Why Elizabeth Warren Would Be a Fantastic Choice for Vice President
Source: Washington Monthly, David Atkins
*****
There are some, however, who suggest that nominating Warren as vice president would be a bad idea. Opponents of Warren as vice president have three chief objections.
First is that nominating her would make the path to Senate control harder for Democrats by forcing a special election for her seat that Democrats might lose or at least that might divert much-needed resources. However, a number of commentators including Washington Monthly alum Ed Kilgore have noted that nominating Warren would likely have little effect on Democratic Senate fortunes because Warren would have a range of options about when to optimally resign her seat, and Massachusetts Democrats would have significant time to prepare for that eventuality.
The second comes from concern that Warren would add little of demographic or regional electoral value to a ticket that already has a northeastern white woman on it. That’s a possibility, but it likely overestimates the degree to which regional, gender and racial identity appeals now matter in national elections while underestimating the need to reassure Clinton’s progressive detractors. It also overemphasizes electoral politics over policy concerns in a year where the Republican nominee is singularly likely to lose in any event.
The third and final objection is that Elizabeth Warren is more useful to progressive causes where she is in the Senate. This was certainly the biggest objection made by Clinton supporters to Warren’s jumping into the presidential race against her back in the fall (though those objections conveniently seem to be sliding away by Clinton’s boosters today as Warren’s effectiveness as an attack surrogate against Trump manifests itself.) There is something to be said for the idea that Warren would be sidelined as a vice-president whereas she might be able to have more impact on legislation in the Senate.
But that misjudges the potential power of the vice presidency to affect executive policy. Liberals already underestimated the power of the vice president at the beginning of the Bush-Cheney era to their detriment.
*****
Read it all at: http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/06/11/why-elizabeth-warren-would-be-a-fantastic-choice-for-vice-president/
= new reply since forum marked as read
And since it was never about Sanders...why don't we all support a revolutionary we can agree on?
Warren is a smarter, more erudite Sanders. She electrifies me, whereas Sanders puts me to sleep.
Elizabeth Warren made her mark working for President Obama. She shepherded the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other regulations that incensed Republicans to the point she would never be confirmed to be dogcatcher!
What did she do then, with nowhere to go with Obama?
Took back Ted Kennedy's Senate seat from incumbent (R) Scott Brown! Drove him out of the state!
1 out of a 100 in the Senate, in the minority party?
Or Vice-President of the United States. President of the Senate! Working directly with the President of the United States!!!
Ready for Clinton/Warren 2016! 
having had your mind laundered. 
Hillary is not "the Bond villain" you have heard of all your life. I know from this point on we are talking past each other. A closed mind is a bar to any argument.
If Warren became the VP choice, you would be in for an epic awakening!
Because she and Bill have been there since at least the 90s.
And I can't speak to what Warren would do as far as endorsements go. 
otherwise the VP breaks a Senate tie if there is one.
"...Warren would have a range of options about when to optimally resign her seat, and Massachusetts Democrats would have significant time to prepare for that eventuality."
No problem! If Massachusetts can't elect another Democrat, we got bigger problems than a senator!
A Clinton/Warren ticket could be a landslide which gives us both the Senate and the House!
To see the two of them working together, planning economic policies, sticking up for working people...what a vision for America's future! 
Brown is history.
"Two older women on the ticket is a turn off." That doesn't strike you as some fairly casual sexism?
The primary campaign rhetoric and propaganda is almost over.
Wait until the Republicans tell us how Hillary is the enemy of Wall Street and business and employment and a socialist like her husband - and worse than Bernie! 
If Warren was the VP pick, it would be agreed she could get on HER bully pulpit. That's what would be so exciting!
Unlike Sanders, who took Weaver and Devine's advice and blew his chances.
If the revolution is not about Sanders, why don't we unite to support the revolutionary who is smarter and more erudite than Sanders?
What do you not get about that?
Look. You want to declare victory over the GOP and the Third-Way? Here is someone who I think could pull us together. (At least on DU, which, admittedly, is a tiny ant farm in somebody's basement in the scheme of things.)
Warren knows politics and she knows how to work as part of a team. AND she's outspoken. That supplies something that Sanders does not have: the ability to work as part of a team.
Are you really interested in a revolution or are you only interested in holding your breath until you get your way?
Warren would be a better Sanders, imo. And if something like that can sway me toward supporting a social revolution, well...I would think you'd be down with that.
Sorry, I very much like Warren and I don't doubt her honesty or her enthusiasm. She talks with people, unlike Sanders who talks at them. She has...something...that Sanders lacks. Charisma? Shrewdness? A more literate style?
Once Josh Marshall and Harry Reid started saying it was a good idea, I was on board. And I am now.
Warren, though. She has something more. Sorry you don't see her that way, and maybe I'm guilty of 'wishing' she would be VP, when I criticize Sanders supporters for wishing things were different instead of facing life squarely but...I could get behind her.
Like I said, if Josh Marshall and Harry Reid can get behind her, too, the opinions of two people I greatly respect, then I can change my stance on the need for a revolution.
Ms. Warren, coming from a pragmatic, realistic voter...if you can get Clinton's assurance that you will not be muzzled...please accept the role of VP if it's offered.
I know that's asking a lot of you, 16 years, actually, if Clinton has 2 terms and then you're in line for the Presidency but...consider the possibility that it's worth it.
Warren would amplify Clinton's liberal roots. You can trash-talk Clinton all you want -and some of that I would actually agree with- but I don't think you can be taken seriously if you think she is not liberal at all.
Granted, she is not as pure a liberal as we would want (How often have I stated that I don't particularly like her? Ten? A dozen?), but she is, even if you don't like her stances on some issues.
But I think she's serious about building a new Democratic Party and making peace with Sanders supporters. Clinton is not stupid. If she and Warren agreed that Warren would not be muzzled, that would be a win-win for both factions.
And why would Warren 'taint' herself by allying with Clinton? Because, as Marshall stated, she would be a greater influence on Clinton than, say, Biden has been on Obama.
With Obama-Biden, I see Obama as the teacher and Biden as the head of the class.
I don't think we should expect the same sort of relationship between Clinton and Warren. Clinton has a legacy to protect, too. I don't think she would be blind to that. And I don't think she's the power-mad monster some want to portray her as.
I am serious about this. I would be ecstatic with a Clinton/Warren ticket.
And that she accepts.
A 90s politician is not who I would want as our next President. Not after the refreshing breeze that was Obama. But she is clearly our next President so how can we alleviate the concerns that many have? Again, Clinton is not the monster some want to portray her as, and she knows she has a legacy to leave behind.
If nothing else, she knows how the political winds blow, and she could make this VP selection a thing of beauty by asking Warren and by assuring her she won't be muzzled.
This is something I could really feel great about. If you want to cling to Sanders as the only viable alternative to Clinton, why would you not accept Warren? In my opinion, she is twice the interlocutor Sanders is. AND she better knows how to work as part of a team.
She would not be side-lined because it's not in her nature. I think -and hope- that Clinton would see her value and would not restrain her.
If someone as astute as Josh Marshall and Harry Reid can see this...I say we entertain the possibility.
That doesn't mean we need it now. Like it or not, deserved or not, the entire political community respects the Clintons. If they helped us survive the Conservative bent this country took in the 80s and after, then maybe they're the ones who can break the 'spell', too.
I'm speaking metaphorically here, I don't want to 'believe' in the power of the Clintons or anything so ridiculous. As I've said over and over, I don't particularly like Hillary Clinton, and I mean that.
But if she is as smart as some say, she will recognize that this country needs another change in direction. With the GOP self-destructing before our very eyes, this is the time to push that change the way we want it to go. It's the ultimate revenge on the Reagan Era. A final closing of a Dark Age, to be done at the hands of another Clinton.
A full circle. A kind of political poetry, don't you think? Maybe.
But there is also the Obama factor to consider. He has a way of 'infecting' people around him. The fact that Clinton obviously bears him no ill will from 2008 means -I suspect- that she has learned something from him.
I thinks she's become a better politician than she was.
I still don't much like her but that's sort of irrelevant since she has the nomination sewn up. We have to make do with what we have available and I stand ready to be surprised.
But I do think he'll campaign for her. And I do think Clinton is not as bad as some see her as. Warren as her VP -with the aforementioned assurances- would help keep Clinton at least drifting Leftward instead of trying to steer a course through the center.
Sanders is obviously not going to be our nominee and he's losing clout by the hour, in my opinion, so what's the next best thing? In my mind, that's Warren as VP.
...what's the next best case? Clinton/Warren, I think, would unite more of us than Clinton versus Sanders.
