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

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Liz Warren is shamelessly trying to become VP, but she'll end up looking like the left-wing Chris Christie.

She already does. I would like to see Clinton give Warren the finger and select Becerra or Perez as her running mate.

Becerra or Perez would be an incredibly savvy move from her part. It will pull more Hispanics in as Trump alienates them to unprecedented lengths.

I agree 100%. Tom Perez is as progressive, if not more, than Warren, and at least Becerra and Perez were honest about their candidate preferences and endorsed Clinton from the beginning. Warren, on the other hand, gave Sanders supporters every reason to believe that she would endorse Sanders, but then refused to make any endorsements until Clinton was her only choice, and now vies full-throttle for the VP spot. Becerra and Perez, or even Brown, deserve the position more than Warren does. They are all progressives, but the former three made a decision from the beginning.

When did she ever lead Sanders supporters to believe she'd endorse him? She was neutral literally the entire process and then endorsed the presumptive nominee which, funny thing, happens to be Clinton. She would've done the same for Sanders if he pulled a win out of his ass.

Warren's Senate votes and stated policy positions clearly align more with Sanders than they do Clinton, as do Sherrod Brown's, yet she refused to back the man who could have enacted the progressive agenda she claimed to have wanted to seen enacted (especially considering that Sanders would be a much stronger candidate in the general election than Clinton). She would not have done the same for Sanders, as evidenced by the fact that Sanders won several states during the primary process, and had a real shot at the nomination. Warren's endorsement could have pushed Sanders over the top in Massachusetts, and if given early enough, perhaps in Iowa, Illinois, and Ohio. Warren had a clear choice, and she stayed neutral when Sanders needed her most. Tom Perez, Xavier Becerra, and Sherrod Brown, on the other hand, did not give any false impressions. They came out from the beginning backing Clinton. That does not make sense to me, but at least they are honest. They have been loyal to Clinton from the beginning, and deserve to be Clinton's #2 more than Warren does.

Or, and here's a crazy thought, she did not want her primary endorsement to be what put a candidate over the top and instead preferred to let it play out much like Obama did. It's no secret that Hillary was his much preferred successor. Warren more likely liked both Clinton and Sanders, but did not want to choose between the two and so decided to endorse the presumptive nominee (who is Hillary Clinton).

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Or Warren just flat-out preferred Clinton and Clinton wanted her to stay out so she could help unify when Bernie inevitably became too curmudgeony to do it himself.

[Gass3268]

Castro: As I've said, the biggest and most obvious pander ever heard of. Clinton is not winning Texas under any circumstances, and Castro does not have the experience he needs to step in as president and has only gotten as far as he has in life because of affirmative action, which is really just a nice  way to say "racism against whites".

Warren: Just as socialist as Sanders is. Only refused to endorse Sanders because she would have been screamed at by the party if she did. IF WARREN IS PICKED, I'M VOTING JOHNSON.

Kaine: The only actual good choice among these three.

Warren is as much of a socialist as Teddy Roosevelt and FDR were.

[Zioneer]

Kaine, Castro and Warren have been asked to submit docs.

Ugh, seriously, why won't the idea of a Castro VP just go away already, he's a terrible pick. Becerra is better than him in every way possible. Also Kaine is far too boring.

[Gass3268]

Kaine, Castro and Warren have been asked to submit docs.

Ugh, seriously, why won't the idea of a Castro VP just go away already, he's a terrible pick. Becerra is better than him in every way possible. Also Kaine is far too boring.

Plus Kaine voted for TPP fast track.

[Mr. Morden]

Sessions is on board with restricting movement into the US from at least certain majority Muslim countries:

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2016/06/19/trump-ally-senator-sessions-ban-immigration-from-countries-like-egypt-yemen-afghanistan-iraq-syria/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Pandaguineapig]

I just had an idea: congressman Tom Reed of New York was an early Trump endorser but is also very popular with house leadership/establishment

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I just had an idea: congressman Tom Reed of New York was an early Trump endorser but is also very popular with house leadership/establishment

His district is sort of competitive though.

[Suck my caulk]

Kaine, Castro and Warren have been asked to submit docs.

Ugh, seriously, why won't the idea of a Castro VP just go away already, he's a terrible pick. Becerra is better than him in every way possible. Also Kaine is far too boring.

Kaine, Castro and Warren have been asked to submit docs.

Ugh, seriously, why won't the idea of a Castro VP just go away already, he's a terrible pick. Becerra is better than him in every way possible. Also Kaine is far too boring.

I agree 100% that Kaine is too "boring" for Clinton (read: too establishment and too conservative or "moderate" for a Democrat, with respect to trade and abortion). I also agree with you that Castro is pure identity politics, and a poor choice. He is young Latino (yay!), but beyond that he is a terrible choice. Castro does not have the necessary amount of experience to succeed Clinton should she resign, die, or be impeached; he will not put Texas in play among Latinos, since he does not even speak Spanish. Finally, even though Clinton is about as right-wing a Democrat as there is, and even though Castro is a "moderate" establishment-type, I can imagine Fox News will try to galvanize the Republicans even more against Clinton by playing up the Castro name (i.e. dog whistle involving Fidel and Raul Castro). Tom Perez, Xavier Becerra, and Eric Garcetti (in that order) are much better choices for Clinton if she wants to excite Latino turnout, as all speak Spanish, are more experienced than Castro, and are also more experienced than Castro. That said, identity politics should not be the basis for Clinton's choice. If I was to pick a woman who is more progressive and a better choice, in my opinion, for the Presidency, I would choose Elizabeth Warren (although her refusal to endorse Sanders still aggravates me) or Jill Stein.

[Mr. Morden]

Looks like the Clinton VP short list might just be Castro, Kaine, and Warren, plus a couple of mystery choices, with speculation that some subset of Becerra, Brown, and Perez may be among the mystery choices.  And Clinton herself has already spent “hours” studying the records of the short listers:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/21/politics/hillary-clinton-vice-president-search/index.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Hermit For Peace]

Looks like the Clinton VP short list might just be Castro, Kaine, and Warren, plus a couple of mystery choices, with speculation that some subset of Becerra, Brown, and Perez may be among the mystery choices.  And Clinton herself has already spent “hours” studying the records of the short listers:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/21/politics/hillary-clinton-vice-president-search/index.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I seriously doubt it will be Warren. She and Hillary do not have a good personal relationship, and that is one of the things Hillary is looking for in her VP choice. Two strong females working together is not a good idea anyway.

I don't know all the other choices except I've been researching Booker ever since I enjoyed watching him speak in that 15-hr marathon filibuster the other day. I like him and I like what he stands for. I'd like to see him as VP because he brings a dynamism to the position, he's real smart, and Hillary enjoyed campaigning with him, which is a good sign.

Gotta admit, though, I need more education on all the other possible choices.

[fenrir]

Becerra's a far better bet than Castro. As mentioned upthread, Castro doesn't speak Spanish and has never held an elected federal office. Becerra has for years, speaks Spanish natively, and is already assuming the role of Clinton surrogate. I'm shocked this Castro discussion is even still happening.

Kaine: 80% yawn, 20% eyeroll. Longtime Clinton ally who's been on the fence with a couple issues---perfect match for her? It'll probably be him.

IMO, Warren's not happening. Booker's not happening. Tom Perez, much like Warren, would freak out her Wall Street and Silicon Valley donor base too much.

[dspNY]

Kaine as VP is the classic do no harm pick. It solidifies Virginia and indicates that Clinton is taking little risk as a candidate who is solidly ahead.

Warren as VP indicates that the obstinate Sanders voters are cutting into her margin some and she needs a pick to draw them in and build a solid lead.

Castro as VP, not sure what to make of it...maybe draw Trump's fire into further racial attacks? Trump really got hurt with the Gonzalo Curiel smears so maybe she would try and create another backlash.

I agree with some of the other posters that Perez or Becerra are much better Latino VP picks than Castro

BTW I think it will be Warren. Look at how active Warren has been with Clinton since she endorsed. She visited Brooklyn HQ and gave a pep talk to the ground staff; she's been the lead attack dog, which is the VP's political role in a presidential campaign, and polling has indicated that Democrats want Warren over the other VP choices. Her messaging when attacking Trump is almost identical to Clinton's.

Harry Reid even went to the unusual step of trying finding a loophole to replace Warren with another Dem senator should Clinton pick her which is another indication that Warren is the frontrunner

[fenrir]

Kaine as VP is the classic do no harm pick. It solidifies Virginia and indicates that Clinton is taking little risk as a candidate who is solidly ahead.

Warren as VP indicates that the obstinate Sanders voters are cutting into her margin some and she needs a pick to draw them in and build a solid lead.

Castro as VP, not sure what to make of it...maybe draw Trump's fire into further racial attacks? Trump really got hurt with the Gonzalo Curiel smears so maybe she would try and create another backlash.

I agree with some of the other posters that Perez or Becerra are much better Latino VP picks than Castro

BTW I think it will be Warren. Look at how active Warren has been with Clinton since she endorsed. She visited Brooklyn HQ and gave a pep talk to the ground staff; she's been the lead attack dog, which is the VP's political role in a presidential campaign, and polling has indicated that Democrats want Warren over the other VP choices. Her messaging when attacking Trump is almost identical to Clinton's.

Harry Reid even went to the unusual step of trying finding a loophole to replace Warren with another Dem senator should Clinton pick her which is another indication that Warren is the frontrunner

Good post even though I slightly disagree with parts. What's the loophole? I'm not familiar with this but am open to it.

I'd love Warren, for obvious reasons. But they have no personal relationship (Clintons like confidants), she freaks out the big donors (Politico), and her message would almost assuredly upstage Clinton's.

If I were the Clinton campaign and I were looking at the fundraising, Trump's recent stumbles, and how the Democratic Party is piling on him pretty effectively, I wouldn't bother "going left" with the VP pick. Instead, I would assume that most of Sanders's voters will come home eventually after the convention---the ones that don't were not going to reliably vote for a mainstream Democrat anyway, if at all. All they have to do now is execute the campaign cleanly and concisely, and make the (easy) argument to suburbanites that Trump cannot be trusted.

There's talk about using Warren to "rally the base," but this "base" Clinton is said to need to reach is murky and unreliable. She already has the more reliable blocs behind her, and people who would actually carry out their threat to vote third party (yay!) were likely either not going to vote, or pull a third-party ballot the entire time. Are liberals really going to abandon her en masse in the face of SCOTUS vacancies and President Trump?

I think Perez is a much better call than Castro but he also would never happen because he scares big business even more than Warren does.

[Horsemask]

Castro as the VP nominee would be a disaster.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Looks like the Clinton VP short list might just be Castro, Kaine, and Warren, plus a couple of mystery choices, with speculation that some subset of Becerra, Brown, and Perez may be among the mystery choices.  And Clinton herself has already spent “hours” studying the records of the short listers:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/21/politics/hillary-clinton-vice-president-search/index.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

*snip* Two strong females working together is not a good idea anyway. *snip*

And why would that be?

[IceSpear]

Liz Warren is shamelessly trying to become VP, but she'll end up looking like the left-wing Chris Christie.

She already does. I would like to see Clinton give Warren the finger and select Becerra or Perez as her running mate.

Becerra or Perez would be an incredibly savvy move from her part. It will pull more Hispanics in as Trump alienates them to unprecedented lengths.

I agree 100%. Tom Perez is as progressive, if not more, than Warren, and at least Becerra and Perez were honest about their candidate preferences and endorsed Clinton from the beginning. Warren, on the other hand, gave Sanders supporters every reason to believe that she would endorse Sanders, but then refused to make any endorsements until Clinton was her only choice, and now vies full-throttle for the VP spot. Becerra and Perez, or even Brown, deserve the position more than Warren does. They are all progressives, but the former three made a decision from the beginning.

LOL, just because Reddit developed fanfiction about how Warren was going to endorse "any day now..." for months doesn't mean there was any reason to believe she would. She was solidly neutral throughout the entire process.

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.

More BS trolling from Pollutico in an attempt to get left wing clicks. Where were these Wall Street fatcat donors that supposedly love her when Bernie was outraising her? Oh right, filling the coffers of Rubio, Jeb, Kasich, and Cruz.

[IceSpear]

Clinton is about as right-wing a Democrat as there is,

Ah, so you're a troll. Now it suddenly makes a lot more sense.

[Illiniwek]

Castro as the VP nominee would be a disaster.

Indeed.

Clinton is about as right-wing a Democrat as there is,

Ah, so you're a troll. Now it suddenly makes a lot more sense.

Be easy on the kid in his first weekend on the Internet. He'll eventually realize how stupid he sounds.

[PeteB]

I have said it before and I will repeat it - it will be Clinton-Kaine.

Hillary is very comfortable with Kaine, has chemistry and a personal relationship, and he comes from a tossup state and, unlike Castro, actually speaks Spanish. And he counterbalances the perceived "threat" of a woman President (yes I know it's hard to believe, but sexism is alive and well). The other choices are uninspiring, except for Warren. Castro is too green and she does not need to shore up Latino vote - 85 or 88%, what's the difference? Brown is someone she is also comfortable with, but that would mean that the GOP picks up a Senate seat. Warren is the only other plausible choice but, leaving aside the 2 women ticket, she is just too left wing and would help the GOP. If fate has dealt you a present in Donald Trump, why tempt it by appointing a leftwinger VP?

[Suck my caulk]

Clinton is about as right-wing a Democrat as there is,

Ah, so you're a troll. Now it suddenly makes a lot more sense.

Will you please explain how my statement makes me a troll? I posted an entire paragraph of substantive argument, and you focused on a single sentence, and did not provide a substantive response. Will you please name a few Democrats who are more right-wing than Clinton? Maybe Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Blanche Lincoln, but none of them are in politics any longer, and I struggle to name any more.

[LLR]

Will you please explain how my statement makes me a troll? I posted an entire paragraph of substantive argument, and you focused on a single sentence, and did not provide a substantive response. Will you please name a few Democrats who are more right-wing than Clinton? Maybe Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Blanche Lincoln, but none of them are in politics any longer, and I struggle to name any more.

Perhaps... Joe Biden, John Edwards, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, most representatives and senators?

[LLR]

Will you please explain how my statement makes me a troll? I posted an entire paragraph of substantive argument, and you focused on a single sentence, and did not provide a substantive response. Will you please name a few Democrats who are more right-wing than Clinton? Maybe Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Blanche Lincoln, but none of them are in politics any longer, and I struggle to name any more.

Perhaps... Joe Biden, John Edwards, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, most representatives and senators?

Castro as the VP nominee would be a disaster.

Indeed.

Clinton is about as right-wing a Democrat as there is,

Ah, so you're a troll. Now it suddenly makes a lot more sense.

Be easy on the kid in his first weekend on the Internet. He'll eventually realize how stupid he sounds.

I posted an entire paragraph of substantive material with respect to the Thread Title, and you too focus on a single sentence in that paragraph and, like Donald Trump, use insults as opposed to providing a substantive response. Thanks for playing.

I'd like a response to what I said, because ^ that does not apply.

[IceSpear]

I focused on that sentence because that particular sentence was mind numbingly stupid and objectively incorrect. Her Senate voting record put her in the more liberal half of the Democratic caucus, and that's not even taking into account all the Dixiecrats/Blue Dogs that used to be in the House before 2010/2014 wiped them out.

[Suck my caulk]

Will you please explain how my statement makes me a troll? I posted an entire paragraph of substantive argument, and you focused on a single sentence, and did not provide a substantive response. Will you please name a few Democrats who are more right-wing than Clinton? Maybe Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Blanche Lincoln, but none of them are in politics any longer, and I struggle to name any more.

Perhaps... Joe Biden, John Edwards, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, most representatives and senators?

Al Gore is to the right of Hillary Clinton? On climate change, he receives money from the fossil fuel industry (of course not; he is not even in politics anymore)? He voted for Iraq (he was against it, while Clinton was for it)? He ran in 2000 on expanding Social Security; Clinton has supported the chained CPI cuts to Social Security. Joe Biden? Seriously? You genuinely believe MOST Democratic Congress members are to the right of Clinton. Now I think you might be a troll.