ChrisWeigant.com

Elizabeth Warren's Veep Audition

[ Posted Wednesday, May 25th, 2016 – 17:24 UTC ]

Is Senator Elizabeth Warren actively auditioning for the role of Hillary Clinton's vice presidential pick? At this point, it's rather hard to come to any other conclusion, since Warren has been so outspoken of late on the subject of how horrible Donald Trump would be as president.

The traditional role for the vice presidential candidate is, of course, to be just such an attack dog. The presidential candidate is supposed to have self-imposed limits on what they can say about their opponent, but the veep candidate isn't as constrained by appearing "presidential" and is thus able to unleash stinging attacks against the other party's candidate. This year, however, the Republican candidate is not exactly traditional in this regard (or any other, for that matter), since it would be so hard to imagine any other Republican outdoing Donald Trump in the "attack dog" category.

But the Democrats are on the brink of nominating a much more conventional presidential candidate, so they'll also likely be looking for a more conventional role for the vice presidential candidate as well. And Elizabeth Warren seems to be putting herself front and center for this consideration. Other Democrats have taken political shots at Donald Trump over the past few weeks, but Warren is definitely the most prominent and the most fervent of all the Trump critics. Who else has gotten into an open Twitter war with Trump, after all?

Would Warren be a good selection for Hillary Clinton's running mate? Well, there are pros and cons to making such a pick. Let's run through these, briefly.

 

Pros

Warren's biggest asset is that she comes with her own built-in fan base. That is no small thing in the world of presidential politics. Few Democrats are going to have to learn who Elizabeth Warren is, because for the most part they already know her. In fact, before Bernie Sanders arrived on the scene, there was a huge popular movement dedicated to convincing Warren to make her own run for president. If she had, it is likely that Sanders wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the support he has, since he'd be dividing it with Warren. Both appeal to the same ideological group within the Democratic base.

This is Warren's second biggest asset, in fact. She would be the best possible person to bridge the divide between the Sanders populists and the supporters of Hillary Clinton within the Democratic Party. She would be seen as a person who could influence Clinton during the general election campaign, by making sure Clinton didn't tack too far away from populism. That would help Clinton enormously with Democrats who don't fully trust her now.

Clinton/Warren would be the first all-female ticket in American history. That a major party is even considering running two women on their ticket is a big measure of success for feminism, and would rightly be seen so by many voters.

Warren would add some much-needed excitement to the ticket. Warren is already a masterful orator, for many reasons. She knows how to explain very complicated subjects in language everyone can understand and relate to. She does not sound lawyerly when speaking. And she fires up audiences better than even Bernie Sanders, at times. All of this would go a long way towards shoring up Clinton's obvious weaknesses.

Warren has so far not endorsed either Clinton or Sanders. By holding out, she now can avoid being seen as a turncoat if she joins up with Clinton. She would bring anti-Wall Street credibility onto the ticket, she could reach out in a big way to disgruntled Sanders supporters, and she has already proven she'll be a great attack dog towards Donald Trump. What's not to love about a Clinton/Warren ticket?

 

Cons

Well, there would be a few drawbacks. The biggest of these is out of Warren's control, because if she were to run and if the Democrats went on to win the White House, then she wouldn't be a senator from Massachusetts anymore. This means the governor would get to appoint her replacement -- and the current governor of Massachusetts is a Republican. The Democrats are fighting hard to retake control of the Senate, and they'll already have to flip at least four seats to do so. If Warren is replaced by a Republican, that means they'll need at least five pickups to control the Senate. And no matter who is in control, we might see the return of Senator Scott Brown (whom Warren defeated to win her seat). That is a very big drawback indeed.

As already mentioned, a Clinton/Warren ticket would be the first all-female ticket in American history. But this is a drawback as well as an asset. Sure, it will be inspiring for women voters. But it also might repel some male voters as well. Clinton is already beating Donald Trump among women voters by a large margin. Adding Warren likely wouldn't improve that margin all that much. But Clinton is also losing to Trump among male voters already, and adding Warren might make that margin even larger. It is a definite risk.

Warren lacks experience, although in this particular election that might not be all that big a deal. Warren has little foreign policy experience, and even her Senate experience doesn't reach back all that far (she's in the middle of her first term). Clinton is so extremely qualified and experienced, though, that this may not be that big of a drawback. After Republicans nominated Sarah Palin to their own ticket -- and since they're nominating Donald Trump at the top of their ticket this time around -- it'll be very hard for them to play the "inexperience" card against Warren. Still, people do weigh whether the veep pick would be qualified to take over when making up their minds.

In traditional terms, Warren wouldn't make a lot of political sense when it comes to balancing the ticket geographically. Massachusetts isn't exactly in doubt for the Democrats this November. And Hillary Clinton is now seen as a New Yorker, so naming Warren would mean two Northeasterners on the same ticket. Not a lot of balance there, when using the traditional "pick someone to help you in a swing state" metric.

Warren has already been vetted to some extent by running for the Senate, but her mini-"scandal" will reappear with a vengeance if she becomes Clinton's running mate. Trump is already calling her "Pocahontas" (although he has yet to use the more-popular online right-wing taunt "Faux-cahontas"). But the whole "she claimed Native American ancestry to get ahead" slam will only get worse. Warren already debunked the claim while running for the Senate, but that won't stop Trump from repeating it endlessly. This is not likely to change a whole lot of voters' minds, it bears mentioning, but at the same time the ridicule will be relentless from Trump.

 

Weighing the pros and cons shows that Warren would bring a lot to a Clinton ticket, although not without drawbacks (Senator Scott Brown, especially). But then no vice presidential candidate is going to be perfect. It's already been suggested that Warren might want a different role in a Clinton administration -- perhaps heading Clinton's transition team, or accepting a cabinet position ("Treasury Secretary Warren" has a nice ring to it, don't you think?).

But it certainly is unusual for any politician to actively campaign to be a vice presidential pick. Historically, before Andrew Jackson's time, presidential candidates were never supposed to campaign, never supposed to even hint that they wanted the job, and the only speeches that were deemed acceptable (and not denounced as "electioneering") were literally given from the candidate's own front porch, to whomever happened to wander into their front yard that day. Jackson changed all of that forever, but the coy "Oh, I couldn't possibly ever think of running" expectation still lives on for the vice presidential role (at least, until they're actually named at the convention). Warren seems to be bucking this tradition in a big way. She is now all but holding a sign up at a Clinton rally which reads: "Hey, Hillary, I'd make a dandy veep pick!"

But then this is certainly the election where many traditions are being tossed aside with abandon. If Warren truly does want the job, why shouldn't she actively audition for it? There's really no reason for all the traditional coyness, at this point. On the Republican side, Newt Gingrich is already actively drooling over the prospect he'll be tapped by Trump for the GOP ticket. So there's nothing inherently wrong about a Democrat taking the fight to the Republicans in a big way, early on.

Warren would be a great attack dog. She's already shown the biggest skill necessary for the job this particular year: the ability to get under Trump's skin. Naming Warren would also be the best possible olive branch Clinton could offer to the millions of fervent Bernie Sanders supporters who harbor major doubts about backing Hillary. If Warren ran and won, she'd position herself perfectly for her own presidential run in the future, too.

There are plenty of other possible choices to balance a Hillary Clinton ticket, of course. There are choices which make better sense geographically (Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio springs to mind). But when the Clinton team sits down to make their pick, it's a pretty sure bet that Elizabeth Warren will be somewhere near the top of the short list, through her own efforts. If Warren is auditioning for the vice presidential role, she's certainly doing a bang-up job of showing she is ready, willing, and able to attack Donald Trump on a daily basis. And this year, that's exactly what is going to be needed.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

87 Comments on “Elizabeth Warren's Veep Audition”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Does Senator Warren have native American ancestry?

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Treasury Secretary Warren?

    Ah, no, I don't think so.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Re. [1]

    C'mon, Michale ... don't make me google it! :)

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Elizabeth Warren as "attack dog". Yes, that is her forte. Just ask the previous treasury secretary.

    Of course, Secretary Geithner took the punches like a man and tried to set her straight. Maybe she even learned a lesson or two - about how to avert a second Great Depression and about how to be civil in public discourse. Heh.

    Seriously, if the US suffered another unprecedented financial crisis of a similar magnitude as that experienced eight years ago, I'm not at all convinced that she would know what to do. So, no, treasury secretary does not have a nice ring to it - not at all, anyway you slice it!

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Does Senator Warren have native American ancestry?

    Near as I can recall, she has a mini-scule (1/16th?? 1/32nd??) bit of Native American blood.. No more so than any other person in this country, I would wager..

    If I remember correctly, the problem with this is that Warren listed herself as a Native American when it suited her ambitions and did not list herself as a Native American when it DIDN'T suit her ambitions..

    That shows she is cut from the Hillary Clinton cloth..

    But I honestly don't think Clinton will choose Warren and here is why..

    Hillary is a prima-donna and a selfish and greedy rhymes-with-witch...

    I just can't see Hillary sharing the FIRST WOMAN xxxxx limelight with Warren or with anyone, let alone the woman that has slammed Hillary bad on many occasions.....

    There are choices which make better sense geographically (Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio springs to mind).

    Brown as VP would produce the same SENATE headaches.. Harry Reid is on record as stating he will fight tooth and nail to prevent Hillary from picking a Senator for VP if it will result in turning a Dem seat into a GOP seat...

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Does Senator Warren have native American ancestry?"

    We're talking about her great-great-great grandmother. I don't believe there's any good reason to question her on this, but as usual, the Republicans are lying. This "controversy" is as phony as Benghazi!™ If her great-great-great grandmother had been black, there's no doubt she'd be considered black. You've heard of the "one drop rule", no?

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I said, the controversy doesn't come from Warren claiming she is Native American...

    The controversy comes from her claiming it when it suits her agenda and NOT claiming it when it doesn't..

    But, by all means, set up that Strawman!! :D Makes ya feel so empowered to beat up on that Strawman, eh? :D

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks, Michale and JFC!

    I recall hearing something about this but, only very vaguely.

    So, Michale, I'm not sure what you mean about claiming Native American ancestry only when it suited her ambitions. When did she not claim it? I mean, you either make the claim or you don't. How can anyone try to have it both ways?

  9. [9] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "she has a mini-scule (1/16th?? 1/32nd??) bit of Native American blood.. No more so than any other person in this country, I would wager.."

    Your willingness to make such a foolish wager indicates that you do believe there's something controversial about her ancestral claim. You would lose that wager.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your willingness to make such a foolish wager indicates that you do believe there's something controversial about her ancestral claim.

    As I have said.. TWICE now..

    There is little to no controversy regarding Warren's ancestral claim..

    The controversy comes from how she uses her ancestral claim..

    Seriously, dood.. Give the strawman a breather.. He looks in bad shape...

    :D

    Liz,

    When did she not claim it? I mean, you either make the claim or you don't.

    Near as I can remember, Warren used her "minority" status to obtain favored hiring status and more $$$$ at Harvard...

    How can anyone try to have it both ways?

    Elizabeth Miller, meet the Democrat Party.. Democrat Party, meet Elizabeth Miller... :D

    To be fair, the GOP is also famous for trying to have it both ways.. I am sure ya'all can come up with examples.. :D

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Big tough guy.. Beating up on that poor defenseless little ol' straw man....

    Have you no soul!!!???? :D

    heh

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    But I honestly don't think Clinton will choose Warren ...

    I think you're right about that.

    But, that doesn't mean Warren won't still be an effective "attack dog" in highlighting the myriad of deficiencies that is the Trump campaign for the presidency.

    Indeed, with both Sanders and Warren doing a fairly effective job of outlining why a President Trump would be a disaster for America and the world, and with Hillary coming across as ... oh, how shall I say ... less than presidential when she tries to do the same, Hillary would be wise to refrain from trading insults with Trump and just stick very closely to the issues and taunting Trump over his vacuous policy proposals.

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    To be fair, the GOP is also famous for trying to have it both ways.. I am sure ya'all can come up with examples.. :D

    There you go again, Michale, taking a phrase (having it both ways) out of context.

    I was specifically asking how a person could claim native ancestry on one occasion and not claim it on another.

    It sounds like you are standing on shaky ground while holding onto a weak limb when you make that accusation about Warren.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    I was specifically asking how a person could claim native ancestry on one occasion and not claim it on another.

    How can a person rob a bank?? How can a person embezzle??

    You would have to ask Warren how she can do that..

    But the simple fact is, she DID do that...

    It sounds like you are standing on shaky ground while holding onto a weak limb when you make that accusation about Warren.

    Not at all. I could (somewhat) easily prove my case.. But I know it will be pointless as such proof NEVER elicits the acknowledgement it deserves, so why bother???

    But, that doesn't mean Warren won't still be an effective "attack dog" in highlighting the myriad of deficiencies that is the Trump campaign for the presidency.

    Yea, she might be good at that.. On the other hand, she is only an after-thought to Trump... If he were to train big guns on her, I doubt she could withstand the pressure..

    Warren is great when in front of crowds who adore her...

    If she were to face a hostile crowd?? She would fold like a cheap suit...

    Hillary would be wise to refrain from trading insults with Trump

    Word.... But Hillary has proven time and time again that she is incapable of SEEING the wise thing, let alone actually DOING the wise thing...

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Hillary and Trump will have no choice but to trade insults.
    To paraphrase an old saying:
    "If you can't say something nice- you must be talking about Trump or Clinton."

  16. [16] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Warren has already decided to remain in the Senate.
    She will not want to let the Republican Governor appoint a Republican replacement. She may not want to be president at all.
    If she does her best option at this point is to attack Trump now and run against him in 2020.

    Michale- preemptive defense: opinion.

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You're not saying that there is no difference between the flawed Democratic nominee for president and Trump, are you Don?

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    "If you can't say something nice- you must be talking about Trump or Clinton."

    heh

    "It's funny cuz it's true"
    -Homer Simpson

    :D

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If she does, her best option at this point is to attack Trump now and run against him in 2020.

    You think Trump will want to mount another losing presidential campaign in 2020?

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale- preemptive defense: opinion.

    Preachin' to the choir...

    Warren AND Brown won't get picked for VP because Democrats are salivating at taking control of the Senate..

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    (17) No. but in my opinion they are equally bad for different reasons.
    (19) If- I mean IF (wish I could make that bigger)- Hillary wins Warren won't run in 2020. If Trump loses and runs again in 2020 he will not be the nominee.

    Maybe Warren will finish her Senate term and hope Hillary puts her in charge of the Consumer Protection Bureau, if it still exists.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bernie Treads Where Clinton Fears To Follow!!!
    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/26/bernie-sanders-agrees-to-debate-donald-trump.html

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    Let me rephrase [17] ...

    Given the less than ideal choice between Clinton and Trump, who do you think would be a more effective president in terms of making some positive progress (I'll let you define what that is), domestically and internationally?

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    As the primary campaign comes to an end, Sanders faces a choice and a test. He could urge his supporters—many newcomers to politics—to join up with the broader party to help Clinton defeat Trump. Or he could shift his insurgency into a full revolt in a final effort to remake the party in his progressive image, moderates be damned. For the moment, he has made his decision. He will mount a “messy”—his word—fight at the convention in the name of redefining the party and becoming its nominee. He will argue for changes to the way the party chooses its nominees and even bigger changes to its dogma, including a $15 minimum wage, free college tuition at public schools, tax hikes on the wealthy, government-­funded health coverage and paid family leave. If he doesn’t get his way, his supporters might ditch the party.
    http://time.com/bernie-sanders-2016-campaign/

    Doesn't bode well for the Democrat Party...

    Bernie certainly doesn't own the Party any loyalty...

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bernie Treads Where Clinton Fears To Follow!!!
    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/26/bernie-sanders-agrees-to-debate-donald-trump.html

    Ya'all gotta admit... Bernie and Trump out-maneuvered Hillary beautifully...

    Bernie and Trump will get ALL the media attention and Hillary is left out in the rain, trying to get a glimpse of a party she wasn't invited to...

    1000 quatloos says Hillary tries to finagle an invitation.... :D

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    1000 quatloos says Hillary orchestrated the whole thing. A Bernie-Trump debate is good for her. It won't do the rest of us any harm, either. :)

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    . A Bernie-Trump debate is good for her.

    How so???

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think Bernie has demonstrated that, aside from Elizabeth Warren, he is one of the best at deconstructing Trump and laying bare Trump's many and varied flaws without making himself look weak in the process.

    Hillary, on the other hand, comes across to me as being far less than presidential whenever she tries to criticize or counter-attack Trump. It just doesn't look good on her, for some reason.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think Bernie has demonstrated that, aside from Elizabeth Warren, he is one of the best at deconstructing Trump and laying bare Trump's many and varied flaws without making himself look weak in the process.

    Hillary, on the other hand, comes across to me as being far less than presidential whenever she tries to criticize or counter-attack Trump. It just doesn't look good on her, for some reason.

    So, basically, this debate will show that Bernie can take down Trump and Hillary can't...

    I just don't see Hillary orchestrating that kind of message.. :D

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course, there are obvious drawbacks to a Trump-Sanders debate, evidenced by Trump salivating over the possibility of it.

    And, that has to do with Bernie's self-described identification with democratic socialism. Which can certainly be well-defended by Sanders but, nevertheless, it is great fodder for Trump.

    1,000,000 quatloos says that Sanders's honeymoon in Russia would take prominence in such a debate. :)

  31. [31] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I just don't see Hillary orchestrating that kind of message.. :D

    She probably didn't have to ...

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Remember, Michale ... this presidential campaign is anything but traditional.

    A Trump-Sanders debate before the conventions and before we have an official Democrat nominee is good for anyone who cares about the future of America.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    A Trump-Sanders debate before the conventions and before we have an official Democrat nominee is good for anyone who cares about the future of America.

    We are in complete agreement..

    Which is ANOTHER reason why I don't think it's good for Hillary.. :D

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    We'll see ... if that debate materializes and I hope it does!

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:
  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry, Weigantians..

    No GOP Contested Convention for you.... :D

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    We'll see ... if that debate materializes and I hope it does!

    You and me both.. I wonder what other Weigantians think... :D

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think we have all resigned ourselves to the reality that Trump is the Republican. Some of us have even concluded that he could win the general election. Which, of course, would be disastrous.

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think we have all resigned ourselves to the reality that Trump is the Republican nominee. Some of us have even concluded that he could win the general election. Which, of course, would be disastrous.

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think we have all resigned ourselves to the reality that Trump is the Republican nominee. Some of us have even concluded that he could win the general election. Which, of course, would be disastrous.

    Yes and maybe...

    It also could be wondrous... :D

    It surely can't be any worse than Obama's tenure...

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    It surely can't be any worse than Obama's tenure...

    I am sure you will disagree.. :D

    Let's compare notes at the 2018 MidTerms and see how good/bad President Trump has done...

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    John M wrote:

    Going back to a thread in previous posts concerning polls for a moment:

    A Rasmussen Reports analysis found a direct correlation between a president's approval rating and the fate of the incumbent party's nominee in the general election. Of the six open-seat elections since World War II, all three candidates seeking to succeed presidents with approval ratings below 50 percent were defeated, the two seeking to succeed presidents with approval ratings below 40 percent were decisively defeated, and two of the three candidates seeking to succeed presidents with approval ratings above 50 percent won the popular vote, according to an analysis by Alan Abramowitz, a professor of political science at Emory University.

    According to results from a Gallup poll conducted from telephone interviews between Feb. 29 and March 6, Obama's approval rating with 10 months to go in office is roughly the same as Ronald Reagan's in March 1988 (51 percent).

    If those trends hold true, then that bodes well for voters giving Democrats a third term in office, just like the fist George Bush was essentially given a third Ronald Reagan term.

  43. [43] 
    John M wrote:

    I should point out that historically, the factors that have had by far the biggest impact on who gets elected to the Presidency in November, other than how well a campaign each candidate has run, has been how popular the current President is in office at the time of the election, and the state of the economy.

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Considering the uniqueness of the 2016 election, I really don't think any past precedents are going to be relevant..

    Having said that, you really can't compare the mood of the electorate at the end of Reagan's administration to the mood of the electorate at the end of Obama's administration...

    Back then, Americans were gaa gaa over America and saw a bright future ahead..

    Not so under Obama....

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Also, this....

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/05/24/an-update-and-some-big-site-news/#comment-75838

    ... has relevance to your comments...

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Teacher1941 wrote:

    I swan the biggest problem people have when handicapping what Senator Warren will, or will not do, is that, unlike the rest of the Senate, she has a highly profitable 'day job' to which she can return.

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, with politicians like her, it's ALL about the profits....

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    dsws wrote:

    The veepship isn't worth a warm bucket. Elizabeth Warren sounds to me as though she wants to be Lion of the Senate, spiritual leader of the Democratic Party, and a hero to future generations of historians. None of that works out as well if she stands aside and lets The Donald waltz into the Oval Office.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    My poli-sci teacher in High School told us that the best OJT for POTUS was Mayor Of New York City...

    Of course, that's back when we used stone knives and bearskins and did our homework with charcoal by lantern light..

    :D

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, honestly..

    Take a step back..

    What has Senator Warren actually accomplished??

    Predatory Lenders still have the upper hand...

    Middle Class is getting smaller and screwd-er..

    Poor are getting poorer..

    And the 1% are getting 1%-er...

    So, what EXACTLY are we cheering Warren for???

    M ichale

  51. [51] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    dsws wrote:

    "The veepship isn't worth a warm bucket."

    Everyone says that about being VP, but in all honesty, the VP's role can be anything the administration allows it to be. Look at Cheney's years as VP. He was by far the most powerful VP to date, and quite honestly ran the Iraqi War for Bush. If Clinton is smart, she will take full advantage of Warren's ability to rally the people and give her the authority to oversee some of the Wall Street repairs that Clinton isn't as willing to do herself. As long as Clinton doesn't allow Warren's popularity to become a point of resentment between them, I think Clinton's presidency could achieve amazing things with a strong VP by her side.

  52. [52] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (23)-
    As for quality of the presidency Clinton will be closer to Bush than to Obama. Trump is too much of an unknown quantity, so he could be as bad as Bush or slightly worse. Doubtful that he will be better than Bush, won't be as good as Obama.
    Neither Trump or Clinton is good enough to vote for.
    How effective whatever is elected president depends on what happens with Congress.

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I hear you Don. I just hate it when people start making comparisons between Republicans and Democrats and saying that one is as bad as the other.

    From my vantage point, that is decidedly not the case.

    You don't think Hillary learned anything from the GWBush years?

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    dsws,

    The veepship isn't worth a warm bucket.

    While that may have been true at one time, it is not a valid statement today. Not in the least.

    Think Biden and Cheney. Just please think in polar opposite terms, for God's sake! :)

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://time.com/4346173/clinton-trump-election-hell/

    Heh

    That says it all.... :D

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    Trump is too much of an unknown quantity, so he could be as bad as Bush or slightly worse. Doubtful that he will be better than Bush, won't be as good as Obama.

    Seems to be a contradiction there..

    If Trump is an "unknown quantity" it's entirely possible he could be better than Bush and way WAY better than Obama..

    Hell, my Rottie, Athena could be better than Obama...

    And she's female to boot, so there ya go... :D

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    I hear you Don. I just hate it when people start making comparisons between Republicans and Democrats and saying that one is as bad as the other.

    From my vantage point, that is decidedly not the case.

    Despite all the FACTS to the contrary.... :D

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    FACT #1

    We Now Know Hillary Lied Multiple Times About Her Email Server
    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/05/26/We-Now-Know-Hillary-Lied-Multiple-Times-About-Her-Email-Server

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, like it or not, Hillary Clinton is the quintessential Democrat...

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If Trump is an "unknown quantity" it's entirely possible he could be better than Bush and way WAY better than Obama..

    And I thought I was the cockeyed optimist around here. :)

  61. [61] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Just got to last night's article now. Oddly, my wife and I just had this discussion last night.

    I disagree with CW's basic premise. I don't think Warren is auditioning for VP. She gets to be a second attack dog, completely outside Clinton's Prez circle. Because she is so well-known, she doesn't even provide opportunity for blowback to Clinton.

    I think Warren is just relishing her "fight" with Trump. That simple.

    I've also noticed that none of Trump's schoolyard taunts has actually stuck to Warren. He tried "Goofy," but that went nowhere. He's tried the Native thing, but that only appeals to the conspiracy-minded base. He's now doing "big mouth," but that most certainly will not help him.

    As for VPs, OK, let's play that game.

    Brown has the same GOP Gov problem as Warren. If we want a progressive to bring over Sanders supporters, then Al Franken or Tom Perez qualify. Franken has a Dem Gov, so that part isn't a problem, and Franken may be one of the few people able to go head-to-head with Trump.

    Perez is the most progressive person in Obama's circle. His work at DOJ Civil Rights was exemplary (saved the subgroup). His work as Labor Sec is awesome.

    While Trump means that Clinton probably doesn't "have to" nominate a Latino, Perez avoids all of the drawbacks of a Castro brother. He also provides a way of nominating a Latino without it being pandering (he's damned competent, in other words).

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Despite all the FACTS to the contrary

    Precisely, Michale!

    One is so much worse than the other when it comes to the real issues such as fiscal and tax policy and the all-important - ahem - foreign policy.

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Speak2,

    You make a good case for VP.

    A most welcome comment, in the general sense. It's always nice to read about competent public servants as opposed to "all the pols are the same" nonsense. (not quoting anyone in particular ... ahem)

  64. [64] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Thank you, EM.

    On a different note, has anyone noticed that the whole FLA open seat in the Senate is being questioned?

    Now that Rubio is not running for Prez and he still has time before the filing deadline....

    I mentioned this possibility a while back in CW's Comments section.

    Apparently, there are now reports to this effect (affect?).

  65. [65] 
    neilm wrote:

    If we want a progressive to bring over Sanders supporters, then Al Franken or Tom Perez qualify

    Can you imagine how much fun VP candidate Al Franken and his team of SNL writers are going to have turning Trump into a twitter laughing stock? Trump will probably cancel his twitter account after a week of being ridiculed.

    I mean, he tried to take on Jon Stewart than dived for cover after the "F#ckFace Von Clownstick" moniker went viral.

  66. [66] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Full disclosure, neilm. A Politico article a bit ago hypothesized about a Franken VP slot. I thought is was spot on (to use your phrasing).

  67. [67] 
    Paula wrote:

    Al Franken or Tom Perez -- either would be great!

    Sherrod Brown has insisted, multiple times, he is not interested in being VP or ever running for President.

    So has Elizabeth Warren. I love her but I think she's outstanding right where she is. She has been amazing in the Senate -- she showed up and instantly started making things happen. Future Majority Leader material.

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    And I thought I was the cockeyed optimist around here. :)

    I have always said I am a Cup Is Half Full kinda guy.. :D

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    One is so much worse than the other when it comes to the real issues such as fiscal and tax policy and the all-important - ahem - foreign policy.

    EXACTLY..

    Bengahzi

    Libya

    Russia

    Syria

    Hillary has fraked it ALL up...

    Trump is going to go in there, knock some heads and get the whole area to straighten up and fly right...

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can you imagine how much fun VP candidate Al Franken and his team of SNL writers are going to have turning Trump into a twitter laughing stock? Trump will probably cancel his twitter account after a week of being ridiculed.

    More wishcasting...

    I mean, come'on...

    It's not as if the best minds on the Left AND the Right has tried to destroy Trump..

    And NONE of it worked...

    What part of YA'ALL CAN'T HANDLE TRUMP do ya'all not understand???

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awww carp!!!

    Can you imagine how much fun VP candidate Al Franken and his team of SNL writers are going to have turning Trump into a twitter laughing stock? Trump will probably cancel his twitter account after a week of being ridiculed.

    More wishcasting...

    I mean, come'on...

    It's not as if the best minds on the Left AND the Right has tried to destroy Trump..

    And NONE of it worked...

    What part of YA'ALL CAN'T HANDLE TRUMP do ya'all not understand???

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Trump is going to go in there, knock some heads and get the whole area to straighten up and fly right...

    That's just way too funny, Michale.

    Shall we compare and contrast the Bush II and Obama foreign policy achievements/disasters? Shall we!? Then we can compare the Republican and Democrat tax and fiscal policy.

  73. [73] 
    dsws wrote:

    The veepship isn't worth a warm bucket. Special advisor to the president is worth plenty, but that can be a chief of staff, a cabinet member, or a no-official-position member of a kitchen cabinet. Maybe even a spouse. It can be a veep, sure, but the only things that are actually in the package deal are a footnote in history, a place at the head of the line of succession, and the ability to cast a vote in the Senate if the actual senators tie. The only actual authority would be a step down for someone who can already cast a for-real vote in the Senate.

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's quite a restricted view of the vice presidency and ignores some very recent history.

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Shall we compare and contrast the Bush II and Obama foreign policy achievements/disasters? Shall we!?

    I would love to!!!

    Bush gave Obama and safe and stable Iraq..

    Howz Iraq these days??

    Howz Libya??

    Howz Syria??

    Obama brought back the Cold War and the threat of Nuclear WWIII... China is doing DETERRENT Patrols for the first time..

    By all means.. Let's examine Obama and his Foreign Policy.. :D

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama has the distinction of being the ONLY US President to be at war his ENTIRE 2 terms...

    Obama came into office with 1 war and 1 winding down war..

    Obama leaves office with THREE WARS....

    Yea.. Let's talk Obama Foreign Policy disasters... :D

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    1000 quatloos says Hillary orchestrated the whole thing. A Bernie-Trump debate is good for her. It won't do the rest of us any harm, either. :)

    But it’s once again time for us to bow in homage to his political skill as well as his good luck. The possibility of a debate between Trump and Bernie Sanders that started with a challenge on the “Jimmy Kimmel Show” and which ought to be the top political story of the day – even on the day that he formally clinched the nomination by getting past the 1,237 delegate mark — isn’t just yet another example of the Donald winning a news cycle. It’s an example of how he is cleverly undermining his already floundering general election opponent Hillary Clinton.
    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/trump-beats-clinton-with-sanders-debate/

    There is no way in hell that a Trump/Sanders debate is good for Hillary...

    Hillary got rooked by Trump *AND* Sanders.... :D

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, this is unprecedented...

    Trump and Sanders in cahoots to smack down Hillary... :D

    Going to make a prediction here..

    If this debate goes ahead, it will win California for Bernie...

    And Trump's masterful stroke?? Making the "buy in" a donation to women's health programs....

    Say what you want about Trump, but he certainly knows ALL the buttons to push. The bad ones AND the good ones... :D

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There is no way in hell that a Trump/Sanders debate is good for Hillary...

    You underestimate Sanders.

  80. [80] 
    dsws wrote:

    That's quite a restricted view of the vice presidency and ignores some very recent history.

    Ok, what am I missing? Cheney, Gore, and Biden have had the ear of their respective presidents, and have been given significant responsibilities by those presidents. But what is it about the office of the vice presidency that compelled Bush, Clinton, and Obama to do so, rather than turning to someone else? I don't see anything.

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Huh?

    What was it about the office that compelled ... what are you asking???

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    dsws,

    Why do you think president-elect Obama chose Biden as his running mate?

  83. [83] 
    dsws wrote:

    I'm asking why it's the vice presidency itself that made recent veeps important, and not the fact that they had influence with the president. I think the next president could perfectly well decide not to give the next veep any clout. Cheney was a key advisor to Bush, but if Hillary wins and looks for an advisor, she need look no further than Bill.

    I think Obama chose Biden because (1) he understood that he's mortal and thought Biden would make a decent president if he died, (2) choosing Biden would leave the way clear for Hillary to run now, thereby making her and her supporters more inclined to support Obama enthusiastically then, and (3) Biden didn't have any electoral drawbacks to counter item 2. I'm sure there were more factors, such as what sort of signal the choice sent voters (via pundits) about his policies if elected.

  84. [84] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, dsws, I believe you missed the boat on the question about why Obama chose Biden, so let me address that first.

    As I wrote when Obama became the Democratic nominee for president, his veep short list had only one serious name on it, Senator Biden.

    Given Senator Obama's obvious shortcomings - which he understood very well, credit where credit is due! - and given the situation prevailing in the US and around the world, not to mention the growing global financial crisis, Biden was really the only truly serious candidate running for president in 2008, on either side of the aisle. Certainly, he was the only one offering up a viable strategy for US policy in Iraq, a strategy that garnered bipartisan support in the Senate by a margin of 73-25. Which was probably the last time a vote like that ever occurred on such a critical foreign policy issue.

    Secondly, I believe Biden was seriously considering running for president this cycle had personal and tragic family matters not intervened. You also make the assumption - wrongly, in my view - that Obama favoured a Clinton succession at the outset of his presidency.

    To answer your question ... there is nothing inherent in the office of the vice president that compelled the selection of Cheney or Biden. Nothing at all.

  85. [85] 
    dsws wrote:

    I don't think Obama particularly favored a Clinton succession himself; I think he needed the enthusiastic support of Clinton and the supposed PUMAs.

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's why he made her SOS ... well, that and to put her and Bill in a box with a tight lid on it for four years. Heh.

  87. [87] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Didn't the SOS appointment come after Obama was elected?

Comments for this article are closed.