Sunday, March 06, 2016

The Washington Post suggests that what Hillary Clinton needs to win in November is a little Elizabeth Warren.

Courtesy of the Washington Post:  

Though formal deliberations have yet to begin, the notion of a Clinton-Warren dream team has already been contemplated at Clinton’s campaign headquarters in Brooklyn. And there is likely to be more such talk, for several reasons: 

Putting the liberal icon on the ticket would reunite the party and energize Sanders supporters who feel Clinton didn’t go far enough in adopting his theme of economic justice. 

An all-female ticket would electrify Democrats and widen a gender gap that is already wide enough to swallow Trump, long accused of misogyny. 

Above all, Warren’s passionate populism would provide a perfect antidote to the oft-bankrupt billionaire Trump. If Clinton embraced Warren, and more of her agenda, she could match Trump’s appeal to disaffected, white, working-class voters.

As frequent readers of this blog well know I am a big fan of the Clinton/Warren ticket, and have been advocating for it essentially right after Hillary declared that she wanted to run for the presidency

Not only does it make for an unbeatable ticket, but it also provides comfort for those who feel that Clinton is too pro-Wall street, or non-trustworthy.

And let's face it, Bernie Sanders supporters are mostly Warren supporters to went to the dance with the one who said yes, rather than the one they were crushing on.

And before any of those controlls come over and start talking about how Warren needs to stay in the Senate where she will be more effective, that is simply bullshit and the talk of somebody who either doesn't understand politics or who is terrified of the effectiveness that Warren with have in her role as Vice President. 

This is the presidential ticket that the Democrats need, the country deserves, and the Republicans fear the most.

94 comments:

  1. Anonymous2:05 PM

    Absolutely. 100% agree. This should already be a done deal. No sense delaying the announcement. Just do it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous2:08 PM

    Sanders/Warren 2016!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous3:06 PM

      Yes!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous4:17 PM

      Warren hasn't even endorsed Sanders.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous5:10 PM

      4:17 Warren hasn't even endorses Clinton.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous7:44 AM

      Clinton supporters are freaking out about it and going after her like Sanders supporters are.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous8:57 AM

      Shit...
      Clinton supporters are NOT freaking out about it and going after her like Sanders supporters are.

      Delete
    6. Karl Rove9:22 AM

      Sen Warrren running under HRC would be bad for US, we need her fighting in the Senate, not under HRC.

      I will happily vote for Jill Stien if Warren jumps ship.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous11:53 AM

      Didn't you hear? Warren already jumped ship by not endorsing Sanders. I thought you'd be all over Warren's FB page with the rest of your lot.

      Delete
  3. I will support a Clinton-Warren ticket.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous2:16 PM

    And what you need is some integrity

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous2:19 PM

    I hope it happens. Two very smart and savvy women! And can I remind everyone of the last time Sarah Palin went after Elizabeth Warren and came out looking like the drunk/drugged fool she is?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQSv1PZSzIw

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous2:20 PM

    Look, another story about the inhumanity of how we treat immigrant families... If you find this terrible, to abuse women and children as a deterrent against future immigration, just remember that the great women and children advocate Hillary Clinton supports this policy, supports these tactics.
    Obama is carrying out this policy right now, this problem goes well beyond Clinton. But elections are a time to tell our representatives what we think about their policies. If we oppose Democratic politicians treating immigrant families like dirt, if we oppose Democratic politicians offering up cuts to social welfare programs that help the most vulnerable among us, if we oppose Democratic politicians using government to redistribute billions of dollars from the working class to the upper class, then you will vote for Bernie Sanders. If you think these things are wrong but still vote for Clinton, I don't know what the purpose of having elections are, because we are certainly not using them to communicate our desires and ideals to those who represent us in government.
    (That said in November if the choice is between Clinton and any Republican, vote for Clinton, because it will reduce the amount of evil we as voters inflict on others.)
    "Immigration officers at Berks have been advising mothers that there is one easy escape route available. Each time one requests medical help, saying she or her children are suffering from stress or sickness, she receives a reply suggesting that she ask her attorney to withdraw the motion to suspend the family’s deportation.
    In that case, the reply says, “arrangements can be made for your removal from the United States.”"

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/us-holding-families-in-custody-to-keep-others-from-crossing-the-border/2016/03/05/14fc9fb6-da6d-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous3:32 PM

      Right now just about every country in the world is trying to out-ugly the next. This includes formerly reasonable and humane countries like Australia, whose Right-Wing government has outraged the United Nations repeatedly for the past three years.

      I don't see any hope of reasonable human beings winning this fight, I'm afraid. It's like it's a pissing contest.

      Delete
  7. Anonymous2:29 PM

    I just read the best quote ever, that applies to all.

    The contradictions you contain are your unity. When you refuse to own your own war, someone else takes the heat. Art tears itself apart, and by doing so, illuminates you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous2:29 PM

    Elizabeth Warren is a Senator from Massachusetts, which, although it occasionally elects Republicans (Mitt Romney, Scott Brown), it more often sends top-notch progressives to Congress. If she were to run as vice-president and lost, she'd still be our Senator. If she won, the odds are great that another Massachusetts progressive would take her place.
    No one can match Warren in so many ways, but a safe and secure Democratic seat would follow her move to the Executive Branch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous2:53 PM

      I can't believe you're willing to sacrifice Elizabeth Warren to Hillary Clinton. They are the antithesis of each other is so many ways, and I am not saying that as a compliment to Clinton.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous3:10 PM

      2:29 - agree but it seems unlikely to happen.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous7:49 PM

      Anonymous2:53 PM,
      What a ridiculous comment. How exactly would she be sacrificed?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous8:06 PM

      Some people are so overwhelmed with hatred for Hilary Clinton, they can't think straight. It clouds their judgement.

      Delete
    5. 66gardeners7:00 AM

      8:06
      Republicans FEAR Hillary.
      They should!

      Delete
    6. George Bush11:11 AM

      R's and D's play good cop bad cop, both are playing for the Corps!

      Cruz gets Goldman Sachs (GS) funds, HRC gets GS funds, where's the difference?

      Bernie take no funding fro GS!

      Delete
    7. Anonymous11:52 AM

      Bernie good. Bernie take no funding. Bernie fro GS. Good. Good.

      Delete
  9. A J Billings2:31 PM

    As much as I think a Clinton/Warren ticket would be good for America in the long run, I don't think that putting Elizabeth in for VP is a wise strategy if Hillary wants to actually win in the general election.

    Conventional wisdom would say to Hillary to pick a strong, centrist Governor or Senator from a swing state, even a moderate Republican.


    Warren is a far left liberal from Massachusetts, which is a bridge to far for many independents and swing voters from the South and Midwest.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you not been paying attention?

      There is NOTHING conventional about what is happening in this election cycle.

      Those putting their trust in what has worked in the past are falling by the wayside on a daily basis.

      What she need is courageous, unconventional, and provocative.

      I think a Clinton/Sanders ticket meets all three criteria.

      Delete
    2. A J Billings2:57 PM

      @ Gryphen,

      Of course I'm paying attention, and I realize this is not a normal election year. Your point is well taken.

      I just think choosing Warren would be a big gamble.

      We've had a Democratic President for 8 years, and very often the elections go the other way after two terms.

      The thought of Trump or Cruz being elected is nothing short of disastrous, and we need the ticket most likely to carry swing states in the general election like Ohio,
      Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida.


      Delete
    3. Anonymous3:12 PM

      Gryph, did you mean Clinton/Warren in your comment?

      Delete
    4. Oops typo.

      I of course meant Clinton/Warren ticket.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous3:28 PM

      I'd be interested in hearing some suggestions, because I really can't see a Blue Dog Democrat reflecting well on Hillary OR inspiring anyone to turn out.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous4:21 PM

      Gryphen thinks a Clinton Warren ticket is what republicans fear most? That is a laughable assertion. A two woman ticket would be a sure loss for either side. Your imagination is getting away from you again Gryph.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous4:42 PM

      It should be a winning ticket, but there are sexists on both sides of the aisle.

      Delete
  10. Anonymous2:38 PM

    o/t .... The video that Oz Mudflats has posted is about the new and trending make-up regime called "Trumping". It is pretty damn funny.
    <-------------

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous2:48 PM

    2:29 -- I just forwarded that to a friend. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous2:51 PM

    Elizabeth Warren belongs in the Senate, not as Hillary Clinton's #2, where I can't imagine she would be happy watching Clinton do her predictable about-about-face on the TPP, start pushing for means-testing Social Security, and fete Jamie Dimon at the White House. Warren might help Clinton, but it would be a very destructive one-way street for her. Clinton would destroy Warren.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What took you so long?

      You're almost an hour late.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous3:09 PM

      Gryphen, I'm a long time poster here. I post in many of your threads, thanking you for highlighting issues like gun control and child abuse, and posting compliments on your way with words. I'm the poster who, years ago, provided you with the graphic I made of the two Sarah Palins at that race she pretended to run in.

      For your to call me a troll because I have NO USE for Hillary Clinton and her Wall Street-protecting, warmongering ways, especially when I am not the only poster here who feels that way, really makes me sad. I'm a retiree on a fixed income who remembers well the damage Bill Clinton did to the workers and poor of this country, and his wife shows every sign of having the same mindset.

      I can't believe this doesn't concern you.

      Despite the fact that I'm on a fixed income and don't have a lot of money to spare, I sent you a contribution of $20 in Sept 2011. No it wasn't much but all I could afford.

      Since you attack me for being critical of Hillary Clinton, fact-based criticism, may I add, but allow all kinds of fantasy bullshit to be posted without question, I guess I've learned my lesson about you the hard way. For whatever reason, you have decided to go after me, and let all other kinds of crap fly. Well, your blog, your rules. Whatever. But I am not a troll, and you have even complimented some of my other posts before.

      I won't be posting again, or supporting you again. Not worth it.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous3:20 PM

      See gryphen I'm not the only one calling you out... kudos to 3:09

      Delete
    4. Anonymous4:05 PM

      It's Gryphen's blog. If you want a Sanders rah rah space look elsewhere.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous4:11 PM

      I'm a Hillary supporter but I have to give my compliments to 3:09. Gryphen has little if any respect for dissenting opinions. He allows the most vile, disgusting, misogynistic comments if they target the Palins. I despise the Palins but many of the remarks here are way over the top. I'm sorry you wasted $20 on Gryphen and I must commend 3:09 for telling it like it is, vis a vis Gryphen.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous4:56 PM

      Who called you a troll?

      Delete
    7. Anonymous5:03 PM

      You have "no use" for Hillary Clinton even though she is to the left of Bernie Sanders on gun control and has spent decades fighting for the welfare of women and children (two things you seem interested in based on your OP). This is the kind of cognitive dissonance so many Sanders supporters have. You like Sanders' positions on economics much more than Clinton's. Great. But to vilify Clinton to the degree that you overlook what she stands for that you agree with (and to similarly overlook where Sanders falls short)? That just doesn't make any sense.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous 3:09 PM wrote, without fear of contradiction: I won't be posting again, or supporting you again. Not worth it.

      3:09 could comment again, at length, on the very next article, and none of us would ever know (not even Gryphen, if they aren't posting from a fixed IP address).

      3:09 is, presumably, claiming that the 2:51 comment contained "fact-based criticism"—yet that comment contains no references in support of the claims made. It contains a number of speculations about things Hillary Clinton might do in the future, plus a prediction that Elizabeth Warren's reaction—should these things come to pass—would not be a happy one.

      As MacBeth said in a different context, "it is a tale … full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."

      Delete
    9. 3:09, I've seen the dissonance as well. I've been a long time reader of IM and shake my head at the hatred that many of us condemned the right for.
      Any commenter contradictions get us labeled as trolls when we have been long time supporters.
      I won't say I won't keep coming here, but I will comment less and less as that also drives traffic.
      Sorry Gryph, but you've let your once great blog devolve into a hate infested cesspool. I used to love it here.

      Delete
    10. 66gardeners7:05 AM

      I guess idiots do not realize how stupid they sound saying, I'll never post here again.

      Delete
    11. I guess you do not realize how stupid you sound when you diagnose so many public figures with dyslexia, 66G.

      Carli (10:00) made a very valid point and yet you imply she is stupid.

      Delete
  13. Anonymous3:08 PM

    People are forgetting that Prof. Warren is only in the Senate because she was shafted from the bureau she should have been heading. You might have noticed she is focused on her area of expertise, and I believe that that shows where her political ambitions end.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous3:11 PM

    Warren/Clinton?

    Better yet, Warren/Sanders?

    I wish we could have a troika, with some new division of powers: all three.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous3:11 PM

    Why put Warren, one of the most effective progressive voices in the Senate, in a position where she'd have virtually no influence at all on policy or legislation? Despite the fact that she'd loose all her liberal cred if she even endorsed Hillary before the primaries and caucuses had run their course. She should have endorsed Sanders quite a while ago.

    Warren is a Roosevelt/60's Democrat. Back then they would have called Hillary a Republican.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was voting in the 60s. Hillary Clinton was a Democrat then and she's a Democrat now.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous4:20 PM

      If you think "they" would have called Clinton a republican in the 60s, you don't know the meaning of the word.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous4:30 PM

      Hillary was a Goldwater Girl. That was in the 60s wasn't it? I must be younger; I became of voting age in the early 70s. I started with Nixon - yuck!

      Delete
    4. 4:30, Hillary Clinton supported Goldwater in 1964. She entered Wellesley College in 1965, as did I. Like me, she campaigned for Eugene McCarthy in 1968. He was a Democrat, in case you've forgotten. However, I jumped ship once Robert Kennedy entered the race.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous7:55 PM

      People who only know the right wing talking points of history really shouldn't comment on subjects about which they clearly know nothing.

      Delete
    6. Joe Friday11:19 AM

      Wasn't HRC the chair of the Young Republicans at Welleesy? Oops she was the president of The Young Republicans! LOL

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

      Delete
    7. Anonymous11:51 AM

      Oops, that was 50 years ago.

      But nice try (not really).

      Delete
  16. Anonymous3:11 PM

    Gryphen2016 for douchebag... elect gryphen to the post of top douchebag in a Hillary cabinet.. his experience in bullshitting lying to people and misinforming people is a quality only surpassed by Hillary

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous3:29 PM

      You sound just as vacuous (look it up) as Donald Trump... A lot of words, not much sense. But, please do have a nice evening.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous4:20 PM

      We will know by your annoyingly frequent use of ellipses.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous6:25 AM

      ... your incorrect use of ellipses.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous7:09 AM

      Gryphen and his sheep support assholes like Clinton and Sanders.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous7:43 AM

      That's a new one, 7:09.

      Whom do you support?

      Delete
  17. Anonymous3:13 PM

    I'd like the set-up for one reason; when Hillary has another brain hemorrhage , Liz can step in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SallyinMI3:20 PM

      Nice try.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous4:36 PM

      Classy

      Delete
    3. Anonymous7:56 PM

      Pethetic comment from a pathetic excuse for a human being.

      Delete
  18. SallyinMI3:19 PM

    Amen-the misogynists in the GOP will be sucking their thumbs in the corner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4:23 PM

      I love the idea. Unfortunately, there are plenty of misogynists among Democrats and Independents (some of whom even comment in this thread...or...maybe...it's...just...one........)

      Delete
    2. Anonymous7:59 PM

      Are you kidding? Have you read the comments from the Trump supporters and the Bernie supporters? The misogyny runs so deep in this country that this combination would not stand a chance. Even the bernie supporters turned against Warren because she failed to endorse him.

      Delete
  19. sewnup3:23 PM

    They are no matched pair; they'd cancel each other out and dilute their good points, especially on financial and corporate control issues. Better let Warren serve without being dragged down by Hill's history, not to mention Clinton's currently evolving stand. Warren tends to figure things out her way and sticks to her guns, Hillary more anxious to be "in" with potential voters. Warren and Sanders far better philosophical match. Clinton needs someone at least as flexible (wobbly?)as she herself is.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous3:26 PM

    Don't the two candidates usually agree on something? The two are so totally different on their views and actions on so many things that I find the idea ridiculous. Right now, Hillary's pal and facilitator Debbie WS is doing her best, with the Republicans, to thwart Warren's attempt at stopping predatory payday lenders from continuing to ruin poor, desperate folks. DWS is a nasty stain on the Democratic party, and a downright cheater where HRC is concerned, but that's another story for another time. Sanders/Warren-hell yeah. Same values, same fans. Same integrity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous3:46 PM

      Kudos 3:26

      Delete
    2. Anonymous4:22 PM

      You sounds like a Rush-bot, 3:46.

      ditto, ditto, ditto, kudos, kudos, kudos...

      Delete
    3. Anonymous4:27 PM

      "The two are so totally different on their views..."

      No, they're not. If I remember correctly, Warren encouraged Clinton to run.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous4:36 PM

      People are so brainwashed they actually believe Hillary Clinton is the opposite of Elizabeth Warren. They aren't and it's ridiculous to say so.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous5:49 AM

      They kinda are.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous7:42 AM

      They kinda are not, but you kinda are brainwashed.

      Delete
  21. Anonymous4:22 PM

    Do we live in the same country? Am I imagining the misogyny directed at Hillary even from some liberal/progressive males? You think two women on the ticket would be even better than one and be unbeatable?

    Dana Milbank's op-ed argued, not only that Warren would energize the Democratic base, but that Trump supporters would be attracted to Warren's populism. That's bullshit. Milbank is completely ignoring the authoritarian white nationalism among Trump supporters. I think they'll be more at home with Ted Cruz. Otherwise, wouldn't all these 'disaffected, white, working-class voters' be in Bernie Sanders' camp already?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4:30 PM

      To clarify...it's not bullshit that Warren would energize the Dem. base. It is bullshit that she'd draw more than a few handfuls of Trump supporters.

      Delete
  22. Anonymous4:31 PM

    It is the Dream Ticket!!! I love Elizabeth Warren. Her book The Two-Income Trap was absolutely riveting. She is incredibly bright and forward thinking and truly a person who understands the plight of the middle class, unlike every GOP candidate.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous4:35 PM

    Maybe Elizabeth Warren's highest goal is to be majority leader. She can do a lot of good working in the trenches. Not everyone wants to be President (or Vice President).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous6:11 PM

      I think she would be a fantastic majority leader and would be more effective staying in Congress to push, pull and drag it to the left.

      The VP choice is usually someone who is different enough from the main candidate to pull in geographical or political votes the Presidential candidate cannot. Although Clinton was born in Chicago and was First Lady of Arkansas, her Senate seat was from NY. I suspect they will go for a ticket that is a little more diverse than two white women from the northeast.

      Delete
  24. Anonymous4:37 PM

    I guess that Warren might actually get her some votes the she wouldn't have gotten on her own, but still, I'd rather have a Warren/Clinton ticket.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anita Winecooler5:16 PM

    That would be my dream ticket! I can see the GOP's hands shrinking and heads exploding as we speak.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Liz Warren11:25 AM

      While I thank you for the thoughts of my being Vice President, I do not wish to give up my committees, nor the power for I wield as senator.

      As VP I would be powerless to help my constituents.

      Delete
  26. Anonymous6:05 PM

    All politicians have pretty large egos. Given that, why would a star like Elizabeth Warren want to get her reputation tarnished walking in Hillary Clinton's muddied shadow?

    ReplyDelete
  27. It would be a dream ticket for progressives, but not likely to happen. More likely - and an excellent choice- is Julian Castro: young, Latino.

    ReplyDelete
  28. It absolutely makes sense - but, the realty is unlikely - this country still allows women to earn less than men doing the same job, women are still treated like 2nd class citizens - don't forget how the repugs are STILL making crazy efforts to turn back the clock on a woman's right to choose - which is most disgusting since its MEN making decisions for us- WTF!!

    I'd say those 2 women would scorch the ground beneath those clowns who still believe women shouldn't be leaders of the free world. To say we're long overdue is an understatement. I'm fed up with the pasty white, corrupt, racist and dishonest breed that's been running this country into the ground for decades. Women - ALL women of every culture and color within our country should step up now and follow the example our president set - in so many ways. I will miss president Obama and his beautiful l family.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous7:05 PM

    I think a Clinton/Warren ticket would be Clinton's best move to neuter Warren. Hope Warren doesn't fall for it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous7:12 PM

    I think a Clinton/Warren ticket would be Clinton's best move to neuter Warren. Hope Warren doesn't fall for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous8:03 PM

      Wow, you really think Clinton is a monster.

      Delete
  31. Anonymous9:05 AM

    No Warren will not pull Sanders supporters to HRC. I will vote Green if Sen Warren runs with HRC.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Karl Rove9:28 AM

    Gryp & IM fair and balanced reporting?

    Just another Faux news!

    SAD :(

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous4:58 PM

    ***And before any of those controlls come over and start talking about how Warren needs to stay in the Senate where she will be more effective, that is simply bullshit and the talk of somebody who either doesn't understand politics or who is terrified of the effectiveness that Warren with have in her role as Vice President.***

    Gryphen, you may know Alaska but you aren't very bright about the rest of the country. Wendy Davis was a power in the TX Lege until she went on the governor trail. Just how EXACTLY is a VP more powerful than a Senator? Because they are first in line if the Secret Service screws up (even more?)? I'm not a troll, and I think Warren should stay where she it.

    ReplyDelete

Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.