Hillary Clinton’s Campaign, Cautious but Confident, Begins Considering Running Mates

[RandySF]

Hillary Clinton’s advisers and allies have begun extensive discussions about who should be her running mate, seeking to compile a list of 15 to 20 potential picks for her team to start vetting by late spring.

Mrs. Clinton’s team will grapple with complicated questions like whether the United States is ready for an all-female ticket, and whether her choice for vice president would be able to handle working in a White House in which former President Bill Clinton wields significant influence on policy.

While the nomination fight is still fluid, Mrs. Clinton is confident enough of victory that she has described a vision of a running mate and objectives for the search, according to campaign advisers and more than a dozen Democrats close to the campaign or the Clintons.

She does not have a front-runner in mind, they said, but she is intrigued by several contenders and scenarios.

Among the names under discussion by Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Clinton and campaign advisers: Senators Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, former governors from the key state of Virginia; Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who represents both a more liberal wing of the party and a swing state; former Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, a prominent African-American Democrat; and Thomas E. Perez, President Obama’s labor secretary and a Hispanic civil rights lawyer.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/us/politics/hillary-clinton-vice-president.html?_r=0

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. I look forward to seeing her choice.

[rickford66]

2. I'm sure one of the Bush's is available.

[SFnomad]

9. Bitter much? n/t

[rickford66]

26. No. Dissapointed for the younger people.

Us older people won't be around to see the consequences of this election. Trump or Cruz would be a disaster, but Hillary won't be much different than "W" and we survived those eight years with only a few million killed and maimed and 6 trillion in debt. I was retired and went back to work for good money, so I've got mine. I wanted others to have theirs also. Hillary said Bernie's proposals were "too hard". I guess her's are easy. The Republicans will welcome her compromises. Cutting SS, chipping away at Obama Care, fracking, TPP, Keystone etc. She'll pick the Castro kid for VP for the Latino vote and I don't blame her, but her four years will be a disaster and I doubt she'll be re-elected. And those young Bernie voters she wants? If they wanted to vote for Hillary or against the Republican, they would have been involved without Bernie, but they only got involved because of Bernie. They aren't interested in a race between Republicans.

[SFnomad]

27. To think that Secretary Clinton wouldn't be much different from "W" shows how out of touch from

reality you people are.

[liberal from boston]

39. Hillary

The arrogance of Hillary is so typical-- just declared herself the Democrat Nominee. I live in Boston & the reaction of local media panel discussion about Hillary considering Elizabeth Warren as VP is that it will not happen. Senator Warren is holding Wall Street accountable--Hillary is in bed with them. Several weeks ago Senator Warren released a statement cheering Bernie on & urging him to stay in the race. Hillary's Foreign Policy IMHO is alarming. Suggest you view this video.

[Stuckinthebush]

42. Insane

Hyperbolic.

Ridiculous

[JaneyVee]

3. Clinton/Warren 2016

[Trust Buster]

4. Tuesday night we will hear a great pivot. Game, set, match.

[Armstead]

5. A shiny happy bland corporate centrist male minority member who acts like a white person...

and who won't rock any boats or overshadow or pose any threat to Clinton or the Dem Wall St./Corporate Establishment...

That's my prediction

[wildeyed]

7. How are minority members supposed to act?

What does it even mean "acts like a white person"? Really?

[Armstead]

8. It won't be someone....

wuth the style and beliefs of a Nina Turner or Raul Grijalva

[wildeyed]

17. How are minority members supposed to act?

Please explain. And also, what constitutes "acting white"? And is it ok for white people to act white, too? I am VERY curious about your opinion on that, too. I guess it is bad when a white person acts black? Is acting latino or asian a thing, too?

I am white, but I like math, hot sauce and R&B. Am I ok, or did I get too far outside my white box? Or are we only judge-y when POC get too far outside the stereotypes?

[Armstead]

18. People can act any damn way they want...The question was about the vp choice

Don't read more into something than is there. My comment was not a larger sociological observation. Simply observing the political fact that Clinton is going to have a bland campaign that doesn't rock any boats or step outside of the familiar frame or risk offending those white moderate semi-conservative swing voters.

I believe the whole 'demographic" emphasis in the primary was wrongheaded, because Sanders and Clinton are both very close on the "social issues." I think the real issues between them related to shared class interests and bigger issues of wealth and power that affect everyone.


FYI, I am white and 64, and one of my favorite songs is Public Enemy's "Fight the Power."

[wildeyed]

24. Then just say that you think she will pick a bland choice.

There are plenty of POC who are "bland" people. Whites don't own that. Not everyone can be Chuck D

[karynnj]

34. Actually, the primary might have been more cynical than wrongheaded

I had not thought this out until reading your words, but I wonder if making the primary fights over a FALSE issue, placing her on the traditional democratic side was not well thought out.

For HRC, every moment that Sanders spent fighting against being labeled as not understanding AAs and not being acceptable to this large Democratic demographic group, while articles reinforced how strongly they supported HRC - was a plus for her. Going back, you see this started with people arguing when he announced in his hometown and people posted here and elsewhere that this was a huge error in terms of optics. (because having a cheering crowd of over 5000 on a late afternoon in a 42000 person city is a bad idea)

In that case, the issue was bogus - and Sanders' history compares well to Clinton's. However, HRC was genuinely to the left on gun control. Her team did exaggerate the difference, but it was in a way that happens in every election. Both of these issues helped Clinton whenever they were in the forefront. On issues of power and wealth, Clinton proactively changed her rhetoric to minimize the difference with Bernie. I assume this was intended to neutralize the issue that play to Bernie's favor.

The other difference was foreign policy, where Clinton counted on the genuine lack of real interest on the part of the American electorate. Here, her strategy has been to tie herself to things seen as Obama successes and to use her resume as SoS to close any discussion of differences in vision and philosophy between herself and Sanders.

Sanders gained when income inequality, questions of integrity, or arguments on a few HRC hawkish foreign policy issues were in the forefront.

HRC won when electability, "proven ability" to be President - including lead foreign policy -- and in NY this was on steroids with the NY Daily News interview that opened questions on how ready Sanders was to be President, guns, or the bogus POC issue were raised.

[liberal from boston]

43. Hillary

Hillary & Trump Untrustworthy, unlikable ratings are very high. Basically you have two possible nominees who cannot win the General Election. BTW, You do realize that Senator Sanders introduced the bill " Too Big to Fail, Too Big To Exist." The NYDN article has been debunked by Robert Reich, Rolling Stone, Juan Gonzalves (who was on the panel). http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/17/1516508/-Robert-Reich-just-nailed-every-Clinton-partisan-who-ever-said-Sanders-doesn-t-get-things-done

Suggest you watch this video:

[karynnj]

45. I'm in complete agreement with you. It was an ambush.

I was trying to speak of the campaign themes and Clinton in both 2008 and 2016 pushed the theme that only she was "ready day one".

[oberliner]

10. "minority member who acts like a white person"

What the hell does that mean?

[Armstead]

11. See answer above

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1816155

[oberliner]

13. That doesn't really clarify anything

Can you give an example of minority member who acts like a white person?

[Armstead]

15. See below...(we're cross posting)

[Armstead]

14. Someone who has the standard issue corporate uniform and aura and values

Someone like Harold Ford

[wildeyed]

21. That is an example, not an explanation.

And why is Harold Ford "acting white" when he is "too corporate"? Isn't that just called being too corporate?

"I don't like Harold Ford because he is too corporate. I disagree with his policy positions." is an intelligent, logically defensible statement. "I don't like the way Harold Ford dresses. It is too corporate." OK, whatever, but not offensive. I will point out that POC walk a much thinner line in the dress department, but really don't want to debate that one right now.... "I don't like Harold Ford because he acts white." WTF?

Do you see how offensive it is for a white person to denigrate a POC as "acting white" when they really mean acting corporate or (for real) supporting a candidate I don't like?

You could have said this: "I think she will nominate a POC with mainstream, corporate values." That would express your opinion very well, IMO, but in a way that doesn't smack of privilege and condensation.

[Armstead]

25. That's what I said, in a slightly different way

My point was that she will find someone who fits into the narrow image her variety of innocuous Democrat the corporate wing wants wants to convey, while also claiming they are the party of minorities.

If you are offended I am sorry but I'm not going to waste time arguing over the parsing of words.

[wildeyed]

37. Your point was that a POC who is corporate is "acting white".

If you misspoke, then just say so. This is not "parsing" and I am not offended (not my alert, BTW). Just disappointed by your choice of words. Language is powerful, and the words and images you chose were unnecessarily divisive. I don't think they were even what you MEANT to say, after going back and forth a bit. But now you need to make it MY problem for holding you accountable like this is just grammar police nonsense or something.

Sigh.... I'm out. Y'all have fun.

[corkhead]

29. you might get a kick out of this:

Someone who has the standard issue corporate uniform and aura and values
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1816227

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Racist shit needs to stop on DU.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Apr 23, 2016, 11:27 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I hope this one is an 0-7 for the ridiculous use of the race card.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Armstead]

32. Well at least people on the jury understood what was intended to say

[rbrnmw]

35. Do you realize that this is a racist comment? I don't think you are racist.

A shiny happy bland corporate centrist male minority member who acts like a white person...

It gets rough here in the primaries but others may be hurt by your comment

[Armstead]

38. I've explained my comment elsewhere in this thread

I could go more into why it seems paradoxical that outside of the primary, that a comment about being required to downplay one's ethinc qualities and adhere to the white stereotype to advance would be agreed with by many who are objecting to it within the context of the primary.

[KingFlorez]

40. That is extremely racist

"Male minority member who acts like a white person"

What is wrong with you?

[SamKnause]

6. Lloyd Blankfein

Jamie Dimon

Ben Bernanke

Henry Paulson

Rahm Emanuel

Timothy Geithner

Lawrence Summers

Jack Lew

[Armstead]

12. Too obvious...Need a stealth oligarch (or would-be oligarch)

[corkhead]

31. A unifying Bridge Candidate:

A Re-animated St. Ronnie would be unifying.


What, you think I would expect something as crazy as her trying to unify with the left?

[hobbit709]

16. It will be whoever Wall St. wants.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. All from the East Coast, most also from the last Century. Brown and Patrick are ok but Kaine would

make all of her bad points worse (Tim sort of slow to stop his open bigotry) and that's a ticket I would have to skip. And I would. I'd hate doing so but I could not vote for an entirely anti gay ticket of people just because they say 'oh, I take it back I don't think God despises you anymore!!!!'

Too much of this Party is like Tim Kaine. Too many in Camp Clinton, that's for sure. Big changes are going to be needed folks.

[TheCowsCameHome]

20. All the donors haven't been tallied yet.

Have some patience. please.

[SHRED]

22. Keeping her support inline

Another political move.
Start naming names and getting their hopes up.
They'll never switch.

[MoonRiver]

23. No mention of Julian Castro.

Hope he is on that list!

[JTFrog]

28. I think it will be Warren.

And they will win in a landslide.

[karynnj]

30. From this, I think the "ideal" VP nominee is someone who does not exist - if you look at all

attributes wanted. It seems that you need someone, who:

- is seen as qualified to be President themselves
- is capable of accepting that Bill Clinton will likely have a big portfolio and they would have to work well with him
- is a good debater - including being prepared to be an attack dog for Clinton
- is unlikely to want to run for President in 2024. (Note they claim as given that Biden, like Cheney, had no interest in being President. I suspect that he did and was hurt by the media constantly stating he would not.)

This means an elder statesman who wants a VP job, even as defined as NOT a step to President and for which they might not be guaranteed a major portfolio, so much they are willing to have their last acts on the public stage being an attack dog for Hillary. If someone was promised either a major portfolio or who thought they would be an obvious possible nominee after 8 years, the offer might be worth the cost.

Looking at most such people, I can't find anyone likely to do so. For Biden, it would mean that he would go from being someone who did a great job for Obama on many things to a job that would likely be less powerful under Clinton.

[aikoaiko]

33. I'm surprised this wasn't mapped out by 2004.

[TransitJohn]

36. Pick someone not under indictment!

[lumberjack_jeff]

41. Stupid move.

The convention will be contentious. She needs a bone to throw to Sanders supporters.

[mcar]

44. K&R