Eugene Robinson: The Case for a Clinton-Warren Ticket

[book_worm]

Eugene Robinson:

“As Clinton’s running mate, Warren could erase this potential weakness with the Democratic base. She has spent her Senate career becoming known as the scourge of Wall Street. No political figure is more closely identified with efforts to curb the excesses of the financial system.”

“Warren would also help address another potential vulnerability. If the general-election matchup is Trump vs. Clinton — and that seems increasingly likely — it is becoming clear that on the question of U.S. military involvement around the world, Trump will position himself to the left of Clinton.”

“Clinton is a foreign policy traditionalist. As secretary of state, she was more hawkish than President Obama — she pushed for more vigorous intervention in Syria, for example. She has long since apologized for her vote to authorize the Iraq War, but Sanders continues to attack her for it. Trump would surely do the same. Warren wasn’t in Congress when the Iraq War began, and national security isn’t the issue with which she is identified. But her views fit squarely with those of the party’s progressive wing.”


https://politicalwire.com/2016/04/29/the-case-for-a-clinton-warren-ticket/

[Walk away]

1. It will never happen.

[bluestateguy]

2. I like Warren, but I see her as an unlikely pick

She is very popular with the Sanders crowd.

But the Indian "issue" will be brought back with the vengeance, however unfair that is.

My understanding is just that she has been unable to produce the documents that prove she has a very small Indian ancestry. But that's also fairly common.

[leftofcool]

3. Yes, it will come back. It isn't about documents though

It is about her possibly lying to say she was a minority to get into Harvard taking that spot from a real Native American.

[OKNancy]

8. I bet she wasn't lying but was maybe "lied to"

more charitably, it was a family tale. Since I'm a native Oklahoman, I can tell you that many people say they have Indian heritage or think they do. Sometimes they don't even know because there was a lot of mixing without marriage in the early days. Of course now, you can do the DNA tests, but when she was growing up here, they weren't available.

[spooky3]

12. She was hired by Harvard (didn't apply as a student). And by law employers cannot reserve "spots"

for members of any groups unless they have a history of egregious intentional discrimination and are ordered by courts to use hard quotas because other steps to overcome the discrimination would not suffice. They can give preference to members of underrepresented group members over equally qualified members of non-underrepresented groups but not over members (e.g., white males, non-Latino) who are superior in qualifications. Chances are that she did not beat out a Native American, but beat out a member of a group that was not underrepresented.

In any case I agree with you that there is an issue about whether she lied, told what she believed to be the truth as her family had told her, etc. But she also has done a great job at Harvard since then, so I am glad she had the opportunity.

[spooky3]

5. All she would have to do is take an Ancestry.com or other DNA test

It's possible even with Native American ancestry she might not have inherited any DNA from that ancestor or even a few. But if she has some it would likely show up.

I don't think that's the main reason she would not be chosen. The main reason is that there are too many sexists in society for even two women who were twice as qualified as the competitors to be elected.

[procon]

4. Warren would bring nothing to Hillary's campaign.

Not to dismiss her accomplishments, but Warren's only a one time state politician and she doesn't have a huge, nationwide list of voters, donors, or delegates. She also doesn't solidify areas where Hillary needs more voters. I don't know that Wall Street is at the top of the average voter concern, but there are potential running mates that bring much more to the table than the single focused Warren could.

[stopbush]

6. If you're going to pick a sitting Senator as VP, Sherrod Brown is a much better choice.

He could deliver OH, which is a lot more than Warren could ever do.

That said, raiding the Senate for a VP when we have a chance to take back the Senate is a bad strategy.

[bluestateguy]

11. Right. We'd get burned on that

The Senate seat would then go to John Kasich's hand-picked stooge. Ohio has no state law compelling him to appoint from the party that holds the seat (Wyoming and Hawaii have such a law).

Imagine winning a one seat Senate majority on election night, Hillary wins, and then the Senate majority is gone because Brown has to resign.

Won't work.

[spooky3]

13. Maybe choosing a House of Rep member in a gerrymandered district would make sense.

[bluestateguy]

14. Xavier Becerra

Over 20 years in the House, plenty of experience, safe Democratic district and Hispanic.

[displacedtexan]

7. No.

She doesn't bring a massive voting bloc to the table.

Love her, but no. We need her in the senate, maybe to replce Reid as the leader when he retires.

[peggysue2]

9. Unlikely

Warren as VP, that is.

I really like Elizabeth Warren but think her voice is more effective in the Senate. Plus pushing a double header (2 women) on the ticket isn't necessarily a winning formula. Could be political overload. Like it not, there's still considerable resistance to the idea of a women in power; Hillary's run for the presidency is revolutionary in and of itself. Additionally, Warren's from Massachusetts which is royal blue. Why put a safe Senate seat up for grabs?

The Warren idea is tempting because she's so popular. But I just don't see it happening.

[BootinUp]

10. Neither Warren nor Hillary will agree, thank gawd.

Warren is not a strong national candidate, iow even weaker than Sanders.