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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:00 PM Jun 2016

WaPo:Elizabeth Warren still isn’t going to be Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential pick.

Which brings me to Warren and Clinton. Warren got lots of attention on Thursday night for endorsing Clinton. Part of that is because she is a national figure who is regarded as one of the leading voices of liberals. But, another big part is that she was the only Democratic women senator who hadn't endorsed Clinton long ago. And, it's not only that: When asked about the race for the past six months, Warren painted it as essentially a toss-up between Clinton and Bernie Sanders. For all of that time, it wasn't.

Trust me when I tell you that Warren withholding her support — and making sure that people knew she was still withholding her support — did not and does not sit well in Clintonworld. Warren was already regarded by many within the Democratic establishment — including a decent-sized chunk of the Obamans — as a bit of a grandstanding, holier-than-thou figure. (Her relationship with Clinton has been very up and down through the years as well.) Warren's decision to keep on the sidelines throughout the primary process only reinforced that sense for many people.

If Clinton doesn't have a problem on her left to solve, then adding Warren to the ticket only brings potential problems. She is an unapologetic liberal and someone who is directly in line with Sanders on the dim view that she takes toward Wall Street as well as the wealthiest Americans. Warren is loathed by conservatives, and a Clinton-Warren ticket might be the one thing that could convince lots of Republicans who are uncertain about Donald Trump to make a lesser-of-two-evils vote for the real estate mogul.

It would also allow Trump to paint the ticket as "the most liberal in the history of America" or some such, a potentially potent attack for him as he tries to turn the spotlight away from his shaky candidacy. Trump may say that of the Democratic ticket no matter who Clinton picks. But, you don't want to make it easy for him if you are a Democrat.

Vice presidential picks are the most personal and closely guarded of all decisions within a presidential campaign. That makes them inherently hard to handicap. So, it's possible Clinton has an amazing meeting with Warren today and winds up putting her on the ticket. But, I sincerely doubt it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/10/why-i-still-dont-think-elizabeth-warren-makes-hillary-clintons-vice-presidential-shortlist/

19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WaPo:Elizabeth Warren still isn’t going to be Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential pick. (Original Post) azurnoir Jun 2016 OP
Let's hope not. TheCowsCameHome Jun 2016 #1
Of course, this is just to generate excitement and publicity for the campaign really, PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #2
Yep, looks like a show. What would the DNC & financial sectors think of this? nt Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #8
she would be a fool,to be hrc's vp. juxtaposed Jun 2016 #3
I really want Senator Warren to remain just that: a Senator. n/t CaliforniaPeggy Jun 2016 #4
Yep, she's far more valuable as a Senator. DinahMoeHum Jun 2016 #6
How great that would be! n/t CaliforniaPeggy Jun 2016 #16
Interesting analysis. NurseJackie Jun 2016 #5
Of one person's opinion only. Love how the OP title makes it sound "official" Maru Kitteh Jun 2016 #11
Many of them do tend to be single-minded about things ... NurseJackie Jun 2016 #12
It is the title of the article I left off "here's why" at the end azurnoir Jun 2016 #17
She was my choice for first woman POTUS. George Eliot Jun 2016 #7
Your subject line is misleading. This is an opinion piece, not a news story being published by WaPo Maven Jun 2016 #9
Please consider clicking the link as it is the title of the article azurnoir Jun 2016 #18
If you are against it sounds like a good idea. Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #10
Clinton's judgement will never improve. That is why she won't pick Warren as a VP. w4rma Jun 2016 #13
I believe you are completely incorrect on this. OnDoutside Jun 2016 #14
That was poorly written Renew Deal Jun 2016 #15
" If Clinton doesn't have a problem on her left to solve" Barack_America Jun 2016 #19

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
2. Of course, this is just to generate excitement and publicity for the campaign really,
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:08 PM
Jun 2016

and to give Warren a little higher profile in the war against Trump.

DinahMoeHum

(21,787 posts)
6. Yep, she's far more valuable as a Senator.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:12 PM
Jun 2016

And one day, maybe sooner, she'll be called Senate Majority Leader.

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
12. Many of them do tend to be single-minded about things ...
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:29 PM
Jun 2016

... and are responsive only to things that confirm or validate their pre-held beliefs and biases. (Take for example, the notion that Bernie still might pull-out a win in California ... or that the super-delegates might still change their mind and give Bernie the nomination.)

I like a good analysis-piece as much as the next person (not including the kooky stuff) but to present it as being official, or carved in stone ... when it's just one person's opinion ... is odd.

(Edit: Chris Cillizza and Matt Taibbi aren't quite as bad as HA Goodman ... but that's not really a compliment either.)

George Eliot

(701 posts)
7. She was my choice for first woman POTUS.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:14 PM
Jun 2016

After Bernie, what a succession that would have been. She's been up front for sbrtshr Americans since day one and before. My current hope is getting down-ticket dems elected on behalf of Bernie. They will protect his agenda as possible.

Maven

(10,533 posts)
9. Your subject line is misleading. This is an opinion piece, not a news story being published by WaPo
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:19 PM
Jun 2016

Please consider revising.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
18. Please consider clicking the link as it is the title of the article
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:41 PM
Jun 2016

I left off "here's why" at the end

Demsrule86

(68,565 posts)
10. If you are against it sounds like a good idea.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:21 PM
Jun 2016

If Washingtonpost is against it...sounds like a good idea...aww-It might happen.

OnDoutside

(19,956 posts)
14. I believe you are completely incorrect on this.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:45 PM
Jun 2016

1. Warren had little/no working relationship with Clinton

2. Warren certainly had a good working relationship with Sanders

3. Warren was absolutely expected to endorse Sanders

4. Clintonworld would never have expected an endorsement from Warren, they would have been happy that she sat on the fence. Your supposition falls flat bearing in mind where Warren was today.

5. Trump is only, at best, playing with 41%. He can paint it any way he wants.

Renew Deal

(81,858 posts)
15. That was poorly written
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:48 PM
Jun 2016

And it's all FUD. Being the OMG most liberal evah didn't hurt Obama and it won't hurt Hillary.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»WaPo:Elizabeth Warren sti...