Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Mc Mike

(9,247 posts)

6. Yeah, but we need her to be an active V.P.,

Reply to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 11:43 AM

Jun 2016

like Poppy bush was under Raygun, or dick cheney was under l'il bush. Someone who is working on a ton of policy initiatives, in charge of a lot of key administration task forces. We don't need her to be a ceremonial back up president, who just delivers soundbytes but can't work on delivering for her progressive vision.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Rachel building strong case for a Clinton/Warren [View all] 99th_Monkey Jun 2016 OP

Republican Massachusetts governor messes it up. nt Lucky Luciano Jun 2016 #1

Could you elaborate? 99th_Monkey Jun 2016 #2

The post below yours seems to refute what I was thinking. Lucky Luciano Jun 2016 #5

Wrong. If Warren is Clinton's VP, Harry Reid has a plan to replace her w4rma Jun 2016 #3

Ok that would be pretty cool. nt Lucky Luciano Jun 2016 #4

Yeah, but we need her to be an active V.P., Mc Mike Jun 2016 #6

110% agreed. n/t 99th_Monkey Jun 2016 #7

She doesn't have enough experience to pull that off loyalsister Jun 2016 #8

You're right, on some points. Mc Mike Jul 2016 #9

She would have to loyal to the leadership in congress and the executive branch loyalsister Jul 2016 #10