I will admit that I have to shake my head when I read or hear someone worry that having Elizabeth Warren as the Democratic nominee for vice president would have “too many women” on the same ticket. I look forward to the day when such concerns are a matter for derision.
But I have a related question, especially for readers who support Bernie Sanders. Would having Elizabeth Warren as the VP make you happier? Would it make you more likely to vote for Clinton (or more likely to vote at all)?
And a question for everyone (not just Sanders supporters). Who would you like to see as Clinton’s VP choice? Personally, I’d like to see Al Franken, because I think he is one of the few people who could make fun of Trump and get away with it. Laughing at Trump seems to be one of the best ways to attack him.
I won’t ask who should be Trump’s VP pick, as I am not sure there is anyone left who would take the job. Imagine having to kiss up to Trump 24/7, knowing that if anything goes wrong, it will somehow be your fault.
12 Comments
Given the recent story about how the financial sector wont donate to the clinton campaign if she picks warren and given what Warren brings maybe warren is the best choice. The former reason may bring independents and liberals, who think Clinton is beholden to the financial industry, towards clinton.
Warren is also knowledgeable about the financial sector and should be able to fill in for Clinton if the need arises. ie she would be able to fill the role of president which i think is an important role of the VP.
I’m not sure whether she can bring people together like Biden though. Neither can the others on the short list or that i’m aware of. She’s also much better known and seems to have a sincerity that may appeal to voters including even the Trump voters.
To me she’s the best choice.
“Makes no never mind” (a local Appalachian sentiment) This is my country going back 400 years. No megalalamanic is getting into office. No loss of 3 million jobs as Moody’s predicts under Drumpf. No back to the years of Hitler. Hillary will do fine as President. Only the white male chauvinists won’t vote for her. Hillary can run on “Right back to George W Bush with job loses if Drumpf gets elected.”
I’m not sure Warren would be the best choice at this time, but for strictly strategic reasons. Giving up her Senate seat would create a vacancy that would be filled by the Mass. Republican governor (Charlie Baker) ahead of a special election, risking the Dems chance to control the Senate. As one of the most influential and independent members of the Senate, it’s even doubtful she’s even angling for the job and seems to be content lobbing attacks against Trump from the sidelines as Clinton’s de-facto attack dog. She’s young enough to bide her time and continue building her bona fides in the Senate to eventually become a potential top tier presidential candidate herself.
Besides, and to paraphrase Will Rogers, the VP’s primary job is to wake up in the morning and ask, “How’s the President?”. That doesn’t sound like Warren to me.
I like Al Franken too, but not aware if he’s on the short list, at least not yet, or even wants the job either.
Actually, Warren is clearly interested in the VP slot. See http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/elizabeth-warren-intrigued-vp-possibility
Also, the Senate seat problem is easily solved in more than one way. See https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/06/03/harry-reid-studies-legal-scenarios-for-filling-senate-seat-elizabeth-warren-gets-vice-presidential-nod/3FSrNJlAhqRoiWt6iQMK7J/story.html
I’m not saying that Warren is (or is not) the best choice, I’m just saying that she shouldn’t be disqualified because of fears the Dems would lose a Senate seat.
The point about the senate seat is a good one. However I think Hillary should first focus on winning the presidency and on uniting the country. Picking the wrong VP by focusing on what happens “if” she wins the presidency could give Trump a chance to compete and cause further ugliness.I would rather she pick a candidate that would improve her lead and result in her winning the presidency by a crushing margin that would prevent a Trump like candidate in the future. I haven’t followed the senate races too closely but the next step that the DNC should take is to remind voters that if they care about a particular topic they need to vote for the right candidates in the house and senate too and not just for the presidency.
I think Warren will make a great president, one day. I want her to stay in the senate, with Sanders, to keep things on the Dem side. Should there be a discussion of too many women on a ticket. Absolutely not. But that aside, many of us evidently have not progressed enough to believe that a woman should be president, much less having a two woman ticket. Just like they talk about how much she pays for her clothing, (did you ever see any of the men asked how much their suits cost?), to her hairstyles and the fact that she wears pantsuits, the pitch of her voice, how she smiles, how she doesn’t smile, her laugh, and on and on. Until a woman can run without having stuff like this talked about, then probably an all female ticket is best left for later.
Now back to your question. I would hope whoever she picks is to the left of her, but no standing senators. I’m voting for whatever the Dems throw out there, even if I have to hold my nose to do so. I’ve heard Julian Castro’s name mentioned, that would lock up the Hispanic vote and put him on a good path towards a run in the future.
As for Trump’s pick, obviously since so many are lining up to vote for him, there are a few who would sign on to be VP. I bet Christie would jump at the chance. He seems to be able to take a lot of degradation without wincing too much. Palin would as well, I think. And given Rubio’s lack of character, he’s a possibility as well.
I would like to see Warren as VP and may consider voting for “Billary” if Warren’s on the ticket, but I just don’t feel the “love.” I am not the only woman who does not trust Clinton. Oddly enough, no one in the media ever mentions the obvious – – women who catch with their husband cheating usually kick the jerk to the curb. Not so in Clinton’s case. I wish someone would ask her about the “agreement” they came to so she wouldn’t kick him to the curb. At that point I could make a better decision. 🙂
Jeff Merkley. He’s progressive, relatively young and the only senator with the cojones to endorse Bernie Sanders (yay, Bernie!). But Warren would be awesome. A Warren VP choice would signal to Clinton doubters that she perhaps doesn’t care as much for Wall Street as we think. Also, in response to Robin’s comment about spouses cheating, there are many many women who forgive a cheating husband, and vice versa. Could be she forgave him not because of some kind of “agreement” but because she loves him.
Robin, you are probably a member of a much different generation than Clinton. What’s normal for people now was much rarer in previous decades. It was her choice.
I don’t understand the not trusting part. She is not less trustworthy than most of politicians and certainly far more trustable than Trump. I do not agree with all she says and does, but the alternative, Trump, is not even a close call.
Robin, statistically, in the majority of marriages at least one partner has had an affair. It is probably even more common among politicians. And it is nothing new; American politicians since at least Jefferson have been having affairs. And the wives don’t always kick their cheating husbands to the curb. Famously, Eleanor Roosevelt didn’t leave FDR, even though he had a lifelong affair with Eleanor’s social secretary. Instead, it seems like she started having affairs of her own, but with women. And Jackie didn’t leave John Kennedy, nor did Lady Bird leave LBJ. And we don’t know about all affairs that have happened (even the recent ones) but there are plenty of strong rumors about both Bush presidents (who both remained married), and even some about Reagan (including accusations of him raping a woman, and of Nancy Reagan sleeping with Frank Sinatra). See http://www.alternet.org/sex-amp-relationships/7-biggest-presidential-sex-scandals-history
So if you think Bill Clinton was the first president to sleep around, you are sadly mistaken. It seems more difficult to find a president who didn’t have multiple affairs. And most of the time, the First Lady did not kick their cheating partner to the curb, even when she knew what was going on.
I’m also curious why you take Hillary’s decision to forgive Bill as a reason to not trust her. Are you saying that she was enabling his cheating? And how can this compare to Donald Trump, who has openly bragged about cheating?
No one has mentioned Cory Booker yet as a possible VP running mate. Popular mayor of Newark, a major American city. Yeah, THAT Newark, and still received more kudos than criticism. Coming to prominence particularly in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. Now US Senator. So both executive and legislative experience. Scandal free. Outgoing and personable. African American (though she’s got that vote locked up already).
Not sure what, if any, relationship they have but he has endorsed her. On his Wiki page…”He was speculated as a potential vice presidential candidate during the primary and as the general election began, though Booker stated on June 16, 2016 that he was not being vetted.”
Otherwise, what’s not to like?
Yes Wildwood, Hillary is part of my mother’s generation. I do understand the statistics regarding cheating too Iron Knee. That’s why I am divorced. I am from a different generation. And Linda, I have very little trust for any politician right now. If she loves him, great, but if she doesn’t then she sold out and that’s the part that bothers me. If she would sell out to get elected she won’t be looking for anyone but herself. And I do understand that is a personal opinion. Women in my generation handle cheating differently. My one wish is that Politicians would wear their owner/sponsor patches like sports teams. Then I wouldn’t have to keep looking up who is donating to whom. I know….wishful thinking! 🙂