I know Bill Maher is not liked around here, but he pointed out the other night that Hillary shouldn't pick Warren as VP because Warren is so much better than Clinton - more exciting, compelling, better politician (speaker), etc., where Clinton is drab. You can't have the VP outshine the candidate. Made me think of the maid of honor or bridesmaids taking all the attention from the bride.

When looked at that way, and I believe Bill is correct in his assessment, I would think Hillary sees it too, and would not want Warren on the ticket with her. Warren would be the star on the ticket.

...Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Making Warren VP effectively eliminates Warren's power against Wall Street. So why is she seemingly falling for it?

pretty much has to promote the policies of the Administration, what the Prez wants. It would be frowned upon to have the VP coming out against a White House position. I believe Biden got away with it on a couple of occasions, but he and Barack's relationship seems to be somewhat special.

That is another reason I don't think Bernie would ever be interested in VP for Hillary (not that they would ask). If they did, he would turn it down. He would have to keep quiet and support Hillary's positions. I'm sure he would much prefer to be in the Senate criticizing the president when necessary.

put Warren on the ticket. Then the Democrats, they will be running two Republicans.

Hillary Clinton could select Ralph Nader for VP (not that he'd agree), and it would not make a difference here.

The Governing power rests in the hands of her Cabinet choices, and close policy advisors around her. These people, as with Obama, will be 100% Wall-Street insiders and crooks no matter who her VP is. And with Hillary, of course, they will also be like-minded Neocon Warmongers too.

Hillary Clinton wants to go on a War Footing against Russia, China ("Asian pivot"), and send troops into Syria, and double-down on Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan (all wonderful success stories, right?), and threaten Iran with moving goalposts until John' Kerry's Nuclear Deal is dismantled - so that War can follow. She wants "Regime Change" (murder) all over Latin America to snuff out any progressive-socialist economic changes there.

With Trillions and Trillions more dollars just wasted away overseas on these criminal Foreign mass-murder agendas, it does not matter who Hillary picks as VP -- there will be no budget left for any progressive initiatives anyway (not that she really has any to begin with).

Hillary thinks ending Glass-Steagall was a great thing (no regrets). She's completely and totally on-board for passing the TPP (never given a speech in her entire life where she actually criticizes it as a policy matter ... she has only just hand-waved away her real intent in one single interview, and in one single debate response).

I have no idea why Warren is risking her own credibility by becoming a "Cheerleader" for this psychopathic Corporatist-Militarist-Elitist, Oligarch-chosen and financed puppet. But the lure of career advancement can be enough to make people do strange things. But Warren is also not even a true progressive like Sanders is. She does not support either Auditing the (private) Central Bank Cartel, or replacing it with U.S. Treasury controlled money (debt-free). She has not be consistent and clear like Sanders about breaking-up the Wall Street Banks. Her "reforms" are mostly confined to fixing credit-card matters and consumer scams. There is no "Revolution" going on with Warren, like there was with Sanders, although she is better on several issues than most in Congress.

But Clinton is a control freak, and a Totalitarian statist. Like George W. Bush, her agenda is already pre-determined .... and it is not good for the people, or the World.

She would be the most progressive VP this country has ever had. She would move the Overton Window back to the left by that fact alone. As far as her power in the Senate, she has managed to carve out a niche for herself as being relatively powerful by virtue of threatening to filibuster Wall Street friendly regulatory nominees, and by having a huge base of national public support, but that power has plateaued and the real power in the Senate requires a LONG slog.

Why are we all so convinced that VPs have no power or influence? Al Gore had significant influence. Dick Cheney had ENORMOUS influence. Even Biden has made some progress in influencing Obama and he was the consumate non-VP-VP. And Warren could ultimately be playing the long game for a 2024 Presidential run when the Demographics would allow her to win a nominating contest even if there WERE ANOTHER Hillary Clinton to contend with. She would have real Executive experience and name rec by then.

And, this much I trust her on, a dossier of progressive achievements to call her own instead of 8 years of nothing but threatening to veto HRC appointments in the Senate. She can cut some sort of a deal to make sure she has real influence. She has collateral: us! She can turn to her support for leverage in a second, even as VP. She is that smart.

I get why she wants this. And her being out of the Senate can be more than supplemented by Bernie's newfound popularity there. He can veto as many appointments as Warren could and then some. And they can form a powerful back channel alliance to hold HRC accountable.

Just saying.