Who will Hillary Clinton choose as her running mate? She enjoyed the biggest crowds of her campaign when she appeared with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, setting progressive hearts aflutter. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, the insiders’ favorite, has begun pre-emptive disclosure of dealings – $160,000 in gifts while serving as Governor – that could be grist for oppo research.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
" Booker might help turnout the African-American vote, but Clinton has President Obama for that."
In one of the great anomalies in U. S. politics, Hillary needs no help here at all, she has the Black and minority vote locked up. It is so locked up that her iffy nomination by Superdelegates has its greatest support among members of the CBC. http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000155-6a23-dbd7-a5d5-fe6f76ef0000
" His (Merkley) presence would excite the young and independent voters that were at the heart of the Sanders vote. It would reassure skeptical labor activists..." This can't be the case because those groups are not clueless.
Please don't waste a good progressive like Merkley on Shillary's candidacy. Nothing she does will make any of us more likely to vote for her. It will only diminish the person she chooses in our eyes as a traitor to the progressive cause. Warren's stock has crashed with us for enthusiastically endorsing and campaigning with her. #NeverHillary. Jill Stein 2016.
Unfortunately, it's seemingly sensible articles like this one by Mr. Borosage that lend credibility to a campaign (Hillary's) that was entirely built upon fraud, vote count shenanigans, major voter stop-gaps, and other hardly Democratic machinations used to grant the preordained fate of the Democratic Nomination.
When pundits line up to grant that process credibility, I find that immoral and devious.
Warren is emphatically NOT a favorite with me. She's entirely too much the calculating, political opportunist, constantly testing the political winds before she makes a move. She had a golden opportunity to endorse someone who campaigned on her views with Bernie Sanders, but instead waited in the wings, fishing for a chance for a V.P. spot with Clinton and playing the Demo establishment game of daily Trump bashing.
As for Merkley, the author obviously doesn't have a clue about Hillary Clinton's political career or is deliberately painting her as something she is not. For endorsing Sanders, the ever vindictive Clinton is more likely to try to punish Merkley, not reward him with a V.P. spot. Borosage is little more than a Demo party hack writer, doing his best to entice Sanders followers into the Democratic party fold by luring readers into a "best running mate for Hillary" discussion.
Anyone agreeing to be Hilary's lap dog would be just that. I can imagine he or she being put in charge of the HRC library.
Agree completely. No true progressive will benefit from any association with any neoliberal. It's no different from the ridiculous notion of Bernie as VP with Hillary. Whoever runs on the Dem ticket with her will only be exploited for political expediency, then silenced in a dead end position.
I am an Oregonian, and believe Jeff would make a great presidential candidate. His endorsement of Bernie is a clear example of his consistent convictions, fully demonstrated through thoughtful, reasoned action.
I haven't heard Merkley mentioned before as a possible VP choice but it does make a lot of sense.
"He’s the sole senator who endorsed Bernie Sanders in the primaries, an act of remarkable courage."
Absolutely correct. I thanked him for that courage at a rally in Salem Oregon for Bernie. I also thanked Tulsi Gabbard, who also spoke there.
But why did it take courage on the part of both of them?
Because they were going against establishment politics and the Clinton machine.
Clinton will NEVER, EVER do anything to help either Merkley or Gabbard. She will do everything she can to punish and make an example of them. Fortunately Jeff is really popular here in Oregon - and we Sanders supporters will never forget his endorsement. I hope Tulsi has a similar cushion.
So yes, Merkley deserves all the accolades in the Borosage's piece - and more. He's consistently progressive and courageous. But Clinton wouldn't even consider rewarding him for his endorsement of Sanders. You don't knight a traitor to the Mad Queen.
"For Clinton, looking to show that she has the vision and confidence to unify the party, Merkley is the progressive choice" -- For loves sake, "Progressive choice"? Are you serious?
What a crock of feel-good Hillary cheerleading Robert! Not a word about critical issues and how HRC refuses to speak to ANY without weaseling or changing the subject - her criminal contempt for the law, the TPP Trojan Horse, her lap-dog servitude to Israel and war-criminal Netanyahu, or any other critical issue - not mentioned - like her support for the fossil-fuel industry and global climate change, etc, etc.
The critical issue isn't who the Red Queen might pick as VP, but her history of corruption, actions and failures that should disqualify her from the presidency and CinC! NO Hillary, No Trump - ever!
The issue isn't who she might pick and what it "might signal", but voting for integrity and real progressive issues and leader! Bernie or Jill Stein and screw Dem "party unity" lesser evil garbage!
From your mouth to the Goddess' ears Cookies - may it be so!
If Merkley wants to preserve his integrity, he'll have nothing to do with partnering with Hillary.
I guess Borosage forgets we don't give a shit who she picks as we won't be voting for her if Ghandi was V.P.
He prattles on like whew it's over now so we can get back to pondering the RED QUEEN's pick. No matter the election was rigged, she broke many laws with her server and isn't indicted and she is the most mistrusted candidate ever.
Way to gloss over the illegalities like they never happened. I'm going to quit reading his articles they just piss me off.
Damn straight. You said it well too.
Like almost everyone else here, I'd prefer that no honest progressive join a Clinton ticket. I don't want any of the precious few to give her cover, nor lose a good champion in the process. All it would do is neutralize a rare progressive voice.
A San Diego County Registrar insider claims that hundreds of thousands of California Democratic primary provisional ballots have been illegally destroyed in a covert shredding operation.
A consignment of boxes was delivered to the San Diego Registrar’s Office at 5600 Overland Ave in the morning and an “oversized shredding van” arrived minutes later and took the boxes away. The boxes were carried from the building to the vehicle by men she had never seen before wearing dark blue overalls.
Speculating over who the Vice President will be given the FBI claiming they will not indict Ms Clinton over the email scandal and given all of the evidence that vote fraud occurred is rather inane. The system is rigged and the choice of VP is not a CHOICE at all. It all predetermined.
Ouch. The notion that Hillary Clinton can be turned into anything resembling a liberalish Democrat just defies logic. Clinton has consistently been on the right wing, from her days in college in the 1960s, up to the work she did in 2015 to get the TPP through Congress. She's doesn't have a progressive bone in her body. Does anyone think that Clinton would loosen up her neoliberal ideology a bit, out of sheer gratitude for votes? Or that Sen. Markley, as a man, can help reshape Clinton's views, leading her in a "more sensible direction?" I rather doubt that Clinton is that malleable.
Elizabeth Warren does not "set progressive hearts aflutter." She appeals to the liberal bourgeoisie. Period. Her focus today is exclusively on the middle class, a segment of the population that has been shrinking for years. What America needs, and isn't going to get, is leadership that represents the "masses," not just those above a certain economic line.
All of that said, and in spite of Trump, Clinton has little chance of becoming president, because the Clinton wing have alienated so much of the Dem voting base. They oppose the neoliberal economic agenda of the new New Democrat Party (as Bill Clinton called them). They rejected it in 2000, they rejected it in 2008, and they still reject it in 2016. At the very least, a good chunk of the voting base followed the issue closely enough to know why H. Clinton presents the greatest threat to Social Security -- and we can't risk losing that.
Much of the media marketed to liberals had disappeared Joe Biden (other than occasional efforts at ridicule) from the start, and resumed trying to sell Clinton as a "bold progressive" last year, before she launched her campaign (much as they tried to sell her back in 2008). "It is what it is." It's worth noting that Bill Clinton was able to get more of the right wing agenda implemented than any Republican president. Hillary Clinton is just as far to the right on core socioeconomic issues, but has much more of a taste for war.
Agreed. Even with Merkley anywhere around, NOTHING could get me to vote for that woman. If Bernie doesn't get a grip, I'm going with Jill. Period.