There was a lot of excitement on Friday when she went to visit Hillary Clinton's office.
"Quiz: Who is the one member of the president’s cabinet who can’t be fired?"
A. Attorney General
B. Secretary of State
C. Director of Central Intelligence
D. Vice-President
"The answer, of course, is D."
"Elizabeth Warren is an attractive candidate for Hillary Clinton’s running mate on several grounds, but the potential deal breaker is item D. What president would want a vice president with her own fixed constitutional office, her own national power base, and the willingness to use it to possibly defy her president?"
"But overriding even that concern is the fact that Clinton may conclude she needs Warren to assure her own election. Only on that basis is she likely to turn to Warren."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/clinton-warren-and-the-vi_b_10431816.html
Of course, for liberals like Kuttner, the prospect of Warren defying her own President is a selling point.
Not for me. That weakens not strengthens an Administration.
I don't believe that Hillary can only be elected with Elizabeth Warren as VP.
"All other considerations pale in comparison with that one. Warren will get the nod if and only if Clinton decides that Warren will make a major difference in November. Would Warren take the job? Yes."
"Why might Clinton conclude that? Because Warren brings a verve and a gusto to the campaign that has partly eluded Clinton until now, though Clinton has evidently been learning some techniques and themes from Warren. And because Warren is a hero to the progressive wing of the party—in some ways she’s a better version of Sanders than Sanders is. The worry of Bernie Bros sitting it out would drastically diminish with Warren on the ticket. http://prospect.org/article/elizabeth-warrens-challenge-hillary-clinton."
"Presumably, Clinton has to choose between the need to rally the progressive base and the need to name a more centrist running mate such as Virginia Senator Tim Kaine to shore up her appeal to defecting Republic moderates. But in some respects that’s a false dichotomy. Warren actually does very well among independents. She transcends ideology. She would bring the one thing to the ticket that has eluded Clinton—excitement."
"Moreover, one formula for a Clinton victory is to increase her support among white women voters, whose support the Democrat has lost in the last three elections. In 2004, 55 percent of white women voters went for Bush over Kerry; in 2008, 53 percent supported McCain over Obama; and in 2012, an even larger 56 percent voted for Mitt Romney."
"Clinton herself surely brings the drama of the first woman president—but on the excitement front Warren is a more compelling version of Clinton than Clinton. And two women will be even more of a breakthrough than one."
The idea that Hillary can't excite white women on her own is something I'm dubious about.
I don't know that Warren transcends ideology. Maybe she has during the primary when she wasn't running but things have a way of changing once you put your hat in the ring.
Hillary's favorability was very high before the primary.
Later, Hillary revealed that the did not talk about the VP position and that she hasn't started those talks yet.
I've been a skeptic of Warren for VP all along. Robert Kuttner, who seems to want Warren also lists the problems with such a pick well:
"Quiz: Who is the one member of the president’s cabinet who can’t be fired?"
A. Attorney General
B. Secretary of State
C. Director of Central Intelligence
D. Vice-President
"The answer, of course, is D."
"Elizabeth Warren is an attractive candidate for Hillary Clinton’s running mate on several grounds, but the potential deal breaker is item D. What president would want a vice president with her own fixed constitutional office, her own national power base, and the willingness to use it to possibly defy her president?"
"But overriding even that concern is the fact that Clinton may conclude she needs Warren to assure her own election. Only on that basis is she likely to turn to Warren."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/clinton-warren-and-the-vi_b_10431816.html
Of course, for liberals like Kuttner, the prospect of Warren defying her own President is a selling point.
Not for me. That weakens not strengthens an Administration.
I don't believe that Hillary can only be elected with Elizabeth Warren as VP.
"All other considerations pale in comparison with that one. Warren will get the nod if and only if Clinton decides that Warren will make a major difference in November. Would Warren take the job? Yes."
"Why might Clinton conclude that? Because Warren brings a verve and a gusto to the campaign that has partly eluded Clinton until now, though Clinton has evidently been learning some techniques and themes from Warren. And because Warren is a hero to the progressive wing of the party—in some ways she’s a better version of Sanders than Sanders is. The worry of Bernie Bros sitting it out would drastically diminish with Warren on the ticket. http://prospect.org/article/elizabeth-warrens-challenge-hillary-clinton."
"Presumably, Clinton has to choose between the need to rally the progressive base and the need to name a more centrist running mate such as Virginia Senator Tim Kaine to shore up her appeal to defecting Republic moderates. But in some respects that’s a false dichotomy. Warren actually does very well among independents. She transcends ideology. She would bring the one thing to the ticket that has eluded Clinton—excitement."
"Moreover, one formula for a Clinton victory is to increase her support among white women voters, whose support the Democrat has lost in the last three elections. In 2004, 55 percent of white women voters went for Bush over Kerry; in 2008, 53 percent supported McCain over Obama; and in 2012, an even larger 56 percent voted for Mitt Romney."
"Clinton herself surely brings the drama of the first woman president—but on the excitement front Warren is a more compelling version of Clinton than Clinton. And two women will be even more of a breakthrough than one."
The idea that Hillary can't excite white women on her own is something I'm dubious about.
I don't know that Warren transcends ideology. Maybe she has during the primary when she wasn't running but things have a way of changing once you put your hat in the ring.
Hillary's favorability was very high before the primary.
The reason Kuttner wants Warren is ideology not because she transcends ideology. He's opposed to transcending ideology.
I also think Kuttner is falling into the Bernie fallacy that 70% of the American people agree with him and other liberals.
I actually think that Warren could hurt her and making the ticket too ideological. Mark Cuban says that if Warren is VP he might not vote for Hillary. Ok, Cuban is a rich guy but he's also an independent.
The trouble is that liberals like Kuttner want this election to be about ideology but in truth Hillary and the Dems can win a lot of non-ideological support from people just appalled and disgusted by Donald Trump.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/06/when-boring-is-good.html
Less is more when your opponent is Donald Trump. I think most Bernie Sanders supporters end up with Hillary whether or not Warren is on the ticket. Warren certainly will campaign for her-and who knows, maybe a cabinet position could be Warren's for the taking if she wanted it.
But I don't think she's the way to go as VP if she's not going to be loyal. Kuttner seems to like the idea that she wouldn't be.
This has a chance of being a 70-30 election not 51-49. But if so, it will be based largely in getting a lot of non-ideological support.
People like Jennifer Rubin, Tom Brown, even Scott Sumner. They may not agree with Hillary on every piece of ideology. But they do know that Trump's totally unfit to be in office.
But you don't get to 70-30 by running a progressive beauty contest.
UPDATE: Bill Scher makes the related case for why VP is not in Warren's best interests either.
Basically, she will lose status with the purist progressive base for any compromise from Hillary's White House.
Compromise is part of the game, of course, but the progressive base doesn't realize this.
I also think Kuttner is falling into the Bernie fallacy that 70% of the American people agree with him and other liberals.
I actually think that Warren could hurt her and making the ticket too ideological. Mark Cuban says that if Warren is VP he might not vote for Hillary. Ok, Cuban is a rich guy but he's also an independent.
The trouble is that liberals like Kuttner want this election to be about ideology but in truth Hillary and the Dems can win a lot of non-ideological support from people just appalled and disgusted by Donald Trump.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/06/when-boring-is-good.html
Less is more when your opponent is Donald Trump. I think most Bernie Sanders supporters end up with Hillary whether or not Warren is on the ticket. Warren certainly will campaign for her-and who knows, maybe a cabinet position could be Warren's for the taking if she wanted it.
But I don't think she's the way to go as VP if she's not going to be loyal. Kuttner seems to like the idea that she wouldn't be.
This has a chance of being a 70-30 election not 51-49. But if so, it will be based largely in getting a lot of non-ideological support.
People like Jennifer Rubin, Tom Brown, even Scott Sumner. They may not agree with Hillary on every piece of ideology. But they do know that Trump's totally unfit to be in office.
But you don't get to 70-30 by running a progressive beauty contest.
UPDATE: Bill Scher makes the related case for why VP is not in Warren's best interests either.
Basically, she will lose status with the purist progressive base for any compromise from Hillary's White House.
Compromise is part of the game, of course, but the progressive base doesn't realize this.
No comments:
Post a Comment