General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf in 2017 Elizabeth Warren firmly believes that President Clinton is being too soft on Wall Street,
would it be easier for her to do something about it as Vice President or as a US senator? Doesn't a Vice President, by convention, never publicly criticize the President? Would it not be much easier for Warren to hold President Clinton's feet to the fire as a Senator than as VP?
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)Wounded Bear
(58,440 posts)and, sadly, might be a reason the Clinton camp would want her to be. With as good of a chance as we have right now to flip the Senate, I would hate to lose a strong voice like Warren's in the Senate to somewhat meaningless position.
One big positive is that if Warren is VP, the vast RW conspiracy might be less likely to seek out a Kennedy-like solution.
liberal N proud
(60,302 posts)The VP is like having a spare tire, hope you never need them.
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)Do you truly believe Hillary may be too soft on Wall Street ?
Do you realize you are stepping out of line?
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)scscholar
(2,902 posts)and take no action, the role of VP would be a better position for her to push change.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)primary Clinton in 4 years.