Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumElizabeth Warren Can Do More Good In Senate Than VP Office
Elizabeth Warrens name is constantly coming up as a potential running mate for Hillary Clinton. A lot of progressives think that this would a be huge step forward for Clintons campaign. But when you really think about it, Clinton is the ONLY person who would benefit from this. Ring of Fires Farron Cousins discusses this.
Siwsan
(26,260 posts)Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't heard anything of it, lately.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Curtis
(348 posts)I've thought Castro was the logical choice for a long time. He could turn Texas or at the least make Trump spend time there and not in other states. He's also the young and upcoming talent. He'd be in line to take the mantle after Hillary. Democrats would have a long line of firsts, first black, first woman and then first Hispanic President. I think he's the most logical pick.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)over anyone called Castro---but hopefully we will hear more in future concerning the Castros. Meanwhile, Sherrod Brown looks pretty good as possible V.P. candidate.
Gene Debs
(582 posts)picture the CEOs of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase et al. directing Clinton to make Warren her running mate.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)By nominating Warren it hamstrings her from primarying Hillary in 2020 if Hillary does not follow through with her progressive platform promises.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)ToxMarz
(2,166 posts)Who it seems would be the first to consider that Warren would be more effective remaining in the Senate. Be careful what you wish for. The vice presidency is not really an activist position.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Warren's name is being bandied about.
Yes, Hillary Clinton and the Third Way and PNAC and Wall Street are the only entities that would benefit from this.
longship
(40,416 posts)I want her to remain in the US Senate where she can do some good. She seems to be of the same opinion.
It's kind of baffling why Elizabeth Warren fans seem to want to remove her from the office which does us all so much good and put her into a powerless one.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)More Hillary supporters that want her to be VP than Warren supporters. Hillary wants to be able to shut her up as VP, if Warren is still in the Senate she can vocally criticize Hillary's wall Street ties.
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)That is such a ridiculous assertion that I find it hard to comprehend how anyone actually believes it.
Warren was one of the first to encourage Clinton to run, doing so in writing.
They hold similar views on the vast majority of issues.
The perceived massive ideological gap between the two is a complete fabrication. It simply doesn't exist.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)Warren is Hillary's biggest threat. A much loved, progressive woman that would bridge the gap between her supporters and Sanders supporters. She would probably win if she primaries Hillary in 2020, so she will make her VP so that doesn't happen.
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)Another ridiculous assertion. Warren is one of her biggest assets. She's already proving that.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)Warren would have defeated Hillary. Warren espouses most of Sanders platform and is a progressive woman. To think otherwise, you are being willfully blind.
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)You know, Clinton...the person Warren wanted and encouraged to run. The person she has wholeheartedly endorsed. The person she is wholeheartedly campaigning for.
"To think otherwise, you are being willfully blind."
No, to think that Elizabeth Warren ever intended to take on Hillary Clinton in this election is what's willfully blind. She wasn't going to encourage Clinton to run and then run herself. That makes zero sense.
To think that Elizabeth Warren ever *wanted* or *wants* to be "Hillary Clinton's biggest threat" is what's willfully blind.
Hillary Clinton's biggest threat - and the biggest threat to ALL of us - is Donald Trump.
Elizabeth Warren gets that. Do you?
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)Warren waited until after it became apparent that Hillary would win before endorsing her when every other woman in the Senate was endorsing her... that seems to contradict what you are saying.
Edit to add: what I am saying is from Hillary's point of view not Warren's.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)around the country than Bernie does. Hillary has been able to organize the Obama coalition in a way that neither of the other two could have.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)The vast majority of Bernie supporters were Warren supporters way before Bernie even came to national attention. Further, Warren would have won the woman vote ober Hillary as well. They only support Bernie because Warren didn't run. Hillary kmows that and that is why she is courting Warren now.
The Obama coalition, eh? You mean the coalition she utterly vilified in 2008?
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)How dumb they must be.
Response to pnwmom (Reply #39)
Post removed
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)AntiBank
(1,339 posts)Sanders debate stumble on race issues and Hillarys sure-footed answer help explain why shes getting most of the African-American vote.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/why-black-voters-dont-feel-the-bern-213707
When it came to most issues at the Democratic debate in Flint Sunday night, Bernie Sanders was his usual crusty, confident self. But when CNNs Don Lemon asked a seemingly innocuous questionWhat racial blind spot do you have?the senator from lily-white Vermont stumbled, reaching for an ancient bromide from his long-ago Brooklyn childhood. "When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be living in a ghetto, you don't know what it's like to be poor," Sanders said.
Social media erupted. He knows that all Black people don't live in ghettos, right? Jonathan Capehart of The Washington Post tweeted. MSNBCs Joy Reid was also flummoxed. Of course, many white Americans know exactly what it's like to live in the ghetto. Many, including immigrants have, do and did, she tweeted. Most African-Americans are not poor. The AA poverty rate is too high, of course, at about 28%, but that's not most or all.
Hillary Clinton, by contrast, responded to the same question with a detailed account of her lifelong journey in racial awareness, pushing most of the right buttons. She invoked the talk that African-American parents need to have with their kids and white parents dont--scared that your sons or daughters, even, could get in trouble for no good reason whatsoever like Sandra Bland and end up dead in a jail in Texas." She talked of spending time with Trayvon Martins mother, and how it taught her the need to tear down the barriers of systemic racism that are in the criminal justice system. She reminisced about her days as a young law student working for her mentor, Marian Wright Edelman, the founder of the Childrens Defense Fund, who had sent her into the Deep South to expose racial discrimination in schools and in jails during the civil rights era.
The different answers somehow encapsulated what has happened so far in this campaign. Clinton has clobbered Sanders in states, mainly in the South, with large African-American populations, propelling her to what may be an insurmountable lead in delegates. Bottom line, Hillary Clinton has street cred on the racial issue that Bernie Sanders lacks. This outcome has clearly frustrated Sanders. He and his supporters cannot understand how his democratic socialist campaign is losing the black vote and not gaining more traction with his attack on the 1990s, when even the Clintons have repudiated parts of their record in backing a tough-on-crime bill many blame for furthering the epidemic of mass incarceration.
One of Sanders problems is that while African-Americans vote liberal, they are not white liberals like the ones hes been mobilizing in his campaign. Black Democrats tend to be more socially conservative, pragmatic, and independent than many white politicians and pundits assume.
snip
floriduck
(2,262 posts)I bet she punts.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)The amount of exploding heads that will occur is that happens and comes out.
gregcrawford
(2,382 posts)... out of hand is ten times MORE ridiculous. And to deny the philosophical differences between the two is patently absurd.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)B-b-but she's a woman too. They all agree...right?
4 X chromosomes for the price of 2!
longship
(40,416 posts)I just do not want to see Elizabeth Warren give up her Senate seat. And I don't think that she wants to either. That is why she said "No!" to running for president so many times before the delusional Elizabeth Warren crowd realized it. Now they want her as VEEP!
I want her where she can do some real good, in the US Senate.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)1. We need as many Dems in the Senate as possible.
2. Warren would be huge influence for the progressive wing as a strong, independent voice in the legislative branch, as well as an ally and advocate for a President Clinton.
3. I'm supporting Clinton's election, since she's going to be our nominee.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)I am also supporting Hillary as she is the nominee, I was just referring to things that are happening in the background.
Marie Marie
(9,999 posts)Much better in the Senate where she can fight for her positions rather than having to parrot whatever President she serves. But then there is that all-important VP gig of attending funerals abroad. I have always disagreed with anyone wanting to pair her up as VP with any candidate. Unless you are young enough to possibly serve 8 years as VP then use that experience to run for the presidency, the VP slot is much less effective than Senator.
Response to GoLeft TV (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)impeachment occurs, so who do you believe will be impeached?
Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #16)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Saviolo
(3,282 posts)Warren is so valuable and important where she is, making waves, and standing up to the big banks. I hope she stays in the Senate to keep doing this work. I would never want to hold her back from whatever she feels she wants to do, but she's so important to Democrats, liberals, and progressives in the Senate where she is now.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... shocked and disappointed if Sen Warren were to agree to be HRC's Veep. She can accomplish so much more for HRC & our country if she stays in the Senate. IMHO.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)chapdrum
(930 posts)Sick Dick aside, the office has always been largely ceremonial.
kimbutgar
(21,137 posts)I would prefer someone younger as Vice President in 2024 who can run as President after Hillary is termed out.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)EW doesn't qualify.
malthaussen
(17,193 posts)But others -- often those who were never Vice President -- would disagree.
-- Mal
ananda
(28,858 posts)... when it's offered?
TomCADem
(17,387 posts)I think people underestimate how fired up the Republican base is about Trump. While Republican leaders are put in a tight spot, Trump really fires up the GOP's white male base.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)elljay
(1,178 posts)Massachusetts has a Republican governor so he would appoint a Republican to the post. While there is the opportunity to elect a Dem, Mass. has frequently elected Republicans to high posts so there is no guarantee. Sanders supporters are no more likely to support Hillary if she chooses EW. We fall into three camps- those who think Hillarybwill be ok so will vote for her, those who will hold their noses and vote for her because of Trump, and those who will never vote for her. The third group will turn on EW rather than decide to support Hillary. And, Mass. will already vote Dem so no further support is needed. The only reason I see for selecting her is to neutralize her anti-Wall Street voice in the Senate.
djean111
(14,255 posts)reason. But she would not get my vote. I would still respect her, just lament the loss of a great and influential senator.
It seems that, here at DU, not doing what a politician or endorser tells us to do is oddly considered "throwing them under the bus".
Phlem
(6,323 posts)It shuts her up and keeps her from getting into Hillary's hair.
This has been covered before in the past. The VP position is a hapless unproductive silence.
There is nothing Warren will be able to do, she will be muzzled.
Exactly what Clinton wants.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)If she really wanted to show the progressive base she was serious about including them she would rather appoint Warren as her new future Secretary of the Treasury.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)TryLogic
(1,723 posts)But it might help keep Hillary from being impeached. Big money absolutely does not want Warren to be president.
So, yes it is only good for Hillary.
jamese777
(546 posts)That any Democrat is the strongest potential candidate to bring about a victory in November, that candidate is then good for the whole party and in opposition to a Trump Presidency, good for the whole nation.
Impeachement is just an idle Republican threat. There aren't 67 votes in the Senate to remove any president and the Republicans learned that the last time they impeached in the House without the votes across the aisle in the Senate, all they accomplushed was to end up with the president's wife as their next nemesis.
Political Parties have ways of applying pressure to get what they want. Elizabeth Warren is a first term Senator with little seniority and therefore little power unless she is given choice assignments on important committees that can influence policy. Harry Reid determines who serves on which committees and who is the ranking member or the Chair if the Dems are in the majority.
Elizabeth was given an extremely important assignment on the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the Subcommittee on Economic Policy, where she is the Ranking Member.
Bernie Sanders is ranking member on the hugely important Senate Budget Committee. If Bernie failed to endorse Hillary Clinton, he could be stripped of his ranking member position. Party leadership in Congress "muzzles" wayward members by putting them on committees where they have little ability to influence the major policy initiatives of our time.
Vice Presidents went on to become president. Only 3 Senators moved directly to the presidency:
Harding, Kennedy, and Obama. Overall, 16 Presidents were U.S. Senators at some point in their political careers.
The name recognition and prestige that comes with being the Vice President (there's only 1) far outweighs the name recognition and prestige that comes from being 1 out of of 100.
Scalded Nun
(1,236 posts)Boomer
(4,168 posts)Sadly there's only one of her to go around and no matter where she takes a stand, we'll suffer for not having her somewhere else.
I want Warren as VP because she would electrify the ticket and defeat Donald Trump, and she would be well-positioned for a run for president in 2020. I want Warren as president, and working with HRC for four years would be good experience for that step up.
I also want Warren in the Senate, where she's free to criticize her own party if it doesn't live up to progressive standards.
Decisions, decisions...
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)Warren has long said that she wouldn't run for President in 2016. Why then would she consider a V.P. nomination? Her lack of denying such a nomination has me completely puzzled. Warren is a major plus just where she is. Hopefully 2016 will bring her more allies.
DianaForRussFeingold
(2,552 posts)I think as VP, Elizabeth Warren would outshine any other former VP.
Elizabeth Warren became the first female Senator from Massachusetts in 2013. Just three years ago...
She very quickly became one of the most visible and well-liked Senators, ever. As VP, I believe she will do the same!
Who better to take on Donald Trump's wrongdoing than Elizabeth Warren?!
Just watch video of her in action...She is amazing!
She would have a tie-breaking vote in the Senate. As VP, would be a great buffer.
--"DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz signed onto a bill that would gut the agency conceived by progressive icon Elizabeth Warren."
Also, important to think about.. In the unlikely event that the President had to step down.
The VP would become our President.