Why? Because for me, at least, having someone like Warren on the ticket makes me feel that progressive policy will be respected in a Clinton Administration.
Tim Kaine? It might as well be Carper if he’s the choice.
Because 1) there is no better and no more effective attack dog against Trump than Warren and 2) she ends any relevance of Bernie Sanders in this campaign. She already got Trump to go on a racist tirade today. And with Bernie refusing to endorse due to his purity demands, Hillary needs Warren to attract as many of Bernie’s supporters as possible.
I’m just looking to cement the ticket. Warren appears to want the job and would be an effective campaigner. Also, from the appearances thus far, she would be a team player. The only consideration will her absence in the Senate keep the Senate in GOP hands? I don’t care about Kaine one way or the other. Actually, I have the same opinion of all the names mentioned, with the except of Warren. With 2 women on the ticket it would be almost impossible for Trump not to resort misogynistic remarks and behavior.
Anyway, I’m guessing it’s going to be Warren unless she is being used to throw people off the track.
“Warren is someone the conservatives dislike even more than Clinton”
True, but remember that the weight of that office, has a way of tempering even the most passionate of idealists. Plus Warren is 67. If Clinton is a one termer, Warren will be 71, which is ok, but 75 would be pushing it. It might make her more attractive because she would not be seen as an attractive successor in 4 or 8 years.
“1) there is no better and no more effective attack dog against Trump than Warren”
She can attack just fine as Senator, probably even better. As Hillary’s running mate, will she campaign vigorously for her positions of a Federal $15 minimum wage? Opposition to TPP as bad for America? Demanding jail time for US bankers?
If Hillary just wants her to write Trump jokes, no thank you.
“and 2) she ends any relevance of Bernie Sanders in this campaign.”
LOL, Sanders Derangement Syndrome continues even after Bernie has lost the primary. Bernie is out of the campaign and now serves as the conscience of the Democratic party for those who have ears.
Booker, like Warren, would have an R Governor replacing him. And Chris Christie, unlike perhaps popular Mass. Gov. Baker, wouldn’t even consider replacing a D with a D.
If Warren can campaign this effectively as Senator, why does she need to be VP?
Why? Because for me, at least, having someone like Warren on the ticket makes me feel that progressive policy will be respected in a Clinton Administration.
Tim Kaine? It might as well be Carper if he’s the choice.
Because 1) there is no better and no more effective attack dog against Trump than Warren and 2) she ends any relevance of Bernie Sanders in this campaign. She already got Trump to go on a racist tirade today. And with Bernie refusing to endorse due to his purity demands, Hillary needs Warren to attract as many of Bernie’s supporters as possible.
Puck, why are you so resistant to a Clinton-Warren ticket? You are the last person I’d suspect to be against it.
I’m just looking to cement the ticket. Warren appears to want the job and would be an effective campaigner. Also, from the appearances thus far, she would be a team player. The only consideration will her absence in the Senate keep the Senate in GOP hands? I don’t care about Kaine one way or the other. Actually, I have the same opinion of all the names mentioned, with the except of Warren. With 2 women on the ticket it would be almost impossible for Trump not to resort misogynistic remarks and behavior.
Anyway, I’m guessing it’s going to be Warren unless she is being used to throw people off the track.
I like it because it makes President Warren a real possibility. Almost a probability.
Agree, Dave. I think it has to be Warren now because any other pick would be a disappointment.
They looked like they had great chemistry on the campaign trail together in Ohio today. Anyone else would be a letdown.
@J “I like it because it makes President Warren a real possibility. Almost a probability.”
I’m not so sure. Warren is someone the conservatives dislike even more than Clinton… It sort of makes Hillary “bulletproof”.
They dislike her because she has virtually no baggage.
“Warren is someone the conservatives dislike even more than Clinton”
True, but remember that the weight of that office, has a way of tempering even the most passionate of idealists. Plus Warren is 67. If Clinton is a one termer, Warren will be 71, which is ok, but 75 would be pushing it. It might make her more attractive because she would not be seen as an attractive successor in 4 or 8 years.
I, frankly, didn’t realize she was 67. Never mind.
Wow, 67? Warren is hot. I would gladly be her boy toy lol
“1) there is no better and no more effective attack dog against Trump than Warren”
She can attack just fine as Senator, probably even better. As Hillary’s running mate, will she campaign vigorously for her positions of a Federal $15 minimum wage? Opposition to TPP as bad for America? Demanding jail time for US bankers?
If Hillary just wants her to write Trump jokes, no thank you.
“and 2) she ends any relevance of Bernie Sanders in this campaign.”
LOL, Sanders Derangement Syndrome continues even after Bernie has lost the primary. Bernie is out of the campaign and now serves as the conscience of the Democratic party for those who have ears.
Still….People on the other side of the Bernie derangement syndrome bell curve will approve of this pick.
Cory Booker is the best choice.
Booker makes demographic sense, but he’s a Wall Street darling. That would send exactly the opposite message from Warren.
Booker, like Warren, would have an R Governor replacing him. And Chris Christie, unlike perhaps popular Mass. Gov. Baker, wouldn’t even consider replacing a D with a D.
I read earlier today that Al Franken was on the list.
I love the idea of Elizabeth Warren on the ticket, but I’d much rather a pick that is bench-building.