Is Elizabeth Warren Angling for Clinton's VP Slot?

Submitted by Writerinres on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 11:18am

Is she, or isn't she? She's been spitting bullets aimed at Donald Trump for weeks now. She hasn't endorsed, but her constant attacks on Trump can only help Clinton. Is Warren actually Hillary's undeclared wingwoman, or not? If she's offered and takes the VP slot does it mean that Hill's corruptive effect on people is complete, excluding Bernie? Any ideas?

Tags:

Is Warren Hill's VP? Clinton Corruption.

Vote

Comments

Submitted by Terry Hutchinson on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 11:27am

hard to say

If so, I am disappointed. She could have been President. Had she announced that she was running a year ago we would have hoisted her on our shoulders and carried her to the nomination. A little late now to be indicating executive ambitions. Besides, she would destroy her reputation by having to support Hillary's right of center policies.

Furthermore, I won't vote for Hillary no matter who she selects for VP unless someone can guarantee that HRC will be dead in 6 months.

—

If you don't know what you want, you deserve what you get.

Submitted by edg on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 2:14pm

Hillary needn't die.

Wearing an orange pantsuit while wiping servers with a cloth in Federal prison would be good enough for me.

Submitted by dkmich on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 11:26am

I am torn by her actions.

Part of me says it was smart for her to lay low and not endorse Bernie. Part of me says, what a coward. As far as running with Clinton, it would make me more resolved than ever to #BernieOrBust. There is nothing Hillary will allow her to do as her VP. The party will certainly not allow her to run for President unless she sells out to them. If we assume she is on high moral ground, what does Warren have to gain by running with Hillary? Nothing that I can see.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by KayCeSF on Sat, 05/28/2016 - 5:27pm

I will be thoroughly disappointed in EW if she accepted

being Hillary's VP, and in my mind would come off as the endorsement of Hillary policy, and a direct affront to all of us who felt she was a voice in the wilderness for Bernie-like political policy and his campaign platform. (Yes, I know the history of VP nominations, some were even on the opposite side of the party of the President.) Still, if she took the VP position, for me personally it would seem she isn't standing against everything Hillary is, and that EW has fought against, policies clearly brandished and flaunted by the Clintons.

I think EW decided to refrain from endorsing a candidate because she probably felt sure that Hillary would be the nominee. She may have felt she would not want to be on Hillary's S-list if she endorsed Bernie, and Hillary became President.

At times I have also felt she was kind of cowardly for not endorsing, however, you can bet after the election in Nov. there is going to be a lot of tension in the Senate [on both sides of the aisle], and EW will want to work as the out-standing "neutral Senator" after the election season for the Democratic side. It may very well be the safe and smart thing for her to have not engaged in the campaign to stay out of the fray.

But what do I know?

—

Kaye

Submitted by veggiemuffin on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 11:31am

I'd say no

A few days ago Harry Reid said he'd do anything he could to prevent that, since he needs all Dems to stay in the senate. No doubt he has discussed that with her.

I never thought that would happen anyway, because there are too many reasons that it would be wrong. Her state has a Republican governor, for one. Also I really don't think Americans will elect an all female ticket. Shouldn't matter, but I think it does.

Submitted by veggiemuffin on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 11:33am

(No subject)

Submitted by stevej on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 11:38am

I cannot see any

pluses for Warren with regard to her career or her beliefs by becoming Clinton's VP.

—

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” -Voltaire

Submitted by too many people on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 1:00pm

I can see benefits for her career, if she wants to be president.

Just like HRC being SoS, being vp would set Warren up to be the Dem nominee in 8 years or 4 years, depending on outcomes. Just because we here love her doesn't mean she couldn't use the exposure. Yes, it would be sad to see her under a corporatist, but like Biden, she would still be seen as a champion of the 99%.

Clinton plus Warren > Clinton plus x , where x does not equal Warren.

—

Peace out, tmp.

Submitted by Angela Marx on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 1:15pm

If Warren wanted to be President she'd be running now

Many progressives tried very hard to get her to run last year, she is simply not interested.
She is merely On the Stump to defeat Trump.

—

www.Angie4Congress.com
#StrongerTogether for a better future for OUR posterity

Submitted by Cassiodorus on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 1:39pm

I really don't care what she thinks.

She's part of the omigod Trump crowd. What are they doing to avoid Trumpism? Electing Clinton won't stop Trumpism in any way.

—

“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon

Submitted by edg on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 2:17pm

Warren is 66 years old.

Although Bernie has proved that a 74 year old can run for president, not everyone can.

Submitted by stevej on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 2:20pm

Generally speaking

Veep position is not a good stepping stone to the presidency (unless elected POTUS dies in office of course).

—

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” -Voltaire

Submitted by too many people on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 4:48pm

HRC is no spring chicken.

She looks seriously old and out of shape. Her vp could very well end up President.

—

Peace out, tmp.

Submitted by Shirley on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 11:41am

If Harry Reid has any clout, he has already said,

and I quote, "Hell No" for any senator from a state with a republican governor to be VP. He wants to keep all democratic senators from states with republican governors in the Senate.

Submitted by Sandino on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 11:46am

More likely Clinton ops spreading rumors

Warren wouldn't let herself get side-lined/bought off like that.

Submitted by Crimson Buddha on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 12:00pm

She's one of the better senators

I hope she doesn't take a VP slot. That's a career black hole with no power and nowhere to go. Think about it, since god knows when, no VP has gone from VP to winning the presidency other that GW Bush. (Truman, LBJ, and Ford don't count - they became presidents by death or resignation of the president before them.)

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 1:19pm

It was Poppy Bush (GHW Bush)

and the last one before him was Martin van Buren, who was for all intents and purposes "Andrew Jackson's third term", since he did nothing but rubber-stamp policies Jackson had already set in motion (including the infamous Trail of Tears).

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by Crimson Buddha on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 2:48pm

Urg! I Forgot the 'H' on 'GHW'

But Van Buren? That's hilarious.

Submitted by WoodsDweller on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 12:49pm

Don't think she wants VP

It was like pulling teeth to get her to run for Senate. I really don't think she has ambitions for higher office. She does, however, want to get things done. I think what she's doing is building up some political capital for later, so that the next President is on her side or at least opposes her less. Endorsing Bernie or Clinton would backfire if the other got the nomination. Attacking Trump is a sure bet.

—

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone

Submitted by Haikukitty on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 1:48pm

Yeah, I tend to think she's laying low

I don't particularly respect that decision - especially when she could have helped make a difference, but I can understand it.

Submitted by Democrita on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 1:49pm

watch out for projecting

Sen Warren is great on economics, but I don't know that we'd find her all that great on a raft of other issues, if she actually ran. Let's be careful not to project ourselves on to her. That's a bit of what happened with Obama--he sent many progressive signals, but he also sent conservative ones (eg FISA)--and we heard the things we wanted to hear louder than the things we didn't want to hear.
Dont' get me wrong, I LOVE Warren as an advocate on economic policy. She's so sharp, so smart, and (unlike that other lady pol) so morally grounded in a sense of justice...her authority and righteousness shine through. But I believe she's a little on the hawkish side, foreign policy-wise, for example. Not sure where she stands on the internal security state.

Peace.

Submitted by Sunspots on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 2:06pm