Clinton VP news LATEST: Podesta now calling the losers to tell them its not them

[Frodo]

Castro is the ultimate empty suit and Booker is actually in bed with Wall Street.

HUGE f'ing mistake to pick either of them.

Yeah, if she's going Latino Perez would be the better pick. At least he speaks Latin.

Latin?

[Frodo]

One other factor that Hillary needs to put into consideration is the fact that if she wants to do more than just play defense (i.e. protecting Barack Obama's legacy) and enact a transformative progressive agenda of her own, she is going to need a Democratic congress -which in turn requires activists excited enough to get out and do the grunt work to make it happen.  And sad to say it seems her candidacy alone won't be enough -she needs a veep who can electrify the ticket, and down the ballot as well.

Which veep can do that best? 

[Frodo]

One other factor that Hillary needs to put into consideration is the fact that if she wants to do more than just play defense (i.e. protecting Barack Obama's legacy) and enact a transformative progressive agenda of her own, she is going to need a Democratic congress -which in turn requires activists excited enough to get out and do the grunt work to make it happen.  And sad to say it seems her candidacy alone won't be enough -she needs a veep who can electrify the ticket, and down the ballot as well.

Which veep can do that best?  

Warren, but she won't pick her. It would just make this election a right vs left choice and I think Clinton wants to avoid that.  

As Obama proved, you don't need to use the VP slot to placate your opponent -there are better ways. I would pick an issue near and dear to Sanders (College costs seems like a good one) and promise to make him or one of his supporters the "Reform Tsar" on that issue.

This isn't just about placating the more skeptical Sanders supporters.  It's about winning Congress as well as keeping the White House in Democratic hands.  

[Frodo]

One other factor that Hillary needs to put into consideration is the fact that if she wants to do more than just play defense (i.e. protecting Barack Obama's legacy) and enact a transformative progressive agenda of her own, she is going to need a Democratic congress -which in turn requires activists excited enough to get out and do the grunt work to make it happen.  And sad to say it seems her candidacy alone won't be enough -she needs a veep who can electrify the ticket, and down the ballot as well.

Which veep can do that best?  

Warren, but she won't pick her. It would just make this election a right vs left choice and I think Clinton wants to avoid that.  

As Obama proved, you don't need to use the VP slot to placate your opponent -there are better ways. I would pick an issue near and dear to Sanders (College costs seems like a good one) and promise to make him or one of his supporters the "Reform Tsar" on that issue.

This isn't just about placating the more skeptical Sanders supporters.  It's about winning Congress as well as keeping the White House in Democratic hands.  

If her opponent is either Trump or Cruz, Democratic control of Congress is a foregone conclusion (with or without a Progressive VP). If progressives will not pick Hillary over thos e two, she shouldn't be in this race.

If her opponent is Kasich (or a white Knight mainstream Republican), picking a Progressive could cost her the election, never mind Congress.

Either way, it doesn't make sense.

Oh, I am not worried about Hillary not winning the White House -given her opponents, that is a foregone conclusion.  I know she is in effect our next President.  What I am concerned about is minimizing ticket-splitting.  I don't want to keep the White House only to have Congress (or one chamber of Congress) remaining in Republican hands.  

Oh, and as to this comment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With Trump or Cruz, Democratic control of both houses of Congress is a distinct possibility.  With Elizabeth Warren as her veep, then it becomes a foregone conclusion.  We need that excitement, the inspiration that an all-woman ticket would bring to the race. 

[Frodo]

One other factor that Hillary needs to put into consideration is the fact that if she wants to do more than just play defense (i.e. protecting Barack Obama's legacy) and enact a transformative progressive agenda of her own, she is going to need a Democratic congress -which in turn requires activists excited enough to get out and do the grunt work to make it happen.  And sad to say it seems her candidacy alone won't be enough -she needs a veep who can electrify the ticket, and down the ballot as well.

Which veep can do that best?  

Warren, but she won't pick her. It would just make this election a right vs left choice and I think Clinton wants to avoid that.  

As Obama proved, you don't need to use the VP slot to placate your opponent -there are better ways. I would pick an issue near and dear to Sanders (College costs seems like a good one) and promise to make him or one of his supporters the "Reform Tsar" on that issue.

This isn't just about placating the more skeptical Sanders supporters.  It's about winning Congress as well as keeping the White House in Democratic hands.  

If her opponent is either Trump or Cruz, Democratic control of Congress is a foregone conclusion (with or without a Progressive VP). If progressives will not pick Hillary over thos e two, she shouldn't be in this race.

If her opponent is Kasich (or a white Knight mainstream Republican), picking a Progressive could cost her the election, never mind Congress.

Either way, it doesn't make sense.

Oh, I am not worried about Hillary not winning the White House -given her opponents, that is a foregone conclusion.  I know she is in effect our next President.  What I am concerned about is minimizing ticket-splitting.  I don't want to keep the White House only to have Congress (or one chamber of Congress) remaining in Republican hands.  

While I do not agree that Clinton is a foregone conclusion, if she faces someone like Kasich or Ryan, how do you see a Progressive VP helping with taking over the Senate (the House imho will not be in play unless Trump is the candidate)?

The only way that someone like Kasich or Ryan could be the nominee is through a contested convention, which would result in Trump either running as a third party candidate, or at the very least urging his supporters not to support the GOP nominee.  And given their alienation from the Republican Party, in all likelihood they will listen to him.  

The Presidency is securely in Democratic hands no matter who the GOP nominates.  And I think the bigwigs in the GOP establishment know the Presidency is a lost cause (at least this year), so their main objective is trying not to lose Congress as well as the Presidency.  

Which is where the value of a veep like Elizabeth Warren comes in -she brings excitement to the ticket in a way that Hillary seems to have failed to do.  Democrats can leverage that to win Congress making our triumph complete, at least at the federal level.  

[Frodo]

On CNN just now, confirmed that the list is 5-6 people, Christie is on it, Rubio and Pence are not.

Did Jim Webb make it? 

[Frodo]

Oh hell yeah, guys:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-donald-trump-vice-president_us_5734e8efe4b060aa7819c184

While I have advocated Elizabeth Warren as Hillary's running-mate, I admit I wasn't sure whether she wanted the role, or whether Hillary would be comfortable with her.

This quote goes a long way in allaying my fears:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Frodo]

It's safe to say by this point that Hillary cannot afford to pick a centrist/center-left running-mate like Tim Kaine, not if she is to have any hope of reconciling with Sanders' supporters (not to mention Bernie himself) and get them energized for November.  There's a host of other, more substantive changes that would need to be made to the Democratic Party, but picking a running-mate that could gin up enthusiasm for Hillary would be an excellent start.  

[Frodo]

I like Warren, but she should stay in the senate. Castro or Booker would make a better Vice President. Kaine and Franken would also be solid picks. I also wouldn’t mind to keep Uncle Joe on the second spot, though that’s no realistic scenario.

I know I say this ad nauseum ... Booker and Castro (one is in actually in the pockets of Wall St and other is a nice guy with an interesting story but no real accomplishments) would be complete disasters. Kaine would be OK? But fundamentally nothing. Franken's the only one in that list who I think can do the job required.

Well, Kaine has legislative and executive experience. He would be a solid pick. And he’s from a swing state and speaks Spanish.

And inspires no one.  Hilary lacks excitement on her ticket.  Warren would add that, without any of the negatives associated with Julian Castro or Cory Booker.

[Frodo]

I like Warren, but she should stay in the senate. Castro or Booker would make a better Vice President. Kaine and Franken would also be solid picks. I also wouldn’t mind to keep Uncle Joe on the second spot, though that’s no realistic scenario.

I know I say this ad nauseum ... Booker and Castro (one is in actually in the pockets of Wall St and other is a nice guy with an interesting story but no real accomplishments) would be complete disasters. Kaine would be OK? But fundamentally nothing. Franken's the only one in that list who I think can do the job required.

Well, Kaine has legislative and executive experience. He would be a solid pick. And he’s from a swing state and speaks Spanish.

And inspires no one.  Hilary lacks excitement on her ticket.  Warren would add that, without any of the negatives associated with Julian Castro or Cory Booker.

I don’t say she would be a bad choice, but Hillary needs more male votes. So, a male VP may bring in them.

I see no reason why we have to cater to them.  Any man intending on voting against Hillary because of her gender is highly unlikely to change his mind because she selected a bro instead of another woman.    

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The MA legislature is under solid Dem control.  And I really want that all-woman ticket.  

[Frodo]

Warren needs to stay in the Senate. Few other Senators sponsor the kind of legislation she does. She is in a position to push Clinton to the left on Wall Street regulation. Hard to do as a loyal VEEP.

I strongly doubt that Elizabeth Warren would be angling for Veep if she wasn't assured in advance that she would be as involved in White House deliberations and decisions as Dick Cheney and Joe Biden were before her. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Neither did Al Gore in 1992, and yet Bill Clinton picked him anyway. 

[Frodo]

Hillary's Wall Street donors are threatening to abandon her if she picks Elizabeth Warren:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/elizabeth-warren-wall-street-vice-president-224489

BTW, they really like the idea of a Vice-President Tim Kaine.

[Frodo]

Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren Plan First Joint Appearance on Trail

[Frodo]

Given the terrorist attacks in Germany today, I hope she waits until tomorrow before announcing her VP pick.