All in!

2016 - "The Year of the Woman!"

I want my Senator in the Senate.

Yikes, sorry~

The VP only votes in the Senate as a tie breaker. As majority leader, she can set the agenda for the Senate.

At least not in the next Congress.

weaknesses.

It shouldn't matter, but it would probably turn off some indie male swing voters.

It will take time before we see two women, two AA's, two Jews, or two gay people on a ticket together. It would probably only sway 2 to 5%, but that may be enough to turn the election.

But unfortunately, it does. Had Obama picked an African American running mate, he likely would not have won.

I think Warren serves the cause better as a Senator. Taking her out of the Senate and putting her int othe Executive weakens us as a whole - especially as Vice President, which is, as far as I can gather, basically four to eight years of vacationing in between making appointments the president is too busy to attend.

I definitely DO want a strong liberal pick. But we have so few good liberals out there that it is damn hard to come up with a name that wouldn't undercut us somewhere else.

I say give it to Bernie and give Warren Sec of State. JMHO

Thank you!

She would have been Bernie's best choice also.

Some of the rhetoric I've heard from her scares me.

I don't know that much about her. I remember her being criticized for something she said but I don't recall what.

She didn't even come off as a moderate Democrat. The language sounded straight up Tea Party to me. It was disturbing. Look up some interviews where she's talking about the War on Terror. Extremely hawkish, fear-mongering, and Islamaphobic. She even did the whole "Democrats are refusing to use the phrase Islamic Terrorism" thing that Republicans do. Some homophobic things she has said were particularly disturbing as well. And then she came out and claimed she was supporting Bernie because he was anti-war and she was all pro-peace. It was laughable. It was so obvious to anyone that has followed her at all that it was just all out politically calculating bullshit.

I defer to HRC's pick whoever it is.

I love her, but the Republican governor will appoint a repug to take her place. Do you really want to see Scott Brown back in the Senate? Also, a ticket of two north east liberals leaves out a big part of the rest of the country.

Any one appointed would be in for only about 120 days until it's filled by an election.

We got Scott Fucking Brown, who replaced Teddy Kennedy!!!!!

So your argument goes right out the window.

and doesn't nominate Martha Coakly.

She's why we have Baker as Governor now too.

If it were in a year of a presidental election I don't think a republican would win.

Too risky to select Warren. Plus, I don't think she's the best strategic choice. Plus, I really love her in the US Senate.

He is in the mold of Paul Wellstone, is extremely witty, and can go toe to toe with Trump. Plus Minnesota's governor is a Democrat, so he would be replaced with another Democrat.

But I don't think Hillary would select a VEEP from a highly Democratic northern state. Regardless, he would raise the levity of the campaign.

I love Al Franken!!!!

Moreso than Minnesota, even. In 2008 there was a brief period when we (the union I worked for) were worried about Obama in Minnesota and did some mailings for him there. We never worried about Massachusetts for one second.

*It was on my advice that we sent the mailing for Obama, and after the election, when Obama won by over 10 points and Franken was 200 votes down, I was afraid that with that small of a margin, my mistake could have cost him the difference if he lost. Thankfully my boss reassured me that we didn't divert any resources from Franken to help Obama. And then Franken ended up winning, so it's all good.

He is the opposite of the wonderful Paul Wellstone.

We need her intelligence and wisdom in the Senate. Attributes few senators share.

Does anyone recall a poll that found voters responded less positively to Hillary when she was accompanied by other women though? I can't find any article about this now, the search terms are too broad, it was used as a source for why men would be on the campaign trail for her and play more visible roles as surrogates.

...have wanted Warren to be Senate Majority Leader for a long time. After seeing the Democratic leaders speak and meet over the past few days, I feel they will recommend and she will make the correct choice. Really appreciating our Democratic representatives now - Obama, Hillary, Biden, Bernie, Warren, Reid... not seeing Republicans Trump, Ryan, McConnell, etc as impressive.

Hillary Clinton should not pick any sitting US Senator for VEEP, least of all Elizabeth Warren. We desperately need her in the US Senate.

Her speech today before the ACS should underline why that is so. If you do not understand that a sitting senator has much more power than the VEEP, I probably cannot disabuse you of your delusion that Elizabeth Warren should be Hillary's VEEP candidate.

Let it stand there. And if I were Liz, I would not only say "no", I would say "Hell fucking no".

She remembers the last time that there was an open US Senate seat in MA, just like everybody here ought to. And MA has a GOP governor!

I think Biden has more power now than he would have had if he stayed in the Senate. So did LBJ. It really depends on the relationship between the president and vice president and what they decide the VP's role should be.

That said, in this case I am concerned that Warren might be mostly used as window dressing to throw a bone to progressives. It feels like she is being pushed on Hillary and that won't make for a good working relationship. If Hillary genuinely wants her I'd be thrilled, but if she's just going to be used to unite the party I'd rather keep her in the Senate.

I am a little skeptical of how hard Harry Reid is pushing her. Could it be that he wants her out of the Senate because she is the type to investigate and not fall in line?

Her ACS speech today should have underlined that for folks.

VEEP is not a seat of power unless POTUS does not complete their term. A prominent, outspoken US Senate seat, on the other hand, is by definition a seat of power. Especially one held by Elizabeth Warren.

Plus, although I will be supporting Hillary Clinton in the GE (I voted for Bernie in MI), I do not want Warren to be anybody's surrogate.

The question is: Why would you?

But the last time there was a vacancy in MA senate it did not work out too well.

I am against any current Dem senator being selected VEEP for that reason. Especially Warren who we really need where she is. And I don't think she would accept VEEP anyway.

But probably not. Still, it would be one of the few options she has that would make Bernie or Bust voters reconsider? Does she need our votes or not?

We won't need help in New England, and there's little ideological diversity in that ticket. Clinton will want somebody further west and further right.

She needs to win 53 electoral votes from some combination of:

NV
NH
VA
NC
OH
FL
PA
WI
IA
CO

Even if she takes the states Sanders won in the primary (NH, CO, WI) that gets her 23 electoral votes.

Her left is not what she's worried about, because of the way we allocate electors.

That was a different contest, with different voters. For example, even though Clinton beat Sanders in Florida and Ohio, current polls say that Sanders beats Trump in those states by more than Hillary does... which means he could help her in those states.

Rember the debate when he was asked about Castro?

I realize it's an unpopular hobby, but it's what I do.

Teddy Roosevelt was VP for big business's friend William McKinley. So having Elizabeth Warren or Bernie as VP would be a very good idea, because they would be paid attention to by the press, and be in a position to spark a national dialogue on progressive issues.

I believe he was the youngest ever POTUS, until JFK.

Regardless, we need Warren in the senate, not as VEEP, where she does little good.

Teddy Roosevelt only served 6 months as VP before he was elevated to the Presidency. He was a troublemaking reformist governor of New York, whom the powers that be wanted "out of the way." But it backfired on them big time.

The VP gets far more attention at the national level than almost any senator. Besides appointing judges, the Senate will do little in the next four years, if the Democrats can't win back the House which is a herculean task given how many GOP districts have been gerrymandered into stability. So Warren and Sanders can't do that much in the Senate.

The VP "can" have the bully pulpit if the President accedes-- that will be the most a progressive can do to fire up everyone until 2020/2022 and the hopeful end of the gerrymandered House.

That's why Hillary should choose a younger VEEP.

I assume you believe that Congress would not approve a replacement VP should the VP becomes President, which I agree is more than possible, especially in the House.

Elizabeth Warren is 66 today, well below the average longevity for woman in the US (80), so there would be little risk for her, even at the end of Hillary's second term, she would be only be a year older than Bernie's age today. Since Hillary Clinton is two years older, we should be more worried for her.

I agree that Bernie as VP would be more problematic as he would be near the average life expectancy for men at the end of Hillary's first term.

I just listened to Warren from last night's Rachel Show and she was fairly straight that she likes her job in the US Senate. I don't think she would accept VEEP. It doesn't sound like it.

I think Hillary should pick someone for VP whom she genuinely wants to work with, as Obama did. If Warren is that person, I would be thrilled. But I don't want Hillary to pick her if it's just a bone to throw to us Bernie supporters, because then I would be skeptical whether Warren would really have a meaningful role in the administration. If she is just going to be used as "window dressing" to appease the progressive wing of the party I would rather keep her in the Senate. Does that make sense?

Warren is 66. Hilary is 68. We don't need a geriatric VP -- male or female. Should choose neither Warren or Bernie for that reason alone. Certainly shouldn't choose some be in the Biden mode -- old white guy of long record.


We need someone more youthful, certainly not another boomer. A youngish Gen X'er. Somebody progressive dynamic. Preferably Hispanic or AA or multi racial who embodies in her or his very being what America is becoming.

I predict our VP is a late 40's early 50's rising star sort.

If the Boomer generation encompasses 1946 to 1964, there's still a lot of them who are only in their 50s or early 60s. That's not too old. She doesn't necessarily need to pick someone who's young enough to be her offspring.

the youngest boomers are still in early 50's.

Someone such as Julian Castro.

But somehow she's the progressive saint and Hillary is the bad guy?

But if she didn't want to run for president, why are people thinking she wants to be VP? I think she's much better in the Senate until she decided if/when she wants to be president.

I loved her speech tonight. But I'm still convinced a younger person, pref AA or Latino, pref from a swing state, is the best choice. And I would not like to remove Warren from the Senate. She would make a wonderful, no-nonsense Majority Leader, in time.

She's better off as VP so she can gain experience governing.

Warren effectively muzzled in a ceremonial position, prevented by inviolable tradition from criticizing an administration that is very likely to take actions she strongly opposes (war, corporate-friendly environmental decisions, etc.)?

Oh, hell no. Not with the Third Way consolidating its hold on the DNC.

The VP will be a youngish man from the South or West.

We will need her and Bernie in teh Senate to lead the opposition to her majesty's neocon/Wall Street destruction of what's left.

Why waste her talents? That's what giving her the VP would do.

We have too few liberals in the senate now, we can't afford to lose another.

Warren would say no. Why would Clinton humiliate herself?

many here said she shouldn't run, she was much better off staying in the Senate.

Can someone explain to me what has changed since then?

the Senate. She can do a lot more good there.

it will so disempower her

keeps faith with Obama legacy, he has already done the job well for 8 years, he can brutally go after Dumpster

in 2020 switch out for new blood rising star to position for 2024