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

[Landslide Lyndon]

Why would Tim Kaine be objectionable to the Sanders crowd?

He voted for TPA/supports TPP.

So does Obama.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

Rooting for Kaine. Not that I want him but Sanders should be on the list.

He really should, her challenge is to choose an ultra left winger from a swing state who can attract Sanders supporters. The only somewhat logical selection is Sherrod Brown.

If he becomes vice president, Kasich would fill Brown’s Senate seat.

Hmmm... Her choice is an ultra left winger governor or some sort of senator. Now it doesn't even have to be a competitive state. Merkley, Hickenlooper, or Perez, who isn't high risk.

[Young Conservative]

Hopefully she picks Mark Warner.

Kaine, Brown, Patrick, Perez, Booker, and Castro are also good choices.

I'm not a huge fan of Warren, but I'd still vote for Hillary over Trump very enthusiastically even if she picked Warren as her VP. 

Are you not a republican?

[Maxwell]

I hadn't heard Deval Patrick being considered, but that could be a good choice.

[Gass3268]

Kaine - Unacceptable
Warner - Unacceptable
Brown - Would be the best choice if Kasich didn't get to fill the vacancy
Patrick - Bain Capital, enough said, unacceptable
Perez - Very good choice
Warren - Best choice
Booker - Could be worse, like Kaine or Warner
Castro - Lightweight, but could be worse, like Kaine or Warner

Ranking:

1. Warren
2. Perez
3. Brown
4. Booker
5. Castro
6. Kaine
7. Patrick
8. Warner

[The Other Castro]

I really hope it's Al Franken.

[TomC]

I would like Warren. I realize it is unlikely to happen, but I would like a serious power women ticket and I think she could bring the Sandernistas (or at least 90% of them) into the fold.

Wouldn't mind Booker either. Not big on Castro.

I hope she doesn't go with a boring middle aged white guy.

Elizabeth Warren needs to remain a Senator to sponsor and fight for the kind of legislation only she seems to be willing to do. She's too important to be VP.

[Gass3268]

Why would Tim Kaine be objectionable to the Sanders crowd?

He voted for TPA/supports TPP.

So does Obama.

Yeah, and he's wrong about that. Clinton claims that she opposes the TPP. Picking a VP who is on record of supporting that awful agreement really raises questions to if her opposition is legitimate or just a campaign ploy.

[Gass3268]

I really hope it's Al Franken.

He would also be a very good choice!

[Landslide Lyndon]

Why would Tim Kaine be objectionable to the Sanders crowd?

He voted for TPA/supports TPP.

So does Obama.

Yeah, and he's wrong about that. Clinton claims that she opposes the TPP. Picking a VP who is on record of supporting that awful agreement really raises questions to if her opposition is legitimate or just a campaign ploy.

And what exactly will Brown or Warren do as VPs to stop TPP?

[RogueBeaver]

Article said she doesn't feel a need to placate Sanders supporters, and no one seriously believes she's sincere on TPP, do they?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Article said she doesn't feel a need to placate Sanders supporters

That's the right attitude. Just like Obama felt no need to placate the PUMA crowd she should also ignore the Berniebots and make the best choice based on factors like campaign skills, qualifications and governing.

[Comrade Funk]

I would like Warren. I realize it is unlikely to happen, but I would like a serious power women ticket and I think she could bring the Sandernistas (or at least 90% of them) into the fold.

Wouldn't mind Booker either. Not big on Castro.

I hope she doesn't go with a boring middle aged white guy.

Im sorry but that's a racist comment even if it's about middle aged white men. I'm getting sick of this sh**t. Just pick the best qualified regardless of race.

[Santander]

Kaine is a good consensus pick - he's the most acceptable choice to the most number of people. I prefer Warner, but he's too centrist to be the best pick. Plus, Warner is old news and his luster has sort of come off. I respect Sherrod Brown, but he's too liberal for me and more importantly, I don't want to give Kasich a Senate nominee. I'd vote for Trump or Cruz before I'd vote for a ticket with Warren or Castro on it.

[PeteB]

Let me chime on this. While I think that a lot of these would be good picks for Clinton, I do think that she will emulate Bill, when he picked AL Gore and broke all regional and demographic "rules". She will go for a candidate with whom she is comfortable with, and who is, in her opinion, ready to replace her.

To me that means Tim Kaine. It probably doesn't hurt that VA may be in play, depending on who her opponent is. And Kaine actually speaks Spanish better that Castro .

[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? 

[PeteB]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Castro wouldn't just be terrible he'd be the most pointless pander ever. Does Hillary seriously need help with Hispanics running against DONALD TRUMP?

[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.  

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Another ban should be on any Senator in a state with a Republican Governor. Warren is the exception because the legislature is veto proof and could pass a law requiring a vacancy be filled same party.

[Gass3268]

Article said she doesn't feel a need to placate Sanders supporters

That's the right attitude. Just like Obama felt no need to placate the PUMA crowd she should also ignore the Berniebots and make the best choice based on factors like campaign skills, qualifications and governing.

Except picking Biden was meant to help shore up his weakness with the white working class. Clinton would be dumb not to do the same with her weaknesses.

[PeteB]

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.

[MT Treasurer]

If her opponent is either Trump or Cruz, Democratic control of Congress is a foregone conclusion (with or without a Progressive VP).

No.

[BundouYMB]

Article said she doesn't feel a need to placate Sanders supporters

That's the right attitude. Just like Obama felt no need to placate the PUMA crowd she should also ignore the Berniebots and make the best choice based on factors like campaign skills, qualifications and governing.

Except picking Biden was meant to help shore up his weakness with the white working class. Clinton would be dumb not to do the same with her weaknesses.

Uh, I doubt that's why Obama picked Biden. It's been a long time since VP's were picked to win states or demographics. George W. Bush picked Dick Cheney, making a crucial overture to the people of Wyoming. Bill picked Al Gore, a fellow white moderate from the south (which is what Gore was in 1992), doubling down on his own strengths (and weaknesses) even though he'd just emerged from a contentious primary. H.W. Bush picked Quayle... a crucial play for the illiterate vote? Reagan picked H.W. for party unity reasons, probably, but that was a long time ago in a specific set of circumstances.

Basically, I really doubt Obama picked Biden because he thought it would be his ticket to electoral success in West Virginia and AFAIK there's no evidence to suggest he did. Also, remember that Obama's VP shortlist supposedly included names like Evan Bayh, a genuine moderate from the rust belt, who would have been a much better pick than a northeastern liberal like Biden if Obama was really trying to make some sort of cynical play for working class whites with his VP pick.

[RaphaelDLG]

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.

If Trump or Cruz are the nominee, then and ONLY THEN might the house be even in play