2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton Narrows Her VP Short List
Hillary Clintons short list of running mate contenders is down to five names, CNN reports.
The list: Sen. Tim Kaine, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Sherrod Brown, Tom Vilsack and Tom Perez.
She has a preferred candidate or two in mind, CNN has learned, but intends to keep her options open until Donald Trump reveals his selection.
###
https://politicalwire.com/2016/07/07/clinton-narrows-her-vp-short-list/
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I was thinking Becerra.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)I think he's great.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)We'll see. I agree with you on Becerra.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Unfortunately, in this media dominated world, that is important.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)I want Dems to win, not the cretins!
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)friends and admirers among those who know him, and he and Hillary wouldn't look like two plump loaves of Wonder Bread on the podium. As far as appearances alone go. And he looks a man who means what he says.
Vilsack and Kaine are both really good men. If she chooses one, fine, it's her choice. But I don't know how committed either would be to pushing for as much reform as possible.
I'm hoping for Warren, followed by Perez, but both are going to be doing big things if she wins, regardless.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Every time I've seen him on tv, not often, I have been somewhat put off by his physical appearance, NOT by what he said, which was always great.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)him on the podium. I find him most attractive when he's talking tough. His smile IS a little goofy.
But the important thing is, I believe he is tough.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Also wanted to add that tough is extremely important. It's why I no longer put Castro at the top of my list. He just seems a little too green to handle a POS like Rump and his minions. But, I could also be wrong about that! Cause what do I know?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)you remind me of when I posted about both Castro and Perez and went to look for a picture of each. Plenty serious pictures of Perez, but I could not find a single picture of Castro with a good alpha male scowl instead of that nice-boy smile, or even looking his age and not like he was still in his 20s or 30s. But he doesn't have Perez's record either.
Well, we'll find out what she considers important. Supposedly she gets along well with Tim Kaine, and I just found this Mother Jones article from yesterday.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/tim-kaine-vice-president-hillary-clinton-virginia-senate
Btw, according to this, the AP reported a short list of Warren, Kaine, and Castro.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)I'm LMAO about 3 wives Dim Don paired with 3 wives Newt! I think we're looking at an historic landslide!
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)I imagine them chatting about how they're making money out of the campaign while they travel around. Even just running for VP and losing should create demand for a new series of fake awards.
She isnt young enough or pretty enough to be the Presidents wife. Newt speaking of his ex-wife.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)It can be Plan B for those two losers!
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)suspect that of the two Newt is by far the more ambitious and dangerous. Some type of analysis of personality types says he fits into "double high authoritarians," a collection of bad traits who who should never be trusted with power, even more than Trump. Bizarre to even be joking about him anywhere near the White House.
A failing TV station sounds perfect for both of them.
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)Now, that having been said, I think Telsi Gabbard is sexy too! And then there is Corey Booker...
I can't believe I am defending this kind of decision-making model. It's all sick! No wonder a TV Celebrate is leading the pac on the other side.
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)There is an uproar any time anyone says anything similar about Hillary, as there should be.
IronLionZion
(45,540 posts)Yupster
(14,308 posts)The only thing I know that he did is a disaster.
Night Watchman
(743 posts)We're talking about the Vice President. Who cares what he looks like?
iandhr
(6,852 posts)The problem is no one knows who he his.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)StevieM
(10,500 posts)Compare that to Paul Ryan. He had higher name ID in 2012 than Becerra has today. But he was known as the author of the Ryan budget, which the American people despised. Had it not been for gerrymandering we would have taken back the House after the GOP embraced that radical platform.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)rurallib
(62,451 posts)oops - all out of Toms.
Not too fond of Tim either
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Hopefully it's an uninformed list.
Ideally, it should be someone with the experience necessary to take the helm, not sitting senator and should help secure at least one swing state. As I said, Becerra is my current preferred candidate.
rurallib
(62,451 posts)Brown and Warren are needed in the senate.
Don't know much about Becerra, but I have never thought taking a member of the House to be a good idea. They tend to be too parochial.
Unfortunately, if we eliminate the senate folks with name recognition dry up pretty fast. If Jerry Brown weren't nearing 80 he would be my first choice.
What ever happened to Deval Patrick? He was once quite the rising star, plus he's out of office right now.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)StevieM
(10,500 posts)Hopefully he will be Speaker of the House some day.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)and he was very, very sharp. He would make a great "attack dog" for Hillary. Also, he has a great record.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)help with Latinos. He'd be a great pick, in my opinion.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)MineralMan
(146,333 posts)She's helping Hillary right now with her statements. Truly, I think the party will be united, regardless. There may be a few holdouts, but I'm not sure they were with the party in the first place, and probably wouldn't have been, whoever the nominees were.
But I think the holdouts are too few to matter, really.
I'd love to see Warren on the ticket, but I suspect Clinton will do a gender-balance thing with her choice. We have no idea what a two-woman ticket would do with voters, really. It shouldn't matter, but it might.
musicblind
(4,484 posts)I think the party will come together, however Warren would bring a lot more enthusiasm and outstanding oratorical skills. To me, that is the real reason Warren should be her VP.
Renew Deal
(81,876 posts)He's a big-Agra guy. Maybe he'll play well in the Midwest, but I think he's Obama's worst cabinet choice in 2008.
Kaine, Warren, and Brown all have the pluses. Don't know Perez
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Not a good choice for me, because I'm a progressive, but a good choice for Clinton because she's running the usual Third Way campaign. Vilsack is from Ohio, the third most populous state. He's not liberal at all, so he provides some insulation from the accusation that the party has gone to extreme left. Tim Kaine would be a similar choice, but Vilsack seems better from a tactical standpoint.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Kaine might be better, since he represents more votes, and VA is an important swing state. Vilsack is very smooth in public, though, one of the best.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)could be a BIG problem. I'd like to see Sherrod Brown but, Kasich would appoint his replacement, jeopardizing a Dem Senate majority. I want Warren to stay in the Senate; she'll be worth a lot more in the Senate than she would be as Veep, imo.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)He's pro-life but he's NOT anti-choice. That's a distinction that will resonate with many, many Americans.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)Response to leftynyc (Reply #18)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)but I'd be very okay with Kaine for that reason and that he represents an important swing state.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)He's not going to go along with incrementalism, but if there was ever a day when he had a say on the permanent and irreversable outlawing of abortion, I have no faith in him to not side against choice and call it a conscience decision. He's a guy that governs from his morality, not strategy or party unity or reason.
Beyond that, he's simply an anti-progressive Democrat on the wrong sides of too many issues working against the interests of the people and in opposition on issues where even Clinton and Sanders agree. His selection would be a bellwether for progressives that Hillary's moderation since the start of the primary is possibly insincere. His selection would be a promise to Wall St. that Hillary is going to do nothing to reign in questionable behavior by big banking or big business.
His is a name that needs to not be allowed any consideration. There is literally no grounds on which his consideration for the VP slot should be considered appropriate or legitimate.
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Clinton herself is a little bit vague on reproductive freedom. She doesn't like to mention it, but she has led some audiences to believe she might support a constitutional amendment to ban late-term abortions. Or maybe not. Hard to tell. Kaine could help her out in a couple directions.
First and most obviously, he could tour the south and hint that President Hillary might let the states regulate abortion and birth control at their own discretion.
Second, his opposition to reproductive freedom could be carefully adjusted to be compatible with Clinton's position, while providing enough of a contrast to Clinton's that both liberals and conservatives would see it favorably. Liberals would credit Clinton with making a convert of Kaine, while conservatives would think Kaine converted Clinton.
Renew Deal
(81,876 posts)"She doesn't like to mention it, but she has led some audiences to believe she might support a constitutional amendment to ban late-term abortions. Or maybe not."
That's what called BS
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)"I am opposed to any restriction on a woman's reproductive decisions." If someone can find that statement from Clinton, I will reevaluate.
Renew Deal
(81,876 posts)Instead of making things up?
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Clinton is still evolving on this issue, apparently.
emulatorloo
(44,187 posts)Calling for the end of the Hyde Amendment and successfully getting rid of it helps women who can't afford abortions to get help from the federal government to pay for an abortion.
It is a much needed expansion of reproductive freedom.
Most DU'ers aren't as gullible and stupid as you think you are. So repeating an untruth over and over won't work here.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)And disregard little problems with the candidates we support. We feel we have to accept them as they are because they're better than the other guys. That's fine, but it doesn't have to extend to yelling "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" when somebody questions inconsistencies.
emulatorloo
(44,187 posts)Bernie primary supporter here. Both Bernie and HRC have a long history of fighting for reproductive rights.
So I have zero respect those who willfully misinterpret the positions of Democrats.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)abortions except when they endanger the life or health of the mother.
I do not have a problem with that. To the contrary, at some point we are clearly dealing with the lives of two human beings, and I would draw that line as early as scientifically, not philosophically or religiously, doubt enters mainstream factions. This marker would change with advances in knowledge and technology--and economic issues of how much it would cost to keep babies alive would not be weighed. Quality of life would be a consideration.
I do have a problem with her position, and that of many millions, that abortion is justified in the cases of rape and incest. If the fetus is a person, this is murder plain and simple. If it is not, no justification is needed.
Clinton replied, "NoI have been on record in favor of a late-pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother."
In the exchange, Clinton seems to support limited bans on late-term abortions after a fetus is viable (about 24 weeks into a pregnancy). Her campaign has said nothing to contradict this. Asked to clarify Clinton's position, a campaign spokesperson responded in an email: Politicians should not interfere with a woman's personal medical decisions, which should be left to a woman in consultation with her doctor. She also recognizes that Roe v. Wade provides that restrictions are constitutional later in pregnancy so long as there are clear exceptions for the life and health of the woman.
Clinton has consistently made clear her support for exceptions to any late-term abortion regulations, such as when the life or mental or physical health of the mother is at risk. She would also consider restrictions only after about the 24-week mark, when a fetus is considered viable, in keeping with the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.
But her stance leaves open the question of whether a woman's right to an abortion would be protected if a fetal abnormality is detected late in her pregnancy that does not threaten her life or health. This issue may not be the highest priority for abortion rights advocates who have battled more fundamental threats to abortion access in recent years. Only a small fraction of abortions take place after 20 weeks. But in a primary campaign that has seen the candidates and their backers parse the slightest differences in their platforms, the late-term abortion debate represents a meaningful divide between Clinton and Sanders on a high-profile issue.
emulatorloo
(44,187 posts)So you've got zero credibility.
Don't bother bombarding us with willfully misinterpreted quotes.
Additionally you act as if a majority of voters are anti-choice, and that is absolute bullshit.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)If I disregarded Clinton's evolution on reproductive freedom? She appears to be moving from somewhere to somewhere else. Where are those two places?
emulatorloo
(44,187 posts)You have zero credibility. Primary's over, no more lying about Democrats.
No more smearing a politician with a long history of fighting for reproductive freedom and who is highly rated by planned parenthood as 'anti-choice.'
iandhr
(6,852 posts)I am pretty sure he said he personally believes that life begins at conception. But he votes pro-choice because he doesn't believe in imposing his religion on others.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)emulatorloo
(44,187 posts)still_one
(92,422 posts)SharonClark
(10,014 posts)Hillary is not running 3rd Way and Vilsack is a liberal.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Tom Vilsack isn't a liberal or a progressive, he's a moderate. I'd be surprised if his picture wasn't in the encyclopedia as the example of "Moderate Democrat."
Cirque du So-What
(25,988 posts)in light of the fact that his replacement would be named by Kasich. That aside, I believe Sherrod Brown would be an outstanding VP candidate.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I hope this is just Conservative News Network trying to give the GOP a heads-up for Roadkill-head to choose his Republican running mate.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)president, and I like this trend - being a person of color (Asian) myself (I don't like the word "minority" .
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown won't do us any good? Okay so, who do you suggest?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Sherrod Brown is in the Senate, is Senator of Ohio, and Kasich is Governor of Ohio. You really want those Repubs to choose EW's and Sherrod's replacements?
A Democratic President is not enough to get anything done. Without a Democratic Congress, Hillary's hands would be tied to get anything she's campaigning for, done. We've seen that with President Obama. We also need a Democratic Senate, and ideally, a Democratic House.
So no. Those two won't do us any good.
I would suggest Julian Castro. He's charismatic, young, Mexican-American, the "Latino version of Barack Obama" in education, temperament, and speech, and he doesn't take anything away from the Senate. As nationalistic as Texans are - where he hails from - they'll be even more so when they see a chance for one of their own this close to the presidency, proving to the nation that the Democratic Party is as diverse as we truly are.
First African-American president.
First Woman president.
First Latino as president.
Julian Castro giving the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2012.
Julian Castro's accomplishments as Mayor of San Antonio - a city with 1.5 million residents (more constituents than some U.S. Senators can boast).
For the longest time, Julian's been denying that he's being considered to be Hillary Clinton's running mate. Now, since 7/5/2016 and with Jorge Ramos, he no longer denies he's being vetted but is being as just evasive on answering the question as all the others.
That's why I don't trust CNN's short list.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)she's my U.S. Senator. Our GOP Governor will not be appointing Warren's successor if she's elected Veep; State law, passed by the Legislature at the request of Senator Kennedy before his death, requires an election. I don't want her to leave the Senate.
Perhaps I misunderstood/misread your comment as being, effectively, "none of the final five are quality candidates." We agree on the reasons Brown should not be the candidate.
I'm not convinced about Castro but, if he's the choice, I'll be supporting it.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)that we get a diverse ticket, and I believe Julian Castro fits the bill perfectly.
Holly Moore, a Clinton volunteer in Fairfield, came away impressed. She said she liked Castros politics, especially his work to expand education opportunities for young children.
His ethnicity, she said, is a nice bonus. I dont think anybody can be president anymore without a diverse ticket, she said.
I agree with her.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)A special election has to be held within 60 days, but the Governor can appoint an interim until the vote is certified and the new senator is sworn in.
The Governor could drag his feet and wait the whole sixty days this derailing the 100 day agenda.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)However, Reid and his advisors have found an awkward work around: Warren can file an intent-to-resign letter 145 days prior to a January 20th inauguration date, which would block Baker from making an appointment as Warren would still be in office. However, in this scenario, if a Clinton-Warren ticket were to lose in November, Warren would have to rescind her resignation and run for what would then be an open seat.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/if-warren-is-clintons-vp-harry-reid-has-a-plan-to-replace-her/
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Evergreen Emerald
(13,070 posts)Love the pic.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Arkana
(24,347 posts)It's going to be one of the first three names, mark my words.
mblock
(22 posts)But I'm not sure she would take that chance unfortunately. Sherrod is my Senator as well and I don't see her taking him away from the Senate because of Kasich. Deval Patrick works with Mitt Romneys company Bane Capital so I think he is out as well. I also agree and like Becerra. The person has to be a pretty good debater to be able to debate any of the issues with whom Trump picks. So will Perez or Castro have the experience? Kaine is actually my least favorite. Experienced but😑💤💤💤
StevieM
(10,500 posts)He would have made a great vice-president. He may still make a great Speaker of the House some day.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
StevieM
(10,500 posts)Second, Hillary has an outstanding relationship with him and would probably enjoy working with him.
Rhiannon12866
(206,084 posts)I went to school with him, not that we had a personal relationship, LOL, he was a few years ahead of me. But that's how I remember him, so I've always rooted for him. Same for his wife, she's just as smart and she ran for Congress back in 2011, but unfortunately lost to incumbent Steve King. And besides, Tom was a member of DU! (Delta Upsilon)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I mean, every four years, it's "Vilsack speculation this, and Potential Vilsack ticket that. Vilsack. Vilsack! VILSAAAAACK!"
I don't get it, but there you go.
drray23
(7,637 posts)he is a bright guy, from my state of Virginia. lots of experience having been governor and senator, well liked in Virginia. he would deliver va for her. since the governor is a democrat, we would not have to worry about the replacement for the senate. Mc Auliffe would name another dem.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)I like Mark Dayton, but I don't think he could campaign every day.
spooky3
(34,483 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,311 posts)that anyone whose name is floated never wins the slot
Count me for a sleeper candidate, one who doesn't flip a Senate
seat, is midwest where we need some shoring up
Senator Al Franken
Of course, the safe bet is Tim Kaine
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)Because the press says this is the "short list" doesn't mean we know everything about her actual short list.
bucolic_frolic
(43,311 posts)It stimulates supporters of those mentioned in key districts, states, constituencies
Then the candidate is **** BRILLIANT **** for coming up with the greatest
pick in 200 years and the pick is new and exciting
Maybe this system went into mothballs about 2010 with so much thinking and focus
on elections, everyone is considered now
gademocrat7
(10,672 posts)He is a representative from California. His congressional seat would stay in the blue column.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)I've known Warren as a progressive from when she was a law professor.
Tom Perez is also a progressive.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Warren is only on "the list" for public consumption. Whoever is picked, one thing I am sure of is that it will ONLY be another fiscal conservative.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...it would a be a strange strategy to vet Elizabeth Warren just for the public.
When HRC announces a centrist, it would make progressives more disappointed than if she hadn't vetted Warren.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)jcgoldie
(11,648 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Only same-sex tickets have EVER won the White House!
The only historic change we are looking for is which sex!
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,869 posts)Either of those two would really add a lot of excitement to the ticket.
Stinky The Clown
(67,819 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)chillfactor
(7,584 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)Not on it.
The only person on that list I'd prefer Castro over is Tim Kaine...and that's because Kaine is literally the worst Democrat to be mentioned or considered for a VP slot since Joe Lieberman.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)was dumped..
OK Hillary, if you pick Tom Kaine, this will be remembered.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Warren or Brown might be the best VP, but I doubt they'd be the best choice of VP.
andym
(5,445 posts)If so, then Warren might make a good Secretary of the treasury or labor at the same time.
Native
(5,943 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,869 posts)BlueStater
(7,596 posts)Thank freaking God.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)is one of three, plus Warren and Kaine. Per AP according to Mother Jones. Obviously too early to get excited one way or the other.
Don Draper
(187 posts)It would help her with Ohio which is a crucial swing state
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)He's super attractive (sorry, but it's true) and just seems nice. He and Hillary would make a good campaign team, IMO...
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Worse, I think he's the preferred candidate.
Please let Hillary have more sense than to choose Tim Kaine for a ruinning mate.
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)Guess they want him to keep his seat - but if that's who you're thinking, I'm sad to not see his name on the list.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I'm unhappy he's still being considered. I really don't like Booker either but I'd rather have Corey Booker on the ticket than Tim Kaine.
Tim Kaine is the worst Democrat to be mentioned as a potential Democratic VP nominee since Joseph I. Lieberman.
MFM008
(19,820 posts)no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Logical
(22,457 posts)Metric System
(6,048 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)"I'm good enough to be VP
I'm smart enough to be VP
And dog-gone it, people like me!"
Matt_R
(456 posts)gogo_du
(29 posts)ever being this excited about a VP pick. This has been a great political season so far.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...and I felt John Edwards was a good choice.
jg10003
(976 posts)would appoint a replacement who would serve until the 2018 election. Warren is possible since the Massachusetts republican governor would appoint a temporary replacement until a special election is held in about 5 months.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)If she picks her, they'll be unstoppable.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)within the party
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Xavier Becerra, CA Rep
Anthony Foxx, Secretary of Transportation
Deval Patrick, former Massachusetts governor
INdemo
(6,994 posts)DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)However if that's the choice I guess it will be fine, but it seems like an awfully boring pick.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...which made big news was a bad decision to fire Shirley Sherrod.
mentalsolstice
(4,462 posts)1. He could have been her "Joe Biden," but maybe with a little more finesse.
2. I think he would have energized younger voters.
It was mentioned upthread that maybe there was stuff from his younger years. However, unless it was seriously criminal, I think we're over that as a society. Seriously, look at what the other side is offering up, and that's just the top of their ticket, who knows what they'll offer as the "heartbeat away" candidate.
Mendocino
(7,511 posts)he like Warren is most effective serving in the Senate. Brown also has some baggage and whether real or not, it will be a detriment. The right will exploit for all its worth.
sangfroid
(212 posts)Who was going on at great lengths about how Clinton would never select Warren for VP. His logic? Progressives will vote for Hillery because who else are they going to vote for? And besides, Warren is poison to the Wall St. Crowd. So, continuing this logic, Hillery will pull in a conservative Democrat to eat away at Dipshit Donald's support and pull in the big money.
(Note to the Ministry of Truth: this is a paraphrase of comments made by a surrogate)
So, once again, the progressive wing is screwed
BlueMTexpat
(15,373 posts)in this or anything else. When Hillary herself announces her choice, THEN I will believe it.
IrishEyes
(3,275 posts)There are pros and cons for each of them.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And why.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Always a bridesmaid, never a bride.
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #139)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Yes we drop the Senate seat, but it would make for a very strong and unifying ticket. Plus I'd love to see her debate Gingrich or Augustus Gloop or whoever Trump puts on the GOP ticket.
PatrickforO
(14,592 posts)Kaine and Vilsack are a little bit too centrist for me.
I'd be fine with Brown, Perez or Warren, though I feel like Warren could do more good in the Senate than as VP.
My preferences, for that reason, are Brown and Perez.
I'm still waiting for Clinton's call to get my advice. I know she's planning to call me within the week...
flamingdem
(39,328 posts)trumpster's pick
marble falls
(57,263 posts)2024.