The best case scenario for uniting the party would be Clinton/Warren ticket.

[mhatrw]

Funny how many sexist Bernie Bros that would salvage for Hillary.

[JaneyVee]

1. It will be Clinton/Warren.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Highly doubtful.

But I would endorse such a move.

[Duckhunter935]

2. And Hillary would never

even think of that

[Califonz]

3. Great post! This is one of my favorite movies too!

[nc4bo]

4. Hillary = Bernie Bros.

Warren would be wise to stay far away from that mess and stay in the Senate where she can watch the backs of the 99% from being stabbed in the back.....again.

[silvershadow]

30. +9 million.

[Carolina]

47. Exactly! We need

her in the Senate, not serving as HRC's sidekick.

Plus, she'd have to sell her soul to agree to be a campaign mouthpiece for Wall Street $hillary, only to be silenced if HRC were to win.

Don't do it, Elizabeth

[onecaliberal]

5. Warren wouldn't go for that.

[SheilaT]

6. No it wouldn't.

I'd lose a lot of respect for Warren if she runs with Hillary.

Plus, for many months, every time the Bernie side suggested a Sanders/Warren ticket, the Hillary crowd would say, No, no, no, she needs to remain in the Senate where she will be effective! The Senate NEEDS her progressive voice!

Clearly, if Hillary expects to be President, the very last thing she needs is another true progressive in the Senate. Hence, Warren in the VP spot.

Oh, the hypocrisy.

[djean111]

7. No, it would not make a difference.

It would be a not surprising pandering thing for Hillary to do - and Warren would be conveniently out of the Senate - remember how Hillary's Third Way buddies whined that Warren was "getting out of hand", in the WSJ? - and then Warren would be relegated to dinners and funerals.

Actually, that would be one more reason to not vote for Hillary - to keep Liz Warren in the Senate.

It is so very sad that you think objections to Hillary are sexist. I am a woman, and I cannot stand anything Hillary stands for - war, fracking, Third Way triangulation going after Social Security - her being a woman is irrelevant.

[Jitter65]

11. I do not think all objections to Hillary are sexist, but many are. nt

[winter is coming]

8. You really have no clue. n/t

[tabasco]

9. Warren will not be assimilated into the Clinton/DNC borg. n/t

[brooklynite]

10. Terrible idea...

...too old; too northeastern; and she doesn't want the job.

[thesquanderer]

12. How do you know she doesn't want the job? (n/t)

[Garrett78]

24. I seriously doubt she does.

She didn't want to run for POTUS and will be too old to run for POTUS in 8 years. She can have far more impact in the Senate.

[thesquanderer]

42. The fact that she did not want to run in the primary against Hillary...

...is not proof that she would have no interest in being VP, or in possibly being president if for some reason Hillary cannot fulfill 8 years.

As for where she could have more impact, I don't know. Cheney had an awful lot of impact. A negotiation to put her on the ticket could include assurances to provide her with certain access/influence and responsibilities.

[Garrett78]

45. Proof, no. But I think it's a strong indication.

It's hard to say exactly how much impact Cheney had, but that aside, Warren is currently in position to have more impact on legislation than she would as VP.

Anyway, as I've written before, I think Clinton will face enough misogyny and sexism without adding a woman to the ticket. My guess is she picks someone younger, someone male and quite possibly someone of color (like Julian Castro).

[SMC22307]

13. No it wouldn't. Hillary will still be Hillary no matter her running mate...

should it come to that.

[Liberalator]

14. No Senator as VP! No Senators in the Cabinet! We need as many Dems Senators as possible.

[hellofromreddit]

15. How many sexist Bernie Bros that would salvage for Hillary? Then they wouldn't be sexist....

Seriously, how'd you miss that before you posted it?

[demwing]

16. Why Warren would be a horrible VP for Progressives

http://www.democraticunderground.com/127710491

[tokenlib]

17. It's Castro..it was decided long ago...

Prepping the new generation..

[Garrett78]

23. Julian Castro or Thomas Perez are far more likely, I think.

I'd be shocked if Warren is the choice. And not just because it's valuable to have her remain in the Senate. Clinton will face enough sexism and misogyny (and even ageism) as it is.

A relatively young, male Latino member of Obama's cabinet just makes too much sense.

[Unicorn]

28. After the agism I've seen from her and her supporters I would be pressed to feel for her.

I remember when she was demanding his doctors records a few months back and shut up fast when he asked for hers.

[Ino]

18. That would only diminish Warren (nt)

[Unicorn]

26. +1

[pengu]

36. Yep

[Warren DeMontague]

19. It'll probably be Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Slogan: "You'll eat your peas and you'll LIKE em, Fucko!"

[loyalsister]

21. And we would be the losers

If Hillary is essentially EW's her boss we lose a liberal voice. However, if she is in the senate, she and Bernie can work to hold HRC acccountable.

[Grown2Hate]

22. This wide-brush bullshit irks me. I'm a Bernie supporter/voter because I am more aligned

with his ideals than Hillary's. But am I THRILLED to see that Hillary (in a theoretical match-up) is leading Trump in FUCKING UTAH (which KINDA sets the tone)?! You better goddamn believe it.

Because I am voting Democratic, across the board, no MATTER who is the Dem nominee (and, again, as a Bernie supporter, I feel unfortunately at this point that it's CLEARLY going to be Hillary unless something CRAZY happens). My focus is ALL of the gains we've made under President Obama, AND... THE SUPREME FUCKING COURT. PERIOD (in case my actual punctuation wasn't loud enough).

I love this primary, because it ACTUALLY moved the needle; Socialist isn't a BAD WORD. We're "taking it back". And even if Bernie doesn't win, we still have his voice in the Senate. Along with Warren. And we slay a dragon like Trump (don't let me go down another rabbit hole, but I'd take Trump, gun to my head, over any of these other Repub nominees, if I had to pick one to be President, only because I don't think he actually believes any of the shit he says; i.e. he's been pro-choice his whole life until about, oh, 10 months ago #elevator).

Maybe this is fucked up to say as a Democrat, but here I go: I picture politics/politicians as us, as a country, sliding down a slope to inevitable doom. The Democrats are the brakes; they at least TRY, for the most part, to stop us from sliding further (some have more of a lead foot than others), while the Republicans are cutting the fucking brake lines. No matter HOW bad the Democrat, we're in better shape than if the Republican got in. To further that analogy, TRUE progressives, are trying to push us back up that hill, and steer us away from doom. That is my ideal situation; but if that person isn't available to vote for in the GE, I'm going to be diplomatic and vote for our best option.

Call me "Third Way" or whatever bullshit honestly doesn't apply to me ideologically. But seriously? I just want the brakes hit as hard as possible.

That's my round-about way of saying that I'm voting for Hillary if Bernie isn't the nominee, and I won't be holding my nose. But please quit fucking dismissing Bernie supporters. You won't lose ME, but WE can't afford to lose ANY.

[Unicorn]

25. Let's hope Warren wouldn't be on ANY Clinton ticket. Supporting a corporatist warhawk is a BAD thing

It would ruin Warrens reputation.

[ibegurpard]

27. Warren would sink her own credibility

By running with Clinton.

[Lizzie Poppet]

44. Precisely.

I hope she's not even considering this.

[synergie]

29. That segment would be the first throwing Warren under the bus, since that's pretty much

their history with literally any and all people who supported Hillary in anyway. They've already been abusing Warren on her FB page, for quite some time now. Funny how that actually works, right?

Warren isn't a good fit for a running mate for Hillary, and she's got work to do in the Senate. We're much better off with her there, especially if Bernie goes back to his previous behavior of ideologue who puts purity over getting anything done.

[northernsouthern]

31. Warren had issues with Hillary too.

Not sure if she would be up for it.

[Live and Learn]

32. Totally clueless post. Neither one would go for that, nor would any true Bernie supporter.

Nor, would any true Warren supporter.

[Firebrand Gary]

33. Clinton / Perez BET ON IT!

Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez is every bit as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and has a resume that is unmatched!

Thomas Edward Perez (born October 7, 1961) is an American politician, consumer advocate, and civil rights lawyer who is the current United States Secretary of Labor. A member of the Democratic Party, Perez previously served as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice.

Born in Buffalo, New York, Perez is a graduate of Brown University and Harvard Law School. He worked as a law clerk for the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado before serving in the Department of Justice from 1989 to 1995, where he worked as a federal prosecutor, and as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under Attorney General Janet Reno. He worked as a Special Counselor for Senator Ted Kennedy until 1998 when he served as the Director of the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in the final years of the Clinton administration.

Perez was then elected to the Montgomery County (Maryland) Council in 2002, serving as the council's president from 2005, until the end of his tenure in 2006. He attempted to run for the Democratic nomination for Attorney General of Maryland, but was disqualified for not having 10 years of legal experience in Maryland (he was admitted to the Maryland bar in 2001).[1] Perez was appointed by Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley to serve as Secretary of the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation in January 2007, until his October 2009 confirmation by the United States Senate as Assistant Attorney General.

On March 18, 2013, Perez was nominated by President Barack Obama to be the United States Secretary of Labor, replacing outgoing Secretary Hilda Solis. He was confirmed by the Senate on July 18 and sworn in on July 23, 2013.

*** He also holds an Honorary Doctorate of Laws from Brown, an Honorary Doctorate of Laws from Drexel University school of Law as well as an Honorary Doctorate of Humanities from Oberlin.

[B Calm]

34. Knowing Hillary she would be more likely to select Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

[pengu]

35. How would taking Warren out of the senate and putting her in a powerless role unite us?

[Eric J in MN]

38. As VP, Warren would have a chance to influence

...budget proposals and other proposals before they get to Congress.

[pengu]

40. lol

[Eric J in MN]

37. Elizabeth Warren is my first choice for VP

...but I'm skeptical it will happen.

I think Hillary Clinton's Wall Street donors would oppose that.

[bigwillq]

39. No, thanks. I'd rather Warren stay in the Senate. (nt)

[msanthrope]

41. No. nt

[Tarc]

43. In any other election cycle I'd say it's a bad idea

Usually the GOP would have inroads into this..."they're just two white Northeastern liberal women!", but this year is different. Trump has become so divisively ugly towards women that they both will slam his misogynist bullshit day in and day out.

The downside is the danger of her Senate seat switching hands, but as long as they don't run a choke artist (hello there Ms. Coakley), we should be fine there.

[Orsino]

46. I love Warren far too much to want her nerfed by the vice presidency.

If she had to moderate her message, I would be sad. I hope to see her as president.

[Urchin]

48. That would cause me to lose all respect for Warren.

That would cause me to lose all respect for Warren.