For all intents and purposes, Hillary's going to have 2 VPs.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

Her official VP and her husband. The primary duties of both are essentially delegating them to advocate for the administration's policies and attend events in the President's absence.

As like others, I've been extremely impressed by Elizabeth Warren's efforts thus far on the campaign trail. That being said, I can't help be but a little nervous how people beyond the loyal Democratic base would react to a two-woman ticket.

But then I got to thinking, with Hillary's unique situation, you can create the best of both worlds and have Warren as the official VP nominee. You'd end up with both a female whose popularity with the left will energize the base, and you'd also have the more centrist Bill as the male presence to reassure otherwise fragile minded people worried (stupidly, I'll add) about how a ticket with two women might govern.

Strategically it actually works out pretty well, and broadens Hillary appeal with both the left and the center.

So count me in for Clinton-Warren(-Clinton) 2016.

[Travis_0004]

1. I thought Bill is going to be the first lady?

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. The 1st Dude!

[Hortensis]

9. +1. He'll be good at back-room influence.

[zenabby]

15. The 1st Gentleman!

not dude. It has always been a serious position, and no reason that should change just because the first spouse is male. I'd like to see Bill pick the china, no less.

[The Second Stone]

20. Nobody calls him Lebowski

just Dude, or 1st Dude, or The Dude.

[exboyfil]

7. I suspect Chelsea may take up those duties

plenty of precedent for having a relative serve in that role (Jefferson, Jackson, Buchanan, Tyler, Taylor, Arthur, and Cleveland).

Actually Taylor's wife Peggy Taylor is a spot on comparison. Her daughter actually served as hostess since Peggy did not want that duty (or health prevented her from doing it).

[Nye Bevan]

14. That seems a little sexist.

If Chelsea was a male named Christopher would you be suggesting the same thing?

[zenabby]

16. That's terribly sexist

So, Bill's a man, and you need a woman taking care of the white house "female" duties?

[athena]

22. Good point.

I doubt very much that Chelsea will be in the limelight. Unlike Bill and Hillary, she was born into the position she's in; she didn't enter into politics knowingly or by choice. She seems like a private person, and there is zero evidence to suggest that she wants to live her life in the public eye.

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. No ... She will have one VP, and then ...

like just about every other married high level person, she will have a supportive and trusted advisor ... one with the benefit of having sat in the office.

[NurseJackie]

47. Yes. Thank you.

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. I wonder if people would even consider mouthing that narrative, if the positions were reversed ...

I seriously doubt it.

[MyNameGoesHere]

4. I imagine all presidents have had their spouse as an advisor.

We just get lucky that she has someone as skilled as Bill. It's nothing unusual. Well except the male stranglehold on the Presidency will be gone.

[JaneyVee]

5. Clinton/Warren 2016

[thesquanderer]

6. Anyone who is "threatened" by two women on the ticket...

...is not someone who is going to be "comforted" by the nearby presence of Bill Clinton.

[longship]

8. Why, oh why does any sane person want Warren to give up her Senate seat?

I just do not understand such blinkered idiotic thinking.

Hillary is going to need allies in the US Senate. Why take, what is obviously now, one of her strongest allies out of that legislative body to thrust her into the executive branch? And reduce her power so that she can:

1. No longer speak on the floor.
2. No longer vote except on a tie.
3. Can hold no committee position.
4. Can hold no committee leadership position.
5. Can hold no other leadership position other than holding the gavel.

Where is the advantage?

Hillary is smarter than that. One would hope.

Warren should say no if offered VEEP. Frankly, I think both Hillary and Warren both know that the answer is unequivocal, "NO!"

[okasha]

11. Thank you!

[The Second Stone]

21. Because Presidents do not always live out their terms

You want the most qualified person in line to step in. That is Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

[longship]

38. I cannot support her as VEEP. nt

[karynnj]

24. Actually she is too junior to get either 4 or 5

The Senate runs on seniority. Warren is in her first term. She will not be chair of a committee.

Now, compare that to Biden. He was chair of Senate Foreign Relations and before that chaired the Judiciary committee. He was a very senior Senator. Yet, he has been able to do more as VP.

The key is what she is offered as her job if she is picked,

[longship]

39. Now, maybe. But not if she is allowed to stay in the senate. nt

[karynnj]

45. I assume she will run in 2018, but even as a second term

Senator she won't get to chair a committee unless a lot of people ahead of her either leave the Senate or give up their claim on the chair of a committee.

Remember that even Hillary Clinton, had she stayed in the Senate would not have been a chair in the 11th Congress.

My point is that Biden is FAR more prominent as VP than he was as a very senior Senator. The more important in the Senate argument seems to always be made by those NOT wanting that person to move up.

I would argue that John Kerry has been able to do more as SoS than he did as Chair of SFRC, former nominee, and often the personal envoy of President Obama.

As to Warren, her prominence is something she earned by being who she is. Her ability to explain really complicated things and to stand up with the integrity we now associate with her is her strength. However, looking at the Biden and Kerry examples, position matters.

[Lil Missy]

41. I agree - Warren is too important right where she is to be pulled into VP.

[athena]

10. I find it very interesting

(and a little depressing) that people are so uncomfortable with the idea of a male First Spouse being just a First Spouse. It's pretty outrageous to suggest that the position of First Spouse be upgraded to Second-Vice-President when the First Spouse happens to be male.

For some reason, when the First Spouse is female, regardless of her level of education, career background and accomplishments, people assume that she has zero say in what happens and no influence whatsoever on her husband. People seem to think that the President doesn't even talk to his wife about the things he's working on and thinking about. (I wonder if this says something about how some men still treat their wives in the twenty-first century.)

Well, to those people, I can only say that Bill Clinton, when he is First Spouse, will be a traditional First Spouse. Hillary will listen to Bill as much as Barack listens to Michelle. Bill will have as much influence on the governing of the country as Michelle does now. To think anything else is not only sexist but also dangerous: the First Spouse is not an elected office and must therefore be a position that comes with very limited power. Fortunately, Bill is smart enough to understand this, and feminist enough to respect that his wife, not he, will be the one who is President.

[Txbluedog]

12. It's because Bill is a former POTUS

If McCain had been elected and then died, no one would expect airhead barbie's equally stoooopid husband to be anything but the first gentleman

[athena]

13. I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Some people have such a 1950s view of the world that they think that in any heterosexual couple, the man is naturally in charge of all the important decisions that get made.

In any case, I do think it's important that Bill not play a role that is more powerful than that of the traditional First Lady. That would set a very sexist precedent, not to mention violate the idea that power in this country is gained through elections and not through birth or marriage.

[Txbluedog]

25. While I agree with you that Bill needs to be a traditional first spouse....

It is never going to happen given who he is and who they are---good or bad it's always been a political powerhouse partnership and that's not going to change

[karynnj]

46. I also think it is because he is Bill Clinton

Rather than make the comparison to Todd Palin, consider the relatively unknown husbands of other potential women Presidents in the future.

I assume, that like HRC in the 1990s and Michelle, Mr Gillibrand or Mr Klobichar, are very intelligent men. I assume that they will be close personal advisors to their wives, but probably not as openly as Clinton was.

I do not know what Bill Clinton's role will be and that will depend on how comfortable HRC is in giving him any major role. Any role he is given will come from the President as do all of the VP' s roles except being second in line and breaking ties.

I suspect that Bill Clinton's role will come up in the VP interviews and in discussions on SoS.

[bigbrother05]

52. Hillary had a larger role than the traditional one as 1st Lady

So Bill moving beyond tradition would seem obvious regardless of his former position

[zenabby]

17. Thank you

and so well said. It has been bothering me a lot. They also try to make it light of it - like First Dude.

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. You mean like "Bubba, the First Dude" or... "Big Dawg, the First Dude"?

[sueh]

29. Hasn't Hillary said she'd put Bill in charge of the economy?

[athena]

43. No, she has not.

That is a falsehood, and spreading it appears to be an attempt by some to smear Hillary Clinton and make progressives worry about electing her.

See this post of mine further down the thread for the actual truth:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2226887

[HumanityExperiment]

18. Bill will re-conceptualize the role...

the writing is already on the wall... it's like a frickin' neon sign, just admit it and debate how much the role will morph and how much influence he will have...

He'll be a blend of VP-Chief of Staff, he'll have the ability to do so much behind the scenes it will make people's head spin...

Make no mistake, he'll re-define the role, if that's a good or bad thing, time will tell

[athena]

19. Wishful thinking.

He'll be a First Spouse. No more, no less.

[HumanityExperiment]

26. it's not wishful thinking...

he'll be much more, nothing less

[athena]

27. Why?

Please explain why Bill cannot just be a First Spouse when all the First Spouses until now have not had a problem with this.

[840high]

28. Hillary wants to put him in charge

of budget.

[athena]

42. That is false.

She did not say she would put him "in charge of the budget". She said he would be “in charge of revitalizing the economy", especially “in places like coal country and inner cities.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/us/politics/bill-hillary-clinton-administration-economy.html.

She has not provided details about how a former president would fit into a policy-making role in his wife’s administration, a position never before seen in American politics. Asked on Monday whether Mr. Clinton would hold a cabinet position, Mrs. Clinton shook her head and said, “No.”

Aides said Mr. Clinton’s role would be narrowly defined to focus on hard-hit areas of the country, such as the Rust Belt, and they rejected any implication that Mrs. Clinton would outsource a central part of her administration to her spouse.

Emphases mine.

As anyone who understands politics can appreciate, this is a statement made on the campaign trail. Frankly, considering the problems associated with giving an unelected person any real power, I doubt very much that Bill will have any real power over the economy. He might work on "revitalizing the economy ... in places like coal country and inner cities", but that is not necessarily a major role with any real power associated with it.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

40. Like Hillary was "only" First Spouse? Remember her lead on Clinton Health Care 1993? . . . nt

[nolawarlock]

31. He certainly wouldn't be the first one to redefine the role.

Hillary made quite a stir as first lady by not following the more traditional expectations.

[HumanityExperiment]

32. good, bad or otherwise...

Bill is a former POTUS, and will be back in the WH, he's not going to take a 'backseat'

he'll redefine the role and those here on DU that deny that should check their intellectual dishonesty monitor

[athena]

44. "Intellectual dishonesty"?

Seriously? Having an opinion different than yours is "intellectual dishonesty"?

As someone trained as a scientist who takes intellectual honesty very seriously, I find that statement of yours ignorant and offensive enough to send you to my Ignore list. Enjoy berating and insulting others. Sadly, that seems to be the main reason some people hang out on DU.

[HumanityExperiment]

53. facts and evidence...

'ignore' not to 'ignore'... that's on you, I clearly stated that there are those here on DU that take a route of being intellectually dishonest.. did I state specific folks? nope... if you take offense that's on you

There are many here on DU that agree with me as to my statement...

If you wish to debate the facts as it pertains to Bill then so be it, otherwise 'ignore' me and be done with it

idle threats bore me

[sofa king]

33. I think he'll lay off.

He will be a great adviser, but my guess is that beyond that he's going to be a lot more like Michelle Obama and use his position to support the President and advance the interests already pursued by the Clinton Foundation.

He will be absolutely great at running interference for Mrs. Clinton while they work. "I'm sorry, the President is too busy to meet. Would you perhaps like to talk with her husband about a federal tax on Minecraft to pay for free animal grooming?"

[HumanityExperiment]

34. agree to disagree...

it's not in Bill's political DNA to 'lay off'

[sofa king]

35. I'll do more than that!

I'll say, "I hope you're wrong, but I won't be surprised if you ain't."

[peace13]

37. I hope he let's her have the Oval Office.

With all of his busyness he may need the space. In all seriousness I do have concerns about Bill . His behavior is a bit off recently. But we have time to figure it out.

[LongtimeAZDem]

30. Yeah, think of how stupid would it be to make good use of a spouse who was President /s (nt)

[Beausoir]

36. Why? My husband is not my co-worker.

Sexist clap-trap.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

50. If your spouse ran a successful business and then you sought to open that same business...

.....I'm sure you'd probably welcome your spouse's input and involvement in things.

[karynnj]

48. His role will be determined by his wife and could be left undefined

until she is in office.

One question is whether he, and maybe whether he and Chelsea, take leaves of absences from the Clinton. Foundation. Given that it operates on the international stage and raises money, sometimes from foreign countries, for its projects. If they want to continue their personal involvement, it will take some effort to insure that it does not create conflicts of interests.

As to role in the government, his minimum role will be that of being his wife's confidant - just as all spouses are.

It is true that he could be given assignments that might normally be given the VP. He might also be given a major diplomatic role.

It will be up to HRC. It might also depend on whether he could really accept that on any of these, her word is the last word

[still_one]

51. no. The only thing that Bill Clinton will serve is as "first person". As with any spouse, they

would be in an advisory role