The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Warren vs. Kaine Smackdown

    By PeraclesPlease on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 7:18am |

    So if Hillary goes for Warren, she risks losing the cross-over Republican refugees fleeing a sinking ship and brand the ticket too liberal for some.

    If she chooses Tim Kaine, she may miss the boat in inspiring the Sanders crowd as well as lose someone who seems to ignite a fire.

    (of course there are positive ways to frame this as well)

    Castro seems like damaged goods outside his Hispanic heritage. Any other choices (ignoring Sanders himself) seem a variation on #2. (say Sen. Stuart Smalley from Minnesota, who's not near the firebrand Warren is)

    What to do? It's not just the White House - it's also hugely significant for Congress and state votes. And of course if Trump gets derailed at the convention, it's a whole new ballgame with completely different odds (though at the moment that looks unlikely or illegal or both).

    Okay, gang - let her rip...

     

    Comments

    I always thought it would be Castro, but the more I learn about him the more I think it would be a mistake.  She can't get more Latinos than she already has, unless Trump manages to insult Cubans, who are traditionally Republican.  Also there are enough people who would hear the name Castro and assume she is running one of Fidel's children and stay home (lol, but not really funny).

    I think Warren is right where she needs to be.  She is extremely good at standing up to the GOP in the Senate and not many others are.  Giving the GOP even temporarily, another Senator (which would be the case with the Republican Governor's appointment of her successor, would not be a good move.  She and Hillary can have a very impressive alliance even if she stays in the Senate.

    I like Tim Kaine.  I am from Virginia, and he is a good guy.  He is fluent in Spanish and has executive experience as an ex-governor.  He is also sane, and would be  an impressive VP going forward.

    So if those are the choices, I opt for Tim.

    edit to add:  I also like Sherrod Brown, and Ohio is important.


    by CVille Dem on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 9:27am

    Well I for Kaine too.

    But Mike M had me laughing so hard to some blog I did recently.

    I mean a Clinton/Castro ticket has obvious flaws. hahahahah

    Then there is the issue of two women.

    TwoWomenPoster.jpg


    by Richard Day on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 5:06pm

    Penelope Cruz and Salma Hayek?


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 12:57am

    I think she needs someone who will go hard after Trump and draw his fire. I wasn't keen on Kaine in the first place, and his tepid interview in which he mentioned Trump just once was the last straw. What's the point of him? She might as well have a Virginia is for Lovers bumper sticker for a running mate.

    Castro seems like a pretty Latino face to me. I wish that he had more heft and experience.

    I like Warren for her fire and her politics. She would make a strong running mate against Trump, and picking her would make a statement about her Clinton's commitment to bold progressive reform. When Congress stalls on President Clinton's initiatives, VP Warren can tear them a new collective asshole. But I'm afraid that it won't happen because a) Clinton isn't bold; b) Clinton wants someone she can control. If she does go for Warren, I'll be pleasantly surprised.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 1:00pm

    I don't get the idea that Hillary needs a Warren put to heel, but I can accept that Kaine isn't the piledriver she needs.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 2:58pm

    I disagree with the idea that Hillary needs someone to tear Trump a new one, because it reminds me of what the GOP Primary was like, and it didn't benefit anyone (yes, Trump won, but normal people really don't want a coarse buffoon representing the country, so I think it did big damage to him for the General).  Also, that was Sarah Palin's job in 08 to do to Obama and it wasn't a pretty sight.  It lowered the bar for behavior, and I don't want us to go there.

      I believe that Hillary is playing it just right now -- i.e., not jumping into the mud with him, but at the same time  bringing up examples of his many faults and lack of knowledge.  I thought it was hilarious when Trump used Hillary's very words, criticizing his temperament, to describe her.  I'm thinking she won't sue for plagiarism.

      Warren is doing a great job as a sitting Senator of calling Trump out, especially since she can run rings around him as far as financials go.  She doesn't need to be VEEP to do that.  I think that if Hillary picks Kaine as VEEP, Trump is likely to deliver the "Low Energy" barb.  So what?  Kaine is actually very accomplished, and treating Trump as the goof ball he is, especially when in the debates he will only have insults for Hillary and vague superlatives about himself and his plans.  Hillary will answer the debate moderator's questions with specifics, and she will ignore his impotent ill-advised insults.  (She will practice this and be ready).  He won't.  

    So I think the task for the VEEP is to help out with a state (like Sherrod Brown) and for both of them to be the NON-TRUMP.   


    by CVille Dem on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 3:43pm

    Normally, the VP is the attack dog. This allows the presidential nominee to stay above the fray, which is particularly important against Trump. That doesn't mean fighting dirty or emulating Sarah Palin, but it does not mean going after the Republican nominee aggressively. Other surrogates can do that too, but none have as big a platform as the VP. Warren is getting attention for it right now bc she's a VP contender. Her attacks on Trump will get less coverage if Clinton picks someone else.

    PS VP home state advantage isn't what it used to be in this era of nationalized politics. You're from Virginia, right? How many people do you know who would change their vote if Kaine is the VP?


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 4:44pm

    PS VP home state advantage isn't what it used to be in this era of nationalized politics. You're from Virginia, right? How many people do you know who would change their vote if Kaine is the VP?

    I think Virginia will go for Hillary regardless, and that is why I brought up Sherrod Brown.  I know every vote counts in Ohio, and maybe some Bernie supporters who might otherwise stay home will come out and vote for the Dem ticket if Brown runs.  I'm sure you are right about the VP's state not being as important  though.

    I just wanted to defend Kaine because I think he is a good guy and has exec experience.  I am being wishy washy because I just don't know who would be best.  Virginia's governor is a Dem, so if he appoints someone it will be a Dem.  Ohio, no.  That should not be the biggest consideration however.  

    I just really like Warren's Senate work so much, I'd hate to see her leave.  


    by CVille Dem on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 4:57pm

    Sherrod is awesome on paper. I just find him a little uninspiring. Losing his Senate seat is also a problem, much bigger than the temporary loss of Warren's

    Part of my enthusiasm for Warren is that I see her political style as representing the potential future for the party. Hillary is lucky that she chose not to run for president this year.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 5:08pm

    I thought it was hilarious when Trump used Hillary's very words, criticizing his temperament, to describe her.

    Trump's M.O. is "I know you are but what am I?" He just called Warren a fraud and a racist. I don't think it works, but he seems to.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 5:53pm

    Kaine and Castro do zip to bolster the ticket. Nice guys, perhaps, but they are wallpaper. Warren comes closest to echoing Bernie's passion and progressive credibility, and she'd be a great surrogate -- shoring up Hillary's appeal to both Sanders supporters and women. And she'd give left/right balance to the ticket; Hillary is already doing a fine job sopping up soft Republicans and hawks (Robert Kagan, sweet Jesus!), and the VP nominee isn't going to damage her appeal to GOP deserters.

    If an all-female ticket is considered too bold a move, Sen. Al Franken would slot right in. Minnesotans have embraced him as one of their own. He's progressive enough, he's smart enough, and gosh-darn it people like him. He's authentic in a Sanders way, he can bring the passion a la Warren, but he can also bring some levity and humour that Clinton-Warren might lack. He'd be an asset in locking up Florida,too. I'd be disappointed if it's not Warren or Franken.


    by acanuck on Tue, 06/28/2016 - 7:00pm

    Franken would be great in the campaign. 

    But to be boringly responsible , he ´d be just a successful assassination away from actually holding the office. I  don´t think he´s actually run anything.

    You learn to be good at anything by doing it. Teaching teaches you to be  a teacher. Hours in the operating room makes you a surgeon.I love Obama. He was an inspirational leader.  But ,juset among ourselves ,maybe not that good as a manager.  According to Brad Delong (and others) Hillary  was in over her brilliant head in Hillarycare.

    But she does have the sine qua non :smarts.  But I´d be much more comfortable the morning the election if her/our  number two who ,along with a laundry list of other qualities, was someone who had actually run a large organization like the Red Cross. No one will have enough knowledge or skill to be the country´s leading expert in any one of the areas run by any particular cabinet member. We don´t select the President to do that but to ¨manage¨ the person who has that job . And all the others . Which is the role the Vice President has to be ready to assume.

    Pretty big!


    by Flavius on Wed, 06/29/2016 - 10:45pm

    I'm less concerned with experience in a vp than a president. Intellect, character, and policy positions matter much more. If the two respect each other and get along the vp can get the experience she or he needs with the job. She can learn from the, hopefully, more experienced president.


    by ocean-kat on Wed, 06/29/2016 - 11:10pm

    Ten or twenty years ago I would have had exactly the same position.But , to speak plainly, the danger of  the President being killed seems to me ( I hope I ´m wrong )to have become so much higher that I now feel it´s the candidate´s duty to the country to choose a VP who is as nearly ready to take over as possible.

    That wasn t always the case of course.FDR ´s first two Veeps :Garner and Wallace fit the old pattern of  being someone primarily or even exclusively chosen to help get the candidate  elected  by ¨balancing the ticket¨.


    by Flavius on Thu, 06/30/2016 - 4:53am

    It's not identical case, but deaths of Bowie, Rickman, Ali, Lemmy from Motorhead give an idea how uncertain a 69-year-old's life is, though women have greater longevity. Bill Clinton, W. Bush and Obama were a safer early middle age.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/30/2016 - 7:53am

    Warren's two years younger than Hillary. Franken is the young pup of the Dems at 65. All three are younger, smarter and readier for the Oval Office than Trump. Age won't be an issue. I'd like to see more youth getting politically engaged, but it takes time to season a presidential candidate.


    by acanuck on Thu, 06/30/2016 - 12:15pm

    And gosh darn it, people like him.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/30/2016 - 3:04pm