Although I am kind of torn because I want her in the Senate also. I would be happy with Perez, Booker, and maybe Castro as well. Not as thrilled about Kaine or Vilsack.

Such a powerful ticket. Such powerful brains. And such a powerful message.

Talk about activating the electorate.

Enough of the playground level "excitement" factor nonsense. This isn't about trying to create some kind of campaign Disney Land. It's about running the most powerful national administration in Earth.

To run the country. And with her experience in economics, she could be a valuable asset as VP as well. Lastly, winning the election is about energizing people to vote for you. It's not only a resume contest.

into the presidency because of her intellect and competence, far, far, far more than, say, Jeb Bush, who by resume would be better qualified but actually is imo far, far, far less.

NT

I was just curious..

and want EW ? That's me

perky, feisty little thing that you apparently are.

People are just plain living longer and living well and relevantly, and for better and worse we are part of a real demographic power carryover to later years. The fondness of marketers for concentrating commercials, etc., on young people masks that even more than the size of the millennial generation offsets it.

Someday we'll inevitably have the first president in his or her 80s. The irrelevance of Sanders' age to those he inspired of all ages was enlightening, Justice Ginsberg is adjusting people to the idea that she isn't ready to retire or planning to drop dead just because she's 83, and then, of course, there's the tremendous advantage anywhere from 20-60 years in power can give some over young relative newcomers.

And no doubt instead of just blowbacks against too much conservatism or liberalism, someday we'll have age blowbacks as well, too much youth, too much old fartism.

Just babbling on, but you got me thinking about it. I'm an oldie too even if I am a generation behind you.

I wouldn't expect Warren to get very much free-rein in the Clinton administration, and so I wouldn't expect Warren to be broadly effective in pushing much in the way of progressive policy.

We know from HRC's comments she intends Bill to be important to decision making about the economy. Most of Warren's progressive notions about consumer/financial/trade protections will crash into Bill's economic opinions. She'll be neutralized from the start. Which is exactyly how Wall St probably prefers her.

Brain dead? Or just kept drugged up so she'll tolerate a bridle and reins?

I think you haven't thought this through. We're not discussing a kidnapping here.

They are very rarely given opportunity to command a portfolio of political significance.

During campaigns they have been used to try to create appeal to a demographic and geographic region. Sometimes it has been suggested that they can be the partisan bulldog that acting presidential doesn't allow. But any honest look back over the post WW I (one, not a mistake) era suggest that's often not been true, and VP candidates don't, by design or happenstance, out shine the boss.

Once the campaign is over, they mostly are expected to not make significant news, certainly few make more news than the first spouse and in particular VPs seem to steer a course designed to not surprise POTUS and chief political aides with other than comments of utterly complete loyalty and full support

true for Republicans still, Cheney's power grabs being something else. Many conservatives tend to authoritarianism and don't share power well.

What you have heard, however, has not been true for Democratic administrations for a long time and is becoming less so all the time. It all started to change last century when presidents started choosing their own VPs instead of having them chosen for them. Liberals tend to be very different and are much more comfortable delegating power to subordinates and working with them in fairly equal relationships.

Now, again, do you really imagine Warren would agree to give up her position of power to attend memorials and lay flowers on graves? She would have to have more power to accomplish what she wanted to or she would not agree. And presidents can allocate as much of their own power to a VP as they choose.

since 1918. Or name significant domestic or foreign policy initiatives that originated with a VP and were carried forward to fruition by those VPs. I think you'll find not very much.

I cannot say what Warren will or won't do.

But many vps have, in fact, chosen to be mostly off-stage and doing mostly ceremonial stuff.

Have a nice evening.

Are the ACA and the TPP not supposed to be legislative legacies of the current president?

Not a particular subset of age.

Rule of thumb.

I thought they wanted Bernie?