Imagine "Dem Base Says 'BLAH' To Clinton VP Pick" or "Polls Show Clinton Choice Boring" YIKES

[farmboy]

If Hillary wastes one of the few "game-changing" moments of the campaign to build momentum and set herself up as something other than safe and steady, we will all regret it. This choice will be a key view of Hillary as an independent person and her vision for our future. Please be bold and progressive, Sec. Clinton. Show those of us who have been arguing against both left and right that you will keep those who have been left behind as a main focus that we were right.

Many will use a vp selection by you who is white and centrist as a brush to paint you with as well. It will not be easy to overcome that presentation, and America's future needs to be more diverse than that and we need more electricity as democrats in this election than that would create. I know you are progressive and caring and qualified and knowledgeable, but your past associations with administrations and politicians more to the right will keep you from facing the reverse label if your partner is on the more progressive side.

Trust your instincts and go progressive, please, Sec. Clinton. Here's to your victory in November!

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. I completely disagree ... There is no (electoral) "game" that needs to be "changed".

[JRLeft]

8. +1, this. I wanted someone who could run in 8 years but VP choices

are generally overrated.

[John Poet]

50. Vice Presidents have a pretty poor record at later being elected President,

statistically, so I don't know why so many make that a major consideration.

After eight years of an administration, many voters tend to get fatigued with them-- it could be argued that it's better to go with an administration outsider at that point.

[pansypoo53219]

89. gore won.

[mcar]

56. Exactly

The idea that HRC's VP pick will "save" her campaign is specious at best.

[1StrongBlackMan]

57. But the pick can certainly damage her prospects.

[mcar]

58. Perhaps

But I don't see her making a reckless enough pick to do that, do you?

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. No. I don't.

[1StrongBlackMan]

65. I suspect your thought is a minority opinion, like your "read" of her "unity overture".

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. Well ...

I think you see what you want to see.

Perhaps ... But to this point, I have had the better vision.

[rusty fender]

92. + 1,000 Recs!

Kaine is a horrible choice. This is Hillary's last chance to be POTUS. She has to pull out all the stops, and that is why she has to go with Warren.

[Sheepshank]

2. you have a couple of threads started about your serious concerns for Hillary's VP pick

I'm fine with persons giving opinions, but you said "headline" without any links?

[farmboy]

12. Good point. I changed wording. Don't won't to mislead. I'm sincerely worried about this vp choice.

[Happyhippychick]

3. Don't agree

That is all

[geek tragedy]

4. VP is like the tee-shot on the last hole of a golf tournament.

You won't win the entire thing, but can lose the entire thing with that one action.

[Democrats Ascendant]

26. No.

[Adrahil]

45. yeah. I think Palin went a long way to sinking McCain.

There is no way Hillary picks someone who actively hurts her I think, but she could actually pick a really great candidate that HELPS. Kaine or Vilsack would be safe, but not particularly positive choices. They wouldn't hurt her, but wouldn't cause any excitement either.

[John Poet]

51. Tom Eagleton.

[Still In Wisconsin]

5. I don't think she needs to "change the game."

She can't run out the clock, but she is winning and just needs to play it steady.

[farmboy]

13. This choice will have an impact positive or negative. It will matter this year especially.

[stopbush]

6. Because Trump's choice is going to be such a shock to all.

Right.

Concern trolling. It's what people do.

[Orsino]

7. I think she can afford to play it safe...

...and am afraid she will. But I'm building some enthusiasm, and will try not to go gloom-and-doom right away. I'll do my best to wait until the running-mate is actually named before panicking.

[tonyt53]

9. if the person that handily won the primaries is a centrist, why should they pick anything else?

To move away from the the presidential nominee is themselves, would be odd. MOST Democrats are centrists. If she picks a person that the GOP can use as a target for ridicule, then that would be pretty stupid. If she picks someone that is far to her left, then that would be stupid. Hillary isn't stupid. She will pick a moderate.

[farmboy]

17. Wow. What a misread! I don't think someone more to the left than "centrist" would be ...

Clinton "moving away" from herself. I have argued regularly during the primaries that Hillary is more progressive than many think. And I don't think picking some more left than "centrist" or "moderate" would be stupid or show Hillary to be such. Hillary is incredibly intelligent. I'm sorry you imply that if she does choose a progressive that she would do so stupidly. I very much disagree.

[villager]

55. As do I. +1 for your reply.

Yet many are determined to keep whole swaths of the Democratic base shut out of the process.

[bluedye33139]

10. Obama's "I'm winning"

I remember eight years ago when everybody was giving Obama advice on how he needed to campaign differently, and he shrugged and said, "I'm winning."

Hillary Clinton is doing very well.

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. I know, huh.

[RandySF]

11. I remember a Yahoo news article in 2008

About voters not supporting Obama because he was too skinny. And I promise you will see a news story about Republican delegates of color at next week's convention.

[Iliyah]

16. I remember corporate media saying in 2008 that Senator Obama won't win

and one was Rachael M on MSNBC.

Whomever HRC pick is it will be a positive.

[RandySF]

24. She had that "Talk Me Down" segment on her show.

But I don't think she really believed Obama was going to lose. Andrea Mitchell, on the other hand, seemed convinced up until Election Day that it would be McCain winning.

[BobbyDrake]

14. The Concernacopia continues to overflow!

SO MUCH concern lately, wow. And it's got to be genuine, right, coming from so many who didn't support Clinton during the primary?

[farmboy]

18. If you are referring to me, then you are mistaken. Hillary's been my #1 since before she announced.

[BobbyDrake]

22. Oh, sure, I bet. Look how actively you've supported her...

You've got 9 posts in the last 90 days, 6 of which are on this thread. Pardon my skepticism.

[farmboy]

36. Well, I'll be sure not to rely on you for accurate judgement of others, since you are wrong about me

Just because one doesn't post a lot doesn't mean one can't choose to do so with sincere discussion thoughts and opinions when one feels like sharing. Don't be so sure of yourself about others next time.

[BobbyDrake]

46. Byeeee!

[NCTraveler]

15. VP Pick

Needs to be somewhat qualified.

Needs to carry very limited baggage.

The announcement will garner serious attention for about three days and then simply becomes a head surrogate.

Gets one more moment in the sun in a debate that will be watched by about ten people, all of whom are posting here.

We have the likes of Sanders, Warren, Obama and Biden as surrogates. Those four alone will overshadow any VP pick.

[farmboy]

21. Unless it electrifyies the base long term! Which it can. Why miss that opportunity?

The VP will be the top surrogate (besides perhaps President Obama) once being named and can drive campaign turnouts to higher heights or just be mediocre. There can be a difference. Remember Florida 2000? A few votes could be all it takes.

[NCTraveler]

25. If you haven't noticed the base is solidly on board.

No VP pick will have people more energized in November than those I mentioned above.

[farmboy]

41. Base needs to be on board for more than voting. It takes a lot of work and energy by volunteers.

I mentioned in another thread that I have always excitedly attended campaign stops of the vp nominee in the past, but a centrist white guy on the ticket does not make it easy this year, following President Obama and the first woman nominee of a major party ticket, to talk others into the effort of attending an event or even being excited by such a choice. All the women in my family, mother, sisters, etc. are REALLY hoping for Warren to the point of it being a let down if it isn't her or at least a progressive. And we are not your ordinarily extra-left variety of democrats. They just really loved seeing Clinton and Warren together and couldn't get over the possibility of two women on the ticket.

[NCTraveler]

48. How many were at the Biden campaign stop you went to?

Not Obama and Biden, just the Biden one?

Why would all of the people in your family be holding out hope for Warren? I don't get that. We both know Clinton is going to pick a progressive.

Warren will be doing numerous stops for Clinton. Go to one of those. I never understood why people limit themselves to the point of being guaranteed to be let down.

[cloudythescribbler]

20. Hillary will NOT nominate a figure OBVIOUSLY from the progressive wing of the party

It is for certain that a neoliberal will run on a ticket with another at least partly neoliberal candidate. Bill Clinton had neoliberal Al Gore, and Gore ran w/neoliberal Joe Lieberman. Then Kerry, a neoliberal that Michael Moore inaccurately described as the most progressive member of the Senate (he wasn't even Massachusetts' most progressive Senator -- that would have been Kennedy), ran w/neoliberal John Edwards (who was also a putz, but the two are not at all mutually exclusive). Then Obama who turned out not to be at least the straddler b/t the neoliberal and progressive wings of the party that I had hoped for, ran with solid neoliberall Joe Biden. Neoliberal Hillary will follow suit -- THAT is certain. But she could pick a more progressive-leaning neoliberal, or someone who isn't an ideologically pure neoliberal, or someone who is at least more likely to be responsive to progressive pressures.

For the above reasons, I think that Becerra or one of the Castro brothers, who would all satisfy the neoliberal (controlling) wing of the party in its undefiable demand for neoliberals in key spots, but who would all be more or less at the limits of how progressive it would be possible for a Clinton Democrat to go. Also, as the first Chicano on the ticket, any of these choices would be "game-changing" indeed history making. Indeed, they would help strengthen the future of the Democratic Party, providing a real serious contender to be her successor in the White House.

Unfortunately, as with the Hillary crowd continuing in many cases to bash Bernie and his base, right up to his formal endorsement, and still having a blowing-off attitude towards the still-alienated segment of his base (which I believe is significantly more than 11% of Bernie voters as some suggest), I expect Hillary to ignore all the issues of unifying the party with the right moves, although I still maintain some hope, as I did with Obama NOT being a neoliberal. Hillary is undoubtedly a neoliberal, and would NEVER pick not only Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren (considering her was just for show really) but anyone even less strongly identified with the neoliberal wing. Julian Castro and Xavier Becerra, the former in neoliberal Obama's cabinet (but then Robert Reich was in Bill Clinton's), the latter a major and mainstream Democratic Party leader, should be possibles.

But I suspect that in the end, it will be someone like Tim Kaine, if not him, exactly what both the OP and myself advise against. Folk of our views in practice are NOT the ones she is listening to in making this strategically crucial choice

[w4rma]

23. Accurate analysis. And it explains why I didn't vote for her in the primary. (nt)

[realmirage]

33. If by accurate you mean innacurate and full of Hillary hate

then yes, I can see how someone like you would like that "analysis"

[puffy socks]

84. Yep

These folks are really good at story telling and with making themselves and Bernard "victims"

[John Poet]

54. Yeah, no kidding. Probably listening to Sydney Blumenthal, David Brock,

and Bill.

[NorthCarolina]

27. For many it won't be how "boring" the choice is, but rather how "progressive" the choice is.

Bottom line is Clinton, IMO, needs to reach out to the progressive side of the party if she is looking to generate any excitement at all. If she picks from the bone pile of Blue Dogs you may as well get used to the idea of a President Trump because she won't woo independents and progressives with a Wall St. twofer ticket.

[oberliner]

30. Bernie Sanders just gave her his endorsement

Without knowing who her VP pick is.

And he is a true progressive.

[NorthCarolina]

31. Your point being? -nt-

[oberliner]

35. The VP choice doesn't really matter all that much

It's the top of the ticket that counts.

[NorthCarolina]

38. In most election climates you may be correct, but to not

recognize that this election cycle is COMPLETEY different as evidenced by the very fact that Bernie caught the establishment clearly with their guard down causing them to scramble like HELL and pull out every option they had available to them.

[oberliner]

40. Interesting analysis

You raise some very good points.

Do you think Hillary will choose someone like Elizabeth Warren in light of what you've written here?

[NorthCarolina]

43. No I do not

for the simple reason that she knows she needs the big dollars generated by Wall St. interests to compete; Warren would be a huge detriment to that. Although she may be able to pick up a few more $27 dollar donations than she was unable to solicit during the primaries as a result' I don't believe the added potential for increased small donations will outweigh her familiarity and comfort with large corporate donors. Plus, Warren would continue to rail against TPP, and I suspect a large part of why we never heard any Wall St. speech transcripts is because they were likely chock-full of pro-TPP language and assurances. I really don't think Hillary would go there with a Warren pick. Just my 2 cents.

[oberliner]

44. Warren is good at getting under Donald's skin though

She seems to be a real asset in that regard. I fear that Hillary will be in a lose-lose situation where if she goes after Trump the way he goes after her, she will be accused of being "un-presidential" or getting into the mud with Trump or what have you. If she doesn't, she might be seen as weak and easily bullied and so forth. I think Warren might help mitigate that in terms of doing some of the dirty work, so to speak, while allowing Hillary to stay out of it.

[NorthCarolina]

49. This is the perfect election scenario possible

for BOTH of these candidates for the obvious reason that it can be waged as a tit-for-tat smear campaign with plenty of name calling back and forth, but unsurprisingly little mention of policy specifics, or discussion of actual issues beyond this/that candidate will be terrible for America. With one candidate totally oblivious of policy, and one gingerly walking a fine line somewhere to the right of of main street America, the last thing either of them want to do is talk specific goals or objectives. Our elections always boil down to nothing more than the basic popularity contest and, for the Democrats, the ever present SCOTUS threat thrown in just in case folks should start thinking a bit too "liberally".

[Snotcicles]

91. I think she should meet with David Bonior and see what he is up to these days. nt

[Democrats Ascendant]

28. Clinton will not pick....

Gingrich or Cheney. That's enuf for me.

[oberliner]

29. It will be Tim Kaine or Tom Vilsack

Get excited.

[okasha]

74. I doubt it

I think Obama has made the usual white-on-rice ticket obsolete for Democrats. As noted, the VP should appeal to the base. My bet is Becerra, Castro or Perez.

[oberliner]

75. Obama chose Biden

And it worked out quite well for them both.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

76. Obama and Biden was not a white on rice ticket...

...in case you didn't notice.

[oberliner]

79. I don't know this expression

I thought by white rice you meant not flashy.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

80. Not my expression; the poster in #74 used it.

But the expression that something is like "white on rice" means that it's very, very white. Obviously the Obama/Biden ticket was not that. The previous post was suggesting that at this point it is necessary for the Democratic Party to go for a diverse ticket.

[oberliner]

81. Got it now

Personally, I think she should not be dissuaded from picking someone just because of their race.

[okasha]

77. Take another look at the Prez.

[FSogol]

32. LOL, Did you advise McCain to make a gutsy decision and appeal to his base by picking Palin?

Electricity!

[farmboy]

37. Hell no! And none of our mentioned candidates come remotely close to that abysmal choice!

[FSogol]

39. Aren't you promoting excitement?

[farmboy]

42. If you need explanation of the difference in what Palin brought and what I'm advocating for, sad.

[MohRokTah]

34. Your concern is duly noted. eom

[farmboy]

47. OK. You saw Kaine. NOW do you see what I mean??? The answer is crystal clear, served on a platter...

Elizabeth Warren as vp is THE choice! HRC and EW will set the election ON FIRE!!! For the love of God, Hillary, don't look past the obvious and best choice just sitting there waiting for to easily win this election.

Can you imagine the visual of the two Democratic women leaders vs. the two old, conservative, 1950s-thinking old men? I mean, COME ON! It is an easy choice here, folks. If Hillary doesn't do this, it will be because of Wall Street and their cronies. No other reason.

[Expecting Rain]

53. Kaine had his audition today...

It did not go well.

Contrast today with Ohio with Elizabeth Warren. No contest. Warren helped create electricity, and HRC fed on the energy with a great speech. Today she (sad to say) could not overcome the energy drain of Tim Kaine's open.

She is a smart person. She has to feel the difference more clearly than any of us.

[wyldwolf]

52. Dem base? They're the ones who got Clinton the nomination

[JoePhilly]

59. +1

[okasha]

67. Note from Dem base:

We find Hillary plenty exciting in her own right.

I am rather puzzled by progressives who are not excited to be backing not only the first woman to run for President on a major party's ticket but the candidate who is the best qualified in decades.

No high-speed chases needed.

[Eric J in MN]

83. I'm not excited to vote for HRC because I'm to her left.

...Therefore, I'd like the ticket to have someone I agree with more, such as Elizabeth Warren.

[okasha]

86. I'm to her left, too.

So what?

[SkeleTim1968]

61. Really?

America's biggest concern is whether Hillary's choice is "boring"?
Maybe we need to raise the voting age or find some other way to get mature sensible voters to the polls.
the US elections are just a bit more serious than whether Hillary is entertaining. It's sad so called adults have become so petty and raise trivial concerns to the utmost importance.

[farmboy]

69. No, not "America's biggest concern" but exciting/inspirational is important in an candidate.

And what is "sad" is how you choose to decide who to label as being petty and trivial based on your baseless idea of your superior maturity and knowledge. Get over yourself and take your condescension elsewhere, please.

Many Americans put forth the effort to vote (and for many it will take more effort than ever this time) only when inspired and challenged directly by charismatic, passionate candidates that they feel are on their side and care about issues important to them. This election is serious, and the appeal of the vp nominee is just one part, but a very important part, of who will win in November.

[SkeleTim1968]

70. Basing your vote on whether you are thrilled to pieces is immature and has nothing to do with

any "baseless idea of your superior maturity and knowledge." It's immature and foolish. That's how Trump got the GOP nomination.

Sorry it hit a nerve.

[farmboy]

71. You're doing it again. Just because you say something ("thrilled to pieces") doesn't mean I said it.

If you are attempting to paraphrase or imply what I said or feel, you are far off track. I've been for Hillary since before her announcement as a candidate, and that won't change. However, I do think this choice of vp will have a larger than normal impact on others who either aren't as certain of backing her as I or who aren't as certain that they will go to the polls on election day. You can be sure I'll be there voting for Hillary.

And I think your bullying attempt to belittle me says more about you and your issues than about the topic of which we are supposedly discussing.

[puffy socks]

85. He just used another term

than not "boring"
And he is correct. Any idiot who votes based on whether they feel excited and all tingly inside doesnt understand the importance of their vote. Its self centered and immensely childish.
Om sick and tited of hearing the children whine about their needing a political orgasm. Grow up.
And bullying?
Are you kidding me?
You need thicker skin.

[farmboy]

87. Different terms mean different things. Bullying? Yeah. You're doing it to. Argue the point.

You don't have to throw out insults to make an opposing point. Insults are major weapons of online bullies who try to overwhelm by embarrassing. It won't work on me and it looks bad on you.

[puffy socks]

90. U had nothing but insults to throw out

to anyone who opposed to you, he was nice I'm not going to be.
Worrying about how excited or unboring a candidate is is a G-Dd stupid way to pick a candidate to run your country. Period!

McCain picked Palin as an attempt to save his flailing campaign after PM Maliki announced that he agreed with Obama's time table to withdraw from Iraq ...effectively ruining his "I have military experience" campaign.

Not only does Hillary NOT need her campaign saved, you'll notice it didnt garner a McCain presidency. Thank God most people weren't so impressed by whether a VP s exciting or not.

[book_worm]

64. It won't happen--whoever she names as her VP will be nominated.

[Vote2016]

72. If she picks a moderate white place holder who won't overshadow her, you won't have to your

imagination to answer this question.

[RBInMaine]

73. Sorry, but you are SO WRONG. They vote for prez, not the VP. This isn't a happy dance game. It's

very serious stuff. It's about someone who can serve well as president if needed. Warren IS NOT PREPARED.

[w4rma]

88. You just hate progressives, RBinMaine. (nt)

[rusty fender]

93. Bullshit!

Your posts about Warren are a broken record--she's as or more prepared than any of the candidates being spoken of for VP

[brush]

78. You're trying pretty hard with this so-called enthusiasm gap towards Clinton's vp pick.

Enjoy your stay.

[NYC Liberal]

82. VP choice rarely has any influence on the race.

And "safe and steady" is EXACTLY what we need when we are running against a maniac like Donald Trump.