senate, where she is the greatest foe of the banksters.
If it is a trial balloon by the Warren people, it’s for some other reason than that Warren actually wants to be Veep. That something Hillary wants far more than Warren does.
Hoping for an FBI indictment? A forlorn hope. Lynch and Obama will quash any indictment.
No, what brought that up? The e-mail stuff just reinforces everything that people don’t like about her, but I never thought she’d suffer any legal difficulties for it.
Well, the FBI won’t close the investigation, so that makes people wonder. I’ve seen a lot of such speculation on other sites. I don’t believe it myself. That she will be indicted, I mean.
She won’t be indicted under Obama’s watch.
I’ve come around to the point that I think it would be a very intriguing idea.
I agree that Warren’s presence on the ticket would be “electifying.” It would signify that Clinton is serious about moving in a progressive direction. I am sure Warren would impose conditions, which would certainly include not being relegated to cutting ribbons. Her presence on the ticket would ensure that HRC does not pivot to the center as a candidate and would ensure that the Democratic ticket articulates a clear, progressive alternative to Trump. Her presence in the administration as its progressive conscience would make it difficult and downright embarrassing for HRC to sell us out.
As others have noted, the governor’s appointment to replace Warren would be temporary, and I’ve seen some well-informed advice on how to shorten the interim as much as possible.
The fact that Ed Rendell does not want Warren on the ticket tells me almost all I need to know about why she should take the job.
“The fact that Ed Rendell does not want Warren on the ticket tells me almost all I need to know about why she should take the job. “
Ha! I’m with you there and she was just on Maddow. When asked about that quote and is she qualified? Her answer? “Yes.” Stuck it Rendell’s eye and left no question that she could do the job.
R
That was the strongest, most beautiful one-word answer I think I’ve ever heard. Take that, Fast Eddie!
Would be terrible for Warren to accept. If she wants to then I think she is just wrong in hervcalculous. Otherwise dont really care. VPs are only as consequential as president allows.
Endorse, sure. But VP? Please, no. Too much at stake.
Given Trump’s complete meltdown recently Clinton could pick Debbie Wasserman Schulz and still win. Better to leave Warren untainted along with the very few other sincere progressives willing to call out the neoliberal experiment because surely they will be needed to rebuild from the ashes of that failure. It will consume Clinton by her second term.
It’s only June. How many times in the past year have pundits declared that “now Trump has gone too far,” “this one is going to take him out,” etc? He many just be a dumb, crazy old guy that got lucky until now. Or he could have figured out a new way to play the game that others can’t see or appreciate. That led his GOP opponents to underestimate him and then they lost. Democrats are now doing the same thing.
I think Matt Bai nailed it in that piece Shaun linked to. Bai is not saying “Uh oh, he’s done it this time! — he’s saying Trump is in a meltdown, and he explains exactly why.
Trump has no off switch, he’s not remotely presidential, and running in a national election against the Democratic Party is not the same as running in a republican primary against 17 doofuses.
It might even be that in the GOPer primary the other candidates aren’t going to call trump out on his lack of dog whistles because that would show they are still using the dog whistle. made them look weak, and trump knew he could us that to his advantage in the GOP. bubble.
Now he’s outside that bubble and finding out the rules have changed, and he never tried to figure out how to fight there, because he probably didn’t think he’d make it this far.
So he keeps trying what worked and doesn’t understand he’s fighting with people who don’t do the dog whistle and will call him out directly on his total inability to act accordingly. He’s in uncharted territory, with no clue as to how to stop digging, and still look like he did a few months ago. His “reality tv mode” doesn’t work at this level when his opponent doesn’t cower from him, and he has to deal with attacks from Elizabeth warren, who has shown she is smarter than he is.
How he is going to deal with Barack Obama coming for him, is any body’s guess, but trump has never tried to go toe to toe, with the President. He has no clue to what he faces with people like Warren and Obama.
At the same time he has to deal with the way Clinton’s campaign will troll him;
Clinton Launches ‘Republicans Against Trump’ Website
She’s going to keep needling him in ways he hasn’t been up to now.
His twitter account won’t do, and free calls into the press can’t contain all the attacks he’s gonna face from people much smarter, and more politically astute.
Right now he is in over his head, his only hope is to admit that, and ask for help.
What are the odds of that one ever occurring.
The Donald does not understand that he now lives in a glass house and cannot go on twitter and throw stones.
It’s not uncommon for Presidential nominees to meltdown — just pointing out that Trump isn’t yet officially the nominee.
You thinking the GOP still has a Night of the Long Knaves in them? I would love to see them try that but it seems they’ve chucked in the towel already.
You don’t thing the long knives are ever displayed in advance do you? I think both parties are more ruthless and murderous than they’ve ever been. Trump losing isn’t the major concern of the GOP elites (they can live with HRC just fine). What they need on a go-forward basis is to junk their out of date go-to PR that keeps their base in line. Trump could help facilitate that and end up with high status in the party after he loses. Or he can continue to act like a crazed loose canon and nobody will shed a tear when he’s gone. They can then ship him off hang out with Mitt.
“Trump could help facilitate that and end up with high status in the party after he loses.”
In some theoretically possible world, yes. But not in this one.
The knives are out, or at least have their hands on the handles. Last night, Senators were saying, Trump is inevitable. Today, powers are saying, he has to get his act together or the party may walk away. Also talk about a delegate revolt on the floor of the convention. I guess that “Get over it” comment didn’t sit too well with GOP office holders. Congress, Governors, state legislature…they all have too much to loose by rolling over for a spoiled NYC developer.
Its not too late for another nominee, even if token, just to save the other sitting politicians.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/gop-delegate-revolt-stop-donald-trump/index.html
R
And I’m beginning to think his motivation is to disrupt and discomfort the establishment as much as it is to win. I’ve never felt he was really angling for four years of hard work and responsibility.
Don’t fool yourself — he wants the position. How hard to GWB work? Trump is quite accustomed to having the help take care of all the nasty and time-consuming bits.
Junior’s problem was that he was not only lazy, but totally incompetent. Trump is easily as incompetent as Junior, but not lazy at all — far from it, he’s a take-charge guy all the way.
Plus (as Bai points out, and I can’t emphasize enough how important this is) — Trump’s daddy is not Bush’s daddy.
The remarkable, wonderful thing seems that the traditional strengths of the Republican Party, unquestioning loyalty, hierarchal solidarity and message discipline are all working insidiously against them now. And Trump knows it:
Yes he did. There is no love lost between Trump and the Republican establishment and win, lose or draw he is not likely to miss many opportunities to shame them and the media mercilessly.
‘playing the game’ I read this with considerable interest. An interesting story with dark allegations about large sums of Marcos’ money destined for Reagan that tangentially intersects Manafort and Rollins, two current Trump camp personalities, back in the 1980s. Hmmm…
Why would this be appearing now? ‘Tis a puzzlement. Perhaps the knives are being sharpened just in case.
Wouldn’t mind Elizabeth Warren, Tim Kaine, Mark Warner, Sherrod Brown, Chris Murphy or Cory Booker.
One person she better not even consider is Bernie Sanders. He has already caused enough damage as it is.
Bill Clinton will be the real VP. Whoever is the nominal VP will be just window dressing.
Except on succession–a very important point.
Otherwise, a good point. That means that the Vice-President could be give several special portfolios to deal with as was the case in the previous administration of the two-fer. Gore had portfolios for the internet superhighway (essentially coming out in net neutrality, a significant decision little-noticed at the time) and re-engineering the federal government operations (which moved large numbers of jobs to contractors, an mistaken and little-noticed decision at the time).
BTW, Jill Stein is having difficulty getting 9000 signatures to get her on the ballot — in Illinois!
That sort of grassroots organization this late in the game after running and organization campaign since 2012 is a bit pathetic.
True. Is Gus Hall still running?
Bernie took the wind out of the Green’s sails. Maybe it was all kabuki and Sanders is part of the dance. It’s sounding like he will endorse Hillary since he keeps saying that the most important thing is to stop Trump.
I’m thinking that we have a choice between Caesar and Pompey. Democracy is dead either way.
Very disappointed in Warren. So her anti-Wall Street talk was just political BS as she endorses Wall Street’s bought and paid for candidate.
No, Bernie is authentic and Warren within her wheelhouse is authentic as well, but with her remember that she’s still not an experienced politician or Senator.
What Sanders supporters have to recognize is that he has a very difficult decision to make in the coming weeks. It’s been his style over the decades to push for as much as possible and settle for whatever chunk of that he can get as opposed to push for big things, get nothing, and lose support among his colleagues. His supporters have to acknowledge that this one man in this one primary did more for the effort of social democracy than thousands of politicians have done in the past forty years and he did it with zero institutional support. He did fail the cause; his supporters and voters did.
Do his supporters want him to remain in the Senate and have voice or a Senator that’s frozen out? (Remember, the Clintons don’t play nice.) Or would they prefer that he retire and become irrelevant?
The last sentence of the second paragraph should read:
And to Voice — how many of those dearest and closest to you did you turn into Bernie voters?
Everyone younger than me. (I am the youngest child of two. My wife is three months older.)
You did better than most, but still not enough.
Actually, the grandson’s were gunshy after being enthusiastic about Obama in 2008. They brought me around in that case. If I’ve led them astray, they’ll never listen to me again. The middle boy is 24, not a day of college and not a day with a job. His life has been on hold since graduating High School. Will he still be on hold in 2024 when he is 32? His girlfriend’s family are small town Republicans. He’ll probably go that way, although he was interested in social justice in grade school. He was put on the slow track with the Mexican kids. He was the only “anglo” in his class. Those kids were his best friends. He’ll never go Trump. No anti-gay feeling. I remember watching “Advise and Consent” with him on DVD. He couldn’t understand why the young Utah senator committed suicide. “So he was gay. So what?”, he said. I won’t even admit my plans to him. I think he may have voted for Romney, although he told me that his registration was messed up in 2012. How have we come to the point that the only candidate saying the right things on trade and jobs is Trump? My daughter was right to like neither Clinton nor Obama (both too far right). Maybe I shouldn’t have counted her because all I had to do was mention Thom Hartmann’s “Brunch with Bernie” shows and she took off by herself after researching. As she used to tell me, “I’m the one who should have grown up in the 60’s not you.” A born rebel.
Buy a town: Former ‘Spy Town’ Sugar Grove Station Up for Auction in West Virginia .
Could be a great retirement community for low income seniors.
Since West Virginia is the part that stayed with the North, maybe I won’t be hearing “damnyankee” all the time, like I did in NoVa.
I think I’d rather work on claiming derivative Italian citizenship and moving to a country with good Health Care and nice climate. Of course, I only know a few phrases of the language. I used to be pretty fluent in German. I think as an Italian citizen I would be eligible to live in Germany under EU rules. Colder, but not as cold as Chicago. Nothing is colder than Chicago, except Minneapolis (which is a nice town BTW).
Apparently, the good health care in Italy is in the north. Not so good the further south one gets. Claiming derivative Italian citizenship does sound like a more appealing fantasy than buying a town in WV.
My father was born here so he never renounced Italian citizenship of course. My grandfather was not naturalized until after my father was born, so under Italian law he was a citizen. Over there it is the parent’s citizenship that matters not whether or not you were born in-country. Because I’m the male descendent of the male descendent of the male citizen. I am considered a citizen also. It goes two generations for male descent, one generation for female descent. So they are still sexist in some ways.
I learned about this from NPR when a lot of people in Argentina were lining up to go back to Europe around ten years ago. It’s a matter of finding the right documentation and having an Italian lawyer represent you. Too bad we have to pay now in Euro’s instead of Lira. My daughter’s been pushing me to claim the dual citizenship for years so she could claim citizenship based on mine and have a bolthole against fascism in America.
Have you considered applying through the Italian consulate in Chicago?
Appears to be many private operations offering to help those that are looking for citizenship through descent. Probably about as legit as Trump U. The UK, France, Germany, and Austria were smart; they don’t want the descendants back.
This is an outgrowth of the change in US law that prohibited dual citizenship.
At last, the 800-pound gorilla in the White House rooms!
But on second thought, Voice, surely you understand that’s an irresponsible comment. After all, the First Woman President would never let herself be influenced even the slightest bit by her own ex-president husband.
No damage at all, just returning the democratic party to it’s FDR roots.
Good heavens clif, I thought that was ancient history by now. On thing you don’t do in this wonderful world of postmodern times — you don’t turn back the clock on progress! Are we not progressives?
LOL
You forgot Harold Ford Jr.
You’ve got to wonder if s(he) threw darts to get that collection.
Harold Ford Jr. Wow. You’d have to have a tin ear to pick someone like that in 2016.
Oh, wait a minute …
Warren endorsed Hillary on RM show. She sounds a lot like Sanders but a hell of a lot funnier with her impression of Mitch M. She is just full of energy. Says no one has talked to her about VP. Pretty sure she will take it if asked. Showed part of her speech on Trump. She sure did beat him up.
I actually saw that. I would only disagree with her taking the position if asked. She’s been on the record many times saying she wanted to stay in the Senate. But then I might even reconsider if Warren is on the ticket.
Wait. Sorry. I take that back.
When asked if she could do the job as Pres she said yes though. Joy Reid pointed out that they have to call a special election to fill the senate seat if she resigns. So the republican governor can’t permanently fill it. I have mixed feelings about it. She is a leader in the senate. Don’t know what happens if she is doing special projects for Hillary.
Saw Liz Warren and VP Biden speeches given at American Constitution Society.
Liz Warren’s speech was really good, IMHO. VP or not, she can def do the “attack dog” thing very well. So I’m thinking, the upcoming Dem strategy…Liz as attack dog, Biden as conciliator for those poss GOP who just cant back Trump, Michelle O for her high regard with female voters (Black and White, but esp Black women, most consistent and loyal Dem voters, right)…
POTUS to throw punches and remind, defend, and just basically knock GOP over head with his accomplishments, plus I think he REALLY wants to be able to land punches on Trump that he couldn’t do during the height of the birther bullshit Trump was steering, both cause of just not “fighting down” as Prez, but also he had the 2012 re-election campaign to worry about. Now no elections, and NMFTG.
that leaves, the candidate herself, who probably, can’t get too down in gutter with Trump but who can still twist the knives that Warren, Biden and POTUS will leave in Trump’s side.
Notice I didn’t mention Bill C in my comment. Of course Bill C will be used in the campaign, but I suspect and hope that HRC camp is WAYYY more strategic and focused on how an when they use Bill C as surrogate, more so than they did before.
I think they def did more of that this primary season and I’d hope they continue to do so for the general.
I believe someone said, that part and parcel of Trumps strategy against HRC will be to wrap Bill C’s presidency even closer around HRC that he’s currently doing.
By relying heavily on PBO and PBO administration associates & allies, Trump will have to be smart enough or have smart enough folks around him to someone how be able to attack on at least 2 different fronts… Obama and Bill C…at this point, I don’t think Trump has it in him.
And literally as I was writing this, I saw a SuperPAC ad on MSNBC that interspersed Bill C… “I did not” have sexual relations footage with HRC footage talking about her email as SOS.
The notion that Donald Trump can defeat Hillary Clinton is silly. That’s just my opinion, of course, and I can tell you it’s based on nothing. People who fear for a Trump victory either have a very low opinion of the US voters (I know what Mencken said, good, and others too) or feel extremely insecure in their suspicion that Clinton is not an especially worthy candidate. Which is it?, I wonder. Then there is the businessperson’s option: the media only stands to benefit if the impression persists that the election is a neck on neck contest. This election is Clinton’s to lose and if she does, she can’t blame anyone except herself. It’s a lesson in the the fragility of power and success to observe how insecure Clinton seems generally, which would necessarily also include her team and supporters. What makes people so afraid of Donald Trump? He’s a bully! A lot of very important people seem to get off on it by voicing their disapproval. The threat is not Donald Trump. The threat to the Democrats is that top appears only to give a shit about themselves and their plutocratic cohorts. Or is that judgment more than just appearance? To Bernie Sanders credit, he answered that question in no uncertain terms. What the proverbial American people make of that is anyone’s guess. P.S. I know the answer.
I agree.
How many other potential picks out there can get me so juiced just thinking about the prospect? Walter O’Malley??
I like her for political, getting elected, reasons, keeping the Gene McCarthy wing of the party inside the tent, and for policy reasons, the potential to keep Hillary from straying back to the center and towards Wall St on domestic. On FP, she would bring a refreshing lack of experience and thus a clean slate to counter the vast experience and wrongheadedness of neocon interventionist HRC.
Two women on the ticket would drive the Donald doubly nuts, especially if it’s true, as someone said recently, that he’s not only thin-skinned but particularly pained if it’s a woman directing pointed barbs at him.
An outspoken, forceful and intelligent presence inside the admin could help dispel concerns by some on the right and left that Bill would be the de facto VP. A VP Warren would likely make Bill no more than co-VP.
The senate situation might be resolved if she could resign early enough, making the required special senate election in MA occur roughly at the time she’s sworn in as VP.