home

I'm on the bandwagon: Warren for VP

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2016
Posted on Fri May 13, 2016 at 11:12:44 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

7 days ago, I tweeted:

Clinton camp might agree:

A longtime Clinton veteran said the campaign definitely noticed Warren’s attacks. “You want a running mate who can take the fight to the other side with relish,” the veteran said. “Geography does not matter, but attitude and talent and energy and bringing excitement to the campaign, Senator Warren does all that.”

I'm persuaded. Warren for VP.

< El Chapo Update and Open Thread | Nevada Dems: Who Caused the Chaos? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    I'm on the bandwagon: Warren for VP | 201 comments (201 topical)
    Call off the Silver Alert (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Fri May 13, 2016 at 11:30:23 AM EST
    BTD has been found.

    Frankly, (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jbindc on Fri May 13, 2016 at 12:44:27 PM EST
    There is another reason I don't think she'd be a good choice - anytime an economic or financial issue came up.  where they've disagreed in the past - the media would go to town and try and get Warren to publicly throw her boss under the bus.  She'd be a good soldier and wouldn't do it (I think), but since the media loves Warren and doesn't love Clinton at all, it would be a constant case of "intra-administration fighting" and worse, since it would be two women, would invariably turn to headlines of "cat fights".  It would reduce Clinton's ability to move forward if she was always being compared to her VP.

    A good ticket (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by MKS on Sun May 15, 2016 at 08:56:41 AM EST
    but not good in governing?  Could be.

     Could be the loss of a Senate seat for a few months during Hillary's first term.  And that could be critical as she moves to fill at least one open Supreme Court vacancy.

    Parent

    Never (none / 0) (#13)
    by FlJoe on Fri May 13, 2016 at 12:50:45 PM EST
    thought of it that way but I believe you are 100% correct. That's just the way the media rolls, sadly enough.

    Parent
    I have been a long-time (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 13, 2016 at 12:56:10 PM EST
    proponent for Senator Warren as Mrs. Clinton's running mate (a suggestion of Captain Howdy's to which I concurred).  The disadvantages of Warren leaving the senate are outweighed by the advantages--foremost of which is strengthened assurances for the country's avoidance of the disaster of Trump.

    While, of course, a same gender ticket is not new, this one would bring boldness and excitement along with an attractiveness for many of Sanders' supporters.

     The great competence and thorough knowledge of both government and governance of the Democratic ticket would stand out in stark contrast with the ignorance, buffoonery and bombast of the Republican ticket.

      And, hopefully, by November, the vast majority of the electorate will be looking for more than the Republican cynosure of Trumps' hands and trans' dumps.

    Yes (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 13, 2016 at 02:26:42 PM EST
    I believe you and I were saying this about 7 months ago.  At least.

    Parent
    I distrust political bandwagons, BTD. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 13, 2016 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    Speaking as someone who's seen many of them pass by over the years, the spontaneity of political bandwagons often has all the heft and gravitas of Baskin-Robbins' "Flavor of the Week."

    Further, bandwagon wheels have also shown a marked tendency to shear their bolts and detach from their axles at the first big bump, prompting most everyone on board to quickly alight and then seek the next available vehicle to come along.

    So, no, I'm not yet convinced at this point that Sen. Warren is a good or even an inspired choice as Hillary Clinton's running mate. I will, however, promise to keep an open mind to the possibility of her joining the ticket, over the next couple of months leading up to our convention in Philadelphia.

    Aloha.

    I don't believe (none / 0) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 13, 2016 at 01:27:47 PM EST
    it is quite accurate to refer to the suggestion of Senator Warren's becoming a running mate as a bandwagon.  It seems more, to me, like the presentation of an intriguing idea along with a testing of the waters for the viability of such an innovative possibility.

      Since the goal of the Democrats is the election of Mrs. Clinton as president, it would be critical not to overlook the special strengths offered by Senator Warren. And, this is part of the look over.

    I do feel that Senator Warren would be the best choice, bringing attributes and positions that would attract many Sanders' supporters and complement the strengths of Mrs. Clinton.

     But, I would, as a second choice, give serious thought to having Senator Sanders as Mrs. Clinton's running mate.  More nettlesome, but would bring most of the Sanders supporters along.

     Ordinary, his age would not augur well for the vice presidency, but many Democrats are in his corner for the presidency.  And, it is not without precedent to select an older running mate, if that selection, if on some basis, improved chances of victory (e.g., Alben Barkley, Nance Garner).

    Parent

    Most Sanders supporters (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Fri May 13, 2016 at 01:36:50 PM EST
    Are going to come along anyways.

    Parent
    I hope you are right, (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 13, 2016 at 01:42:18 PM EST
    but, the goal should be not to just come along, but do so with some zest. Enough, at least, to show up at the polls.

    Parent
    One upside (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 13, 2016 at 02:29:43 PM EST
    Would be getting rid of the need to keep kissing Bernies wrinkled butt.

    Parent
    How do you know it (none / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Sun May 15, 2016 at 08:57:59 AM EST
    is wrinkled?

    Parent
    That's like asking Jaques Cousteau (none / 0) (#96)
    by jondee on Sun May 15, 2016 at 12:47:46 PM EST
    what the tail of a certain fish looks like.

    Parent
    Oui (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 15, 2016 at 03:25:09 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm not overlooking or discounting anything. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 13, 2016 at 05:20:07 PM EST
    I was merely responding to BTD's statement, "I'm on the bandwagon." And as I said, while I'm not yet convinced that Sen. Warren would be the best choice here, I'll keep an open mind on the subject and certainly won't dismiss any such suggestion out of hand.

    While I think Elizabeth Warren would bring significant substance to the VP slot, personally I would prefer that she remain in the United States Senate. Were she to join the ticket and be elected, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) would be appointing her replacement, pending a special election to fill the remaining two years of her six-year term. As Scott Brown proved in 2009, Democrats should not simply assume that Warren's seat is a safe one.

    I would therefore strongly urge my fellow Democrats to look at and consider the entire political picture, and not simply focus like a laser beam upon the immediate needs of the top of the ticket to the virtual exclusion of everything and everyone else. And if we tap Warren for the VP nod in Philadelphia, let's please do so with the implicit understanding that we're putting her U.S. Senate seat in play.

    As far as consideration of Bernie Sanders is concerned, while I may have entertained that suggestion seriously a few months ago, I'm much less inclined to do so at present, for the simple reason that he had earlier declared Hillary Clinton unqualified to hold the presidency. At this point, Sen. Warren brings much more to the table than he does.

    Were I Mrs. Clinton, I'd be strongly inclined to consider -- and I'm not being at all facetious here -- Sen. Al Franken as my running mate. He's been in the U.S. Senate for nearly eight years, and would bring to her campaign a comedian's sharp wit and wicked sense of humor, a talk show host's attack dog-instinct for the jugular, and a now-very formidable reputation as a first-rate public policy wonk and dogged political workhorse. Granted, it would be an unconventional pick, but hey, she'll likely be facing a most unconventional opponent.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    A different view on Warren (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Green26 on Fri May 13, 2016 at 01:31:47 PM EST
    While she is vocal and gets lots of press, and has influence in that regard, I don't think she's been able to do much in the Senate, so far. At least as of when I read some articles last year, she had been able to pass only 1 important piece of legislation.

    She is definitely a strong and knowledgeable consumer advocate. However, personally, I don't agree with some of her views on that subject, or I think her views are too extreme.

    As a member of an Indian tribe, I was and am highly offended by her pretending to be Native American. That tells me something about her that I don't think I would ever be able to forgive.

    None of this addresses whether she would be a good VP candidate for Hillary. I don't know what Hillary needs. However, I am becoming increasingly concerned that Trump may be a more formidable candidate/opponent than I thought. He is so unorthodox, direct, mean, dishonest, flip-floppy, has no shame, etc.--and more and more voters seem to be buying into him. If Warren can be an effective and relentless pit bull, perhaps that would be a significant value. If her punches and counterpunches couldn't back Trump down, they might distract him or create occasional bigger issues for him.

    My family always told me (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ragebot on Fri May 13, 2016 at 10:44:22 PM EST
    my grandfather was a Native American and pictures of him seemed to support  that claim, he id indeed look like an Indian.  But he died in the early 1960s when there was no affirmative action, in fact being a minority was viewed as a negative.

    Just before Christmas last year I paid a few dollars for a DNA test at a popular web site.  There was a disclaimer from the testing service that folks who sent in a DNA sample should be aware that they might not be happy with some of the truth revealed.

    In truth I was expecting some Native American DNA.  In fact there was none.  The majority was English and Scandinavian with a very small amount from Southern Europe.  There are web based services that match your DNA with others DNA and help establish a family tree.

    With too much time on my hands I spent hours researching my family tree and the results were quite unexpected.  Around the late 1400s several members of English nobility showed up.  Going a back a little more there were marriages to French nobility; something not uncommon at the time.  But what shocked me most was a clear line of a mix of French and Scandinavian blood and what looked line going back to Ragnar Lodbrok and Aslaug.  While both are somewhat mythical characters their sons are accepted as real.  There were Vikings that headed South and invaded both France and England so the blood like is possible.

    Not saying this is absolute fact but for a small investment you can easily send in DNA for a test and if you put in some hours researching you may be able to trace your family tree back a considerable distance.  Once I got a little experience it got easier to sift the wheat from the chaff.  If I find a record with listing in census, birth, death, marriage, tax, passenger manifest, or property records I put a lot more stock in it than if it is just some oral family history.  But if both the oral history and historical records match I feel a lot more confident it has street cred.

    It would be trivial for Warren to pay less than $US100 and settle once and for all the question of Native American blood lines.  Who knows she might just be shocked to find out the results like I was.

    Parent

    Reality Check (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by ragebot on Sun May 15, 2016 at 11:54:27 PM EST
    kinda basic primmer on Native American DNA

    Here is a blurb from that link:

    Scientists know today that there are only two primary haplogroups indicating deep ancestry that are found among Native American males who were here prior to contact with Indo-Europeans, and those haplogroups are C and Q3.  It is not accurate to say that all C and Q3 individuals exist only in the American Native population, but the American Native population is part of the larger group worldwide that comprises C and Q3.  We find some haplogroup C and Q3 in Europe but none in African populations, although we do learn more every single day in this infant science.

    There are three basic DNA tests.  They are maternal, paternal, and mitochondrial.  Only females can do maternal testing, only males can do paternal, and mitochondrial DNA is inherited by all children from their mother only, with no admixture from the father.

    But as you go back in your family tree any DNA is quickly diluted.

    Generation     Relationship     % of Their DNA You Carry

    1
        Parents     50

    2
        Grandparents     25

    3
        Great-grandparents     12.5

    4
        GG-grandparents     6.25

    5
        GGG-grandparents     3.125

    6
        GGGG-grandparents     1.56

    7
        GGGGG-Grandparents     0.78

    So unless one grandparent was a full blooded Native American one would not qualify for the 25% level needed by some standards.

    I am still trying to better understand how DNA testing works.  But my gut feeling is that given Warren's resources the fact she has not spend a couple of hundred dollars for DNA raises the question of why not.

    Parent

    Your 25% (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by CoralGables on Mon May 16, 2016 at 08:00:58 AM EST
    is to be granted tribal membership by "some" Native American tribes. There are also some that are 1/8th, 1/16th, and 1/32nd. This is important for many because of Casino income distribution. But tribal membership has nothing to do with ancestry.

     

    Parent

    My point (none / 0) (#143)
    by ragebot on Mon May 16, 2016 at 09:30:54 AM EST
    was there is a difference between having a grandparent who is a verified member of a tribe which counts as having 25% Native American blood and having the two primary haplogroups associated with Native American blood.

    Sorry to say the wording of both of my posts did not make this clear.

    Warren seems to have no history of ancestors with verified tribe membership; and the same goes for many folks who try and claim Native American blood.  On the other hand there are lots of folks who have had inexpensive DNA tests (like myself) and are able to say with justification they do or do not have Native American blood.

    I would point to how criminal trials have greatly changed in my life time.  I can recall as a young man if blood was found at a crime scene blood type was the only way to convict and it left lots of doubt.  Now DNA evidence is accepted as proof positive of guilt, or in the case of the Innocent Project (forget the real name) of proof a person was wrongly convicted.

    An additional point left unsaid is that the state of DNA testing is advancing at a rapid rate.  Not to mention there are additional (more expensive, but less than $US1,000) tests that allow more certainty in confirming Native American blood.

    I am not sure what you mean by saying "tribal membership has nothing to do with ancestry".  My understanding is that if you had a close ancestor who was/is verified as a tribe member you are accepted as a tribe member no matter what a DNA test would show.  This is not an area I know a lot about so correct me if you have additional data.

    To get back to the topic that spawned the DNA issue Warren could easily get a DNA test which would answer a lot of questions.  The fact that she has not done this raises questions in my mind as to why not.

    Parent

    I'm Irish (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by CoralGables on Mon May 16, 2016 at 11:07:05 AM EST
    have never had a DNA test and never intend to. My grandmother told me my great great grandmother moved here from Ireland. That's good enough for me. And I'll verify that word-of-mouth genealogy in every Irish Pub I ever visit if they'll offer a free drink for it.

    Parent
    question (none / 0) (#23)
    by CST on Fri May 13, 2016 at 02:31:53 PM EST
    Why do you assume that she lied about her heritage?  Because of what she looks like?  That's not a particularly convincing argument given what we know about genetics.

    Parent
    Because I looked at multiple news article (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Green26 on Fri May 13, 2016 at 03:08:56 PM EST
    at the time, including various articles done by Native American groups. My recollection was that she was able to produce nothing concrete, absolutely nothing. She said she had been told by family that some ancestor was Native American. Sorry, that's just not close to being enough to start listing oneself as Native American on job applications and listings, etc. She has no contact with any tribes or reservations. I saw nothing that indicated that she had any connection to the Native American culture. That's dishonest, in my view. Native American groups jumped all over her. I'd be happy to provide some of this, if you want.

    Parent
    it is a complete non-issue (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by CST on Fri May 13, 2016 at 03:29:38 PM EST
    In terms of her career or the work that she's done.

    And speaking of dishonest - she never listed herself as such on any job applications.

    Parent

    Some Native American views on Warren: (none / 0) (#32)
    by Green26 on Fri May 13, 2016 at 03:59:11 PM EST
    "Why Offensive?

    It is that she used the claim to advance her career. She started using the claim at the age of 37, and then moved into the Ivy League as a professor after making the claim. She used it for nine years until she became a permanent hire at Harvard and then she dropped it, apparently to avoid the stigma attached to being an affirmative action hire. This woman is not just some Joe Blow walking down the street. She is running for the US Congress, and if elected, will be voting on things concerning REAL Natives. Also, her genealogy has been done and she has no Native American ancestry going back to well before the Trail of Tears in 1838. She has never tried to do anything to help Native communities nor has she ever tried to get involved with the group of Native American professors who support each other and mentor each other and work with tribes helping them."

    "The issue of her false claims of Indian ancestry is not just about claiming to be Cherokee. It goes much deeper and appears to be much more sinister. She started claiming to be a minority in law directories when she was 37 years old. Not before. ...

    Warren continued to make this false claim for 9 years until she became a permanent hire at Harvard Law School. At that time, she dropped that claim. Many believe she dropped it then, not only because she no longer needed it, but also to remove the stigma attached to being an affirmative action hire.

    Let's show this step by step:

        Starts claiming to be a minority in law directories
        Gets a job in the Ivy League - University of Pennsylvania
        Still claiming to be a minority in law directories
        Gets a better job, a top of the heap job, in the Ivy League - Harvard Law School
        Stops claiming to be a minority in law directories

    Warren's explanation for this is that she listed herself as a minority to meet others like her. Uh, doesn't work. The listing only said she was a minority, not an American Indian, so exactly who did she hope to meet?

    She says she stopped listing herself as a minority later when she realized that is not what the listing was for. Uh, doesn't work. Never did she reach out to the close knit group of Native professors who mentor and help each other. Never did she reach out to tribes to meet others like her. Never did she ever try to do anything to improve the conditions in Indian country. She wouldn't even meet with the Cherokee women who traveled a long way to try to meet with her in Boston. She shows no desire to ever try to meet with or get to know American Indians."

    Source.

    Parent

    lots of assumptions there (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by CST on Fri May 13, 2016 at 04:05:53 PM EST
    very short on facts.

    Parent
    CT, you are missing the point on that post (4.50 / 2) (#49)
    by Green26 on Fri May 13, 2016 at 06:22:04 PM EST
    Those are Native Americans hammering Warren. So, it's all fact, i.e. her being hammered by Native Americans. You don't know the facts, and haven't even bothered to look them up.

    Her claiming to be Native American with her total lack of facts, and listing herself that way in national legal publications and with Ivy schools, is incredibly bogus, and yes dishonest. What type of person hears some lore from some of her family (although some of the family says they never heard that), has zero connection to her supposed tribe or supposed people, and then asserts that she is Native American as she did? Answer: nobody with integrity.

    It's one thing to mention to a friend, or someone at a cocktail party, that you have Native American heritage, based on her facts, but to do what she did?

    One more thing. I can't tell you how much most Native Americans chuckle on the inside when someone mentions that they are part Cherokee. It's so often Cherokee too. That's a dead giveaway.

    Parent

    More people would prefer to be Pequot (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by CoralGables on Fri May 13, 2016 at 06:31:18 PM EST


    Parent
    I claim a (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 14, 2016 at 07:41:40 AM EST
    Fukawe heritage.

    Parent
    Fukawee I think (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 14, 2016 at 07:52:14 AM EST
    Btw I am also Cherokee.  Really.  It's on both sides of my family.  

    Parent
    i'm indiffernt to this... (none / 0) (#53)
    by linea on Fri May 13, 2016 at 07:18:51 PM EST
    but i am suprised to see people here demanding that others "prove it" when it's been so well documented and hashed over for so many years. there it is. it's true. she pretended to be an indigionous american on various forms. i was under the impression you needed an actual tribal affiliation or you risked violatiing some federal law but apparently not.

    personally, i would prefer warren over hillary and i feel hillary would be making a wise choice to pick (1) warren or (2) another woman as her vp choice. i dont feel i would like the optics of some tall male standing next to her.

    Parent

    Some facts and information (none / 0) (#106)
    by Green26 on Sun May 15, 2016 at 04:03:40 PM EST
    I am not aware of any law that requires tribal affiliation to declare oneself Native American. Tribal affiliation does show that someone is clearly Native American. Lack of tribal affiliation is not dispositive the other way, though, for a variety of reasons. Tribal affiliation is required to qualify for things like Indian Health Service. Tribes set their own rules and requirements for tribal affiliation, and for most or many tribes that requires proof of showing being 1/4 Indian. Tribes are recognized by the federal government. There are still a few tribes, or remnants of tribes, that are trying to get federal recognition. Tribes provide their own benefits including annual or more frequent per capita distributions to tribal members. Some tribes have associate members, who are not entitled to the major benefits but are entitled to lessor benefits. Associate members are generally children of tribal members who can no longer show enough Indian blood.

    If you have more questions, let me know and I will try to answer them.

    Parent

    Interesting to observe (none / 0) (#36)
    by BTAL on Fri May 13, 2016 at 04:21:01 PM EST
    the rationalization of minority/cultural "mis-appropration" when its one of the team's fair haired.  The left leaps to its feet to condemn the Washington Redskins name yet if happy to give a pass to Warren who (as a very intelligent individual) used false statements to enhance her career.

    Parent
    What, pray tell, does Washington's NFL team ... (4.25 / 4) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 13, 2016 at 05:36:37 PM EST
    ... have to do with Elizabeth Warren? The withering public criticism presently being directed at that franchise is due to the very real fact that its owner contemptuously insists upon maintaining an openly racist pejorative / slur as the team's official name, whereas the GOP right has its knickers in a perpetual twist over Sen. Warren as part of its ongoing efforts to manufacture controversy.

    They are not one and the same.

    Parent

    You prove my point (none / 0) (#61)
    by BTAL on Sat May 14, 2016 at 06:33:23 AM EST
    with your tirade.  When Warren mis-appropriates NA heritage - no big deal.  When a sports team uses a name its racism.    

    Parent
    If I "proved" your point, ... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 14, 2016 at 10:03:50 AM EST
    ... whatever that point is, then you're the only one here who seems to believe that. Neither issue has any relevance whatsoever to the other.

    Parent
    Uh, Warren claims she (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Sun May 15, 2016 at 09:02:55 AM EST
    is Native American, not a "redskin."  You don't see the difference?

    Now, if Warren went around saying I am a "redskin" or using other derogatory terms to refer to Native Americans, you might have something.  Why don't you come back when she does something like that.

    Parent

    Pure deflection (none / 0) (#123)
    by BTAL on Mon May 16, 2016 at 05:27:59 AM EST
    Both are deflecting from Warren's mis-appropriation of Native American heritage for her financial benefit.  No different than the Washington team - except you focus on one word (while tossing in the racist card for good measure) to deflect from the core issue.

    Parent
    Well, no, the whole objection (none / 0) (#153)
    by MKS on Mon May 16, 2016 at 11:48:58 AM EST
    to the use of the term "Redskins" is because of that one word.  

    Warriors, Braves, etc. do not draw the same objections.

    You are the one hijacking the controversy....it is all about the use of a color to describe the skin of Native Americans....

    You ignore the entire point behind the objection t the use of "redskins" as a label.

    Parent

    CST, you don't know what Warren said (none / 0) (#38)
    by Green26 on Fri May 13, 2016 at 04:27:18 PM EST
    on job applications or in interviews, because the applications were not made public, to my knowledge. She has said she didn't use her NA heritage claim to get jobs, and the head of Harvard hiring committee, Fried, said her NA heritage didn't come up in her 1995 hiring. However, see these quotes:

    "Harvard hired Warren for a temporary position in 1992, and the law school reported a Native American woman on its federally mandated affirmative-action report. The program did not report a Native American woman for 1993 through 1995, during which time Warren was back at Penn."

    "The Harvard Law Record asked him [Fried] in a 1992 Q&A, "How aggressively is the appointments committee pursuing women and minority faculty members?" Fried replied, "Very."

    "Warren first listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Faculty in 1986, the year before she joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She continued to list herself as a minority until 1995, the year she accepted a tenured position at Harvard Law School."

    Sorry, but this is very suspicious. Both what Warren said, and what Fried said. Obviously, someone at Harvard knew she was claiming to be NA when the 1992 report was done. If he and Harvard were looking hard for minority professors, and she'd already been at Harvard and listed as NA, I just don't believe that Harvard law school hiring people didn't take into account her claim of NA heritage. Also, when people are hired, someone often looks at their listings in directories like the one listed above.

    Source.

    Parent

    Tempest in a Teepee? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by RickyJim on Fri May 13, 2016 at 06:23:18 PM EST
    The best argument she's got in her defense is that, based on the public evidence so far, she doesn't appear to have used her claim of Native American ancestry to gain access to anything much more significant than a cookbook; in 1984 she contributed five recipes to the Pow Wow Chow cookbook published by the Five Civilized Tribes Museum in Muskogee, signing the items, "Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee."

    Warren, who graduated from the University of Houston in 1970 and got her law degree from Rutgers University in 1976, did not seek to take advantage of affirmative action policies during her education, according documents obtained by the Associated Press and The Boston Globe. On the application to Rutgers Law School she was asked, "Are you interested in applying for admission under the Program for Minority Group Students?'' "No," she replied.

    While a teacher at the University of Texas, she listed herself as "white." But between 1986 and 1995, she listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Faculty; the University of Pennsylvania in a 2005 "minority equity report" also listed her as one of the minority professors who had taught at its law school.

    The head of the committee that brought Warren to Harvard Law School said talk of Native American ties was not a factor in recruiting her to the prestigious institution. Reported the Boston Herald in April in its first story on Warren's ancestry claim: "Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General who served under Ronald Reagan, sat on the appointing committee that recommended Warren for hire in 1995. He said he didn't recall her Native American heritage ever coming up during the hiring process.

    "'It simply played no role in the appointments process. It was not mentioned and I didn't mention it to the faculty,' he said."

    He repeated himself this week, telling the Herald: "In spite of conclusive evidence to the contrary, the story continues to circulate that Elizabeth Warren enjoyed some kind of affirmative action leg-up in her hiring as a full professor by the Harvard Law School. The innuendo is false."

    "I can state categorically that the subject of her Native American ancestry never once was mentioned," he added.

    That view was echoed by Law School Professor Laurence H. Tribe, who voted to tenure Warren and was also involved in recruiting her.

    "Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School," he told the Crimson. "Our decision was entirely based on her extraordinary expertise and legendary teaching ability. This whole dispute is fabricated out of whole cloth and has no connection to reality."

    Link

    Parent
    Ricky, in 1995 Harvard already knew (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Green26 on Sat May 14, 2016 at 12:35:53 AM EST
    she had claimed to be Native American. Harvard had so listed her when she worked at Harvard in 1992. Harvard had surely looked at her listing in national law prof publications, which listed her as NA. Also, what about U Texas and Penn, who also hired her. There are claims that she used the NA heritage claim to get jobs there. I see no denials from Texas or Penn. If Harvard didn't care that she was NA, why did they list her as NA in their federal reports? And, this all came at a time when Harvard was receiving criticism for not having minority professors and Harvard was trying to get more. Please, use some common sense.

    Parent
    The only people making such "claims" ... (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 14, 2016 at 10:15:39 AM EST
    ... are childish right-wing tools who repeatedly resort to character assassination because they are wholly incapable of discussing and debating issues in any real depth.

    Parent
    No, Donald, a number of Native Americans (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Green26 on Sun May 15, 2016 at 03:54:11 PM EST
    have made similar points all along. Some of what I quoted came from Native American bloggers and were in articles on Native American websites. I am not going to call you racist, but you have been getting pretty close to the edge on this subject. I find it quite odd that a (presumably) liberal like yourself cannot seem to recognize how Native Americans genuinely felt about what Warren did.

    Parent
    Green 26... (none / 0) (#187)
    by fishcamp on Tue May 17, 2016 at 03:44:59 PM EST
    What do you mean when you say Donald is getting close to the edge of becoming a racist.  As far as I know he is about as far from being a racist as a person can be.  You used almost the exact wording with me over a year ago, when I said my family told me I was 1/32 Iroquois.  What's with this edge BS?

    Parent
    Nope, the problem is people like you, Donald, (3.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Green26 on Sat May 14, 2016 at 11:36:38 AM EST
    who refuse to look at facts, refuse to use any common sense, and like to blame most things you don't like on conservatives or Fox News, and who will support people you like even if they are wrong.

    Why do you think Native Americans almost universally were irked at Warren over this? Most Native Americans are not conservatives or Fox News types.

    Parent

    I'm through discussing the matter with you. (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 14, 2016 at 04:59:42 PM EST
    You've been a predictable font of partisan-motivated innuendo since you first arrived on the scene here. You have repeatedly insisted that Hillary Clinton is all but under indictment when that's clearly not the case at all, and now you're repeating right-wing talking points about Elizabeth Warren because you can't address the issues she's been discussing with any real credibility.

    Character assassination is a tired and shopworn tactic that's often employed by those who don't have an original thought of their own. If you want to support Donald Trump and the Republicans, that's entirely your business. But at least try to tout their virtues and attributes, rather than relentlessly trying to smear their opposition. The only thing you prove with the latter is that you're capable of being just as big a guano-flinging jackwagon as the candidate you support.

    Adios.

    Parent

    Donald, my views and points on Warren (none / 0) (#104)
    by Green26 on Sun May 15, 2016 at 03:48:10 PM EST
    on this subject are points made by Native Americans, like myself, who were very offended by what she did. I have noticed that artisans like you, when they have no arguments of their own to refute the arguments of others, like to go to their last resort of saying the points are from Fox News. That is often the last gasp of those who know they have lost the discussion.

    And then some like you, like to lie about what others have said. Feel free to point out any posts in which I said that Hillary would be indicted. I have never said that.

    How is the argument of your side that the email investigation is merely a "security review"? Are you taking that position now? What's your explanation for why the Clinton aide who set up the private server system ended up requesting and getting immunity from criminal prosecution before he would speak to the FBI? Are you 100% confident that no aide is going to get in trouble? If so, let's hear you state your position now.

    Parent

    If you want to understand (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by Peter G on Sun May 15, 2016 at 03:23:45 PM EST
    Sen. Warren's academic career path, you simply need to follow that of her husband, a much-in-demand JD/PhD legal historian. The record of their two-fer appointments shows a rather clear pattern of "package deals" being made (neither top-notch legal historians nor well-regarded bankruptcy law scholars are over-abundant on the market) by a series of ranking universities, of ever-increasing prestige, where I cannot imagine anything about her ethnicity (whether genetically verified or only based on family lore) having anything to do with it.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 15, 2016 at 08:19:34 PM EST
    "I can state categorically that the subject of her Native American ancestry never once was mentioned," he added.

    That view was echoed by Law School Professor Laurence H. Tribe, who voted to tenure Warren and was also involved in recruiting her.

    Some things are best unsaid.

    Parent

    Donald Trump claims... (none / 0) (#48)
    by desertswine on Fri May 13, 2016 at 06:11:32 PM EST
    that he's not even Donald Trump!, speaking of dishonesty.

    Parent
    Because FIX news says so. (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 13, 2016 at 02:32:53 PM EST


    Parent
    seriously (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by CST on Fri May 13, 2016 at 02:38:20 PM EST
    Even if it's not true, what does it really say about her other than that she believed what her relatives told her?

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 15, 2016 at 07:10:52 PM EST
    I have a similar "story" in my family. Land family owned in Oklahoma, a great grandfather born according to his birth certificate and ancestory.com in the Indian Nations in Oklahoma and supposedly Cherokee. Nobody in my generation identifies with any Native American heritage. If one of my cousins wanted to explore it would I be offended? No. Could some "more Native American" blogger disparage them? Sure. Have we had a DNA test? No. I'm not sure how concerned, unconcerned, affiliated, non-affiliated I'm supposed to officially be. If we did DNA and no Native American DNA appeared to be present how upset or unconcerned should I be about that?

    And it's just me, but Senator Warren has some facial structure around her cheekbones and the bridge of her nose that is reminiscent of my grandmother.

    Parent

    Basically (none / 0) (#115)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun May 15, 2016 at 07:33:10 PM EST
    Green26 covered it fairly well in reply to:

    Even if it's not true, what does it really say about her other than that she believed what her relatives told her?

    "The issue of her false claims of Indian ancestry is not just about claiming to be Cherokee. It goes much deeper and appears to be much more sinister. She started claiming to be a minority in law directories when she was 37 years old. Not before. ...

    Warren continued to make this false claim for 9 years until she became a permanent hire at Harvard Law School. At that time, she dropped that claim. Many believe she dropped it then, not only because she no longer needed it, but also to remove the stigma attached to being an affirmative action hire.

    Let's show this step by step:

     Starts claiming to be a minority in law directories
     Gets a job in the Ivy League - University of Pennsylvania
     Still claiming to be a minority in law directories
     Gets a better job, a top of the heap job, in the Ivy League - Harvard Law School
     Stops claiming to be a minority in law directories

    Warren's explanation for this is that she listed herself as a minority to meet others like her. Uh, doesn't work. The listing only said she was a minority, not an American Indian, so exactly who did she hope to meet?



    Parent
    So, you have DNA evidence she isn't (none / 0) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 07:21:03 AM EST
    Native American?

    Parent
    MT, did or would you or any of your cousins (none / 0) (#117)
    by Green26 on Sun May 15, 2016 at 10:02:01 PM EST
    start listing yourselves as Native American in national publications and informing  your employers so they could so list you, based on  your family facts. I.e., some family stories and no identification as being NA? And how about bringing it up in connection with your applications for new and better jobs, especially when you know the employer is looking for more people of color? I assume the answer is no and no-way.

    Warren has never allowed the release of the employment questionnaire she used to get her law prof jobs? I find that more than interesting.

    " It's important to note that entrance and advancement in the law school profession is governed by the Association of American Law Schools, which requires registrants interested in teaching at law schools to fill out a questionnaire detailing their education, experience, bar passage and, yes, ethnicity. This information is then disseminated to law schools around the country that, as Warren surely knew, are always on the lookout to add to the diversity of their faculty.

    A copy of Warren's questionnaire currently resides in the Association of American Law Schools archives at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. However, only Warren herself has the authority to release the complete copy of her questionnaire and to date, she has refused to do so. "

    US News.

    Parent

    So you have DNA evidence she isn't (none / 0) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 07:22:09 AM EST
    Native American?

    Parent
    MT, do you have any DNA (none / 0) (#161)
    by Green26 on Mon May 16, 2016 at 04:14:53 PM EST
    or other evidence that she is Native American? There is a lot of information out there saying there is no evidence of it, other than her statement.

    Again, would you or your cousins list yourselves in national publications as being NA?

    Do you think the publications and the law schools just magically listed her as NA, without her ever telling anyone that she was?

    Why did you take her name off the directory list in 1995, after she got the Harvard job? Or, do you think she just was magically taken off the directory?

    Parent

    You guys caused me to look it up (none / 0) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 07:50:11 AM EST
    When I lived in Wyoming a couple of tribes had to change the blood quantum requirements to be listed on tribal rolls because "the bloodlines" are so diluted now.

    The Cherokee nation was among one of the first nations to intermarry outside the tribe though, the bloodlines very diluted now.

    The only thing required to be a citizen of the Cherokee nation is one direct connection listed on the Dawes directory. .There is no specific blood quantum.

    So I don't understand your argument or smear. Do you have evidence that Warren has no connection on the Dawes roll?

    Parent

    The whole thing us rather ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 08:04:06 AM EST
    My sister has, in the past, listed herself as Native American for the specific purpose of helping her employers with their miniority hires.  My brother discussed the same as a school administrator but I don't think he ever did.  There simply are not many minorities around here.   Especially then.  That is changing a little.
    I could have done the same but it never came up because I always worked in places with plenty of minorities.
    I love that words like "sinister" are being used.  The correct word is laughable.

    Bottom line, if this is all they have to go after Warren with ..........

    Parent

    Yes, and from what I'm reading (none / 0) (#130)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 08:08:56 AM EST
    If your Cherokee hails from the South and we killed off your family members before or during the trail of tears, your Cherokee won't be on the Dawes Rolls.

    Embarrassingly, I did not know much about the Cherokee nation outside of Oklahoma. My son who loves history has schooled me on this and the history of other tribes from the South.

    Parent

    I'm surprised (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 16, 2016 at 08:12:19 AM EST
    that after living in Alabama all these years you aren't somewhat familiar with the Eastern Band of the Cherokee.

    Parent
    Not at all (none / 0) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 09:45:33 AM EST
    But MY Cherokee supposedly gains credibility from Oklahoma. I do remember older family members specifying we were Oklahoma Cherokee. Understand though, with each passing generation the significance of what that supposedly meant was lost.

    In my generation, when we were kids we actually thought there was a Cherokee tribe that came from Oklahoma. We all lived in Colorado by then though, and in school we learned about all the local Native Americans and they had their reservations locally. We thought there were Cherokees native to Oklahoma when we were little. Nobody wanted to tell us how a Cherokee reservation ended up in Oklahoma.

    And as you can see from the Native American attacks on Warren, there seems to be a really bizarre tribal snobbery based on a bunch of white guys listing your name on pieces of paper ;)

    Parent

    One side of my family NA bloodline (none / 0) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 10:13:00 AM EST
    Is from Oklahoma.  The other side is more local.  

    Parent
    Although (none / 0) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 10:17:08 AM EST
    I can understand why a dim view might be taken by people who have always embraced the ancestry of using the bloodline for your benefit after so many years of persecution and denial.  

    But doing so is not terribly unusual.

    Parent

    As you pointed out though (none / 0) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 10:32:55 AM EST
    Embracing the bloodline has drawbacks, not just benefits. And some of the drawbacks caused family breaks, wore on people's psyches. I suppose acknowledging the bloodline must occur for some to be made whole because of the breakage.

    Then you have legal issues that crop up. One that occurs in my family is what to do with this land every time someone dies. And it has become so divided up that some are yielding their share to whoever in the will wants to take responsibility. It's not very usable land.

    Parent

    The generation of my grandparents (none / 0) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 08:12:26 AM EST
    And great grandparents were sometimes very active in denying the heritage.  It was fir some not a socially desirable thing.  To say the least.

    Parent
    Very (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 16, 2016 at 08:14:56 AM EST
    true. My husband's family changed their last name because someone in the family had married a Cherokee. His uncle found this out when he was doing genealogy on the family.

    Parent
    Yes, I have cousins who deny (none / 0) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 08:19:15 AM EST
    The heritage because it disturbs them. It disturbed my grandmother too, she whispered to me once when we were talking that her grandmother was a squaw. It was just the two of us, no need to whisper. I was astonished though that MY grandmother would call her own grandmother such a thing.

    And when on vacation in New Mexico my grandmother made a life long best friend who was Navajo. My grandmother visited regularly, collected Navajo pottery. It was okay for her best friend to be Native American but not her.

    Peculiar how everyone processes things differently.

    Parent

    It's stupid and pointless now (none / 0) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 08:30:56 AM EST
    But back then.....

    Did you see Penny Dreadful last night?  

    "What are you doing in this car?  Ni$&ers and Indians go in the back with the live stock."

    That stuff happened.   It very much did.  

    Plus the great grandparents may have actually fought them.

    Parent

    I fell asleep too early last night (none / 0) (#142)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 09:24:15 AM EST
    But it's recorded. And now I'm going to watch it and do laundry because it pertains to the discussion :)

    Parent
    First of (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 16, 2016 at 08:10:28 AM EST
    all it should disabuse anyone of the notion that Warren someone would be immune to people using the same memes they use against Hillary. It's the same sexist code words they always use against women.

    When the debate is lost, Slander becomes the tool of the loser--Socrates.

    Parent

    It's very sad (none / 0) (#132)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 08:12:10 AM EST


    Parent
    MT, yes there is evidence that none of her (none / 0) (#163)
    by Green26 on Mon May 16, 2016 at 04:26:14 PM EST
    ancestors are on the Dawes roll.

    See this very good and thorough Cherokee genealogy website. Note that they checked over 100 sources, and didn't find any evidence that Warren or her ancestors were Cherokee.

    This site is good. Look under Elizabeth Warren Information, if the link doesn't open to it. You and the other doubters should skim it. I previously quoted from it.

    Parent

    Here's the thing (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 04:33:44 PM EST
    No one gives a sh!t except you.

    Parent
    And, that Boy Scout (none / 0) (#166)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 16, 2016 at 04:52:57 PM EST
    who would never tell a lie, even to his imaginary friend, Trump.

    Parent
    If you don't have DNA evidence that (none / 0) (#177)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 08:59:30 PM EST
    She isn't Native American, seriously, shut the fuck up. I'm completely out of patience on the subject. Some of us are on the Dawes rolls but apparently a whole lot more aren't. Just shut it. You are offensive at this point.

    Parent
    MT, ya ya, you on on the Dawes roll (none / 0) (#178)
    by Green26 on Tue May 17, 2016 at 12:05:17 AM EST
    Real funny. Almost no Native American has DNA evidence. Are you drinking tonight?

    Parent
    You're really a dumb ahole (none / 0) (#180)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 10:31:16 AM EST
    My family wouldn't have had land on the reservation for the past 6 generations if we weren't. But that's only one "listing" of those identified as Cherokee...and people who survived the Trail of Tears.

    In the South, many were already intermarried or assimilated into accepting communities and weren't ever forced out. And there is DNA testing available to discern if you have any Native American ancestory, there absolutely is. Do you live under a rock?

    Parent

    If you want to know about (none / 0) (#181)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 10:57:10 AM EST
    The Dawes Roll

    this archives.gov site might be a good place to start

    It anything but comprehensive based on this.


    Parent

    MT, you said you were on the Dawes roll (none / 0) (#182)
    by Green26 on Tue May 17, 2016 at 11:18:02 AM EST
    Look at what you said. "some of us are on it [the Dawes roll]".

    The Dawes roll was closed in 1907. How old are you?

    You don't have to be Native American to own land on many reservations. Are you saying non-Indians can't own land on the Cherokee reservation?

    Again, very few Indians have had DNA testing to confirm their heritage. Can you not read?

    Nice language, especially for a well run site like TL.

    Parent

    My family meets the requirements (none / 0) (#183)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 11:41:47 AM EST
    To claim to be a certain Cherokee, which is sort of funny because the lineage isn't carried by the women, so in theory we may have no Native American DNA....but I digress

    Seriously though, if you don't have DNA evidence that Warren isn't Native American I think I really need for you to shut the hell up now. Go pollute Red State or something.

    Parent

    MT, you need to learn more about (none / 0) (#184)
    by Green26 on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:36:17 PM EST
    Warren's situation and Native Americans, so you don't keep posting so much incorrect information.

    More than 100 sources were checked regarding her claims of NA heritage, and not one indicated any Cherokee heritage or blood. in fact, they indicated to the contrary.

    I don't believe the Cherokee Nation, one of the 2 Cherokee tribes in OK, even has a reservation.

    Look at the Dawes Act. One of the main things it did was open up Indian lands and reservations to non-Indian ownership and settlement.

    Parent

    Maybe you should look (none / 0) (#185)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:42:19 PM EST
    At the Dawes Act on a source besides "Pollys-freakin-granddaughter"

    The Dawes Rolls, also known as the "Final Rolls", are the lists of individuals who were accepted as eligible for tribal membership in the "Five Civilized Tribes": Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws, Chickasaws, and Seminoles. (It does not include those whose applications were stricken, rejected or judged as doubtful.) Those found eligible for the Final Rolls were entitled to an allotment of land, usually as a homestead.

    ● For those Indians living in predominantly Indian areas, there were special Indian schedules in the 1900 Census identifying one's tribe and parent's tribes. For those Indians living among the general population, only one's color or race was designated, such as Indian or white, etc. Note: For the 1900 Census, start with the Soundex Index. You may first want to read background on the Soundex indexing system.



    Parent
    I have known about and studied the Dawes Act (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Green26 on Tue May 17, 2016 at 07:48:49 PM EST
    for many decades. Wrote my law review article on Indian law. I am a tribal member and grew up on our reservation. My law firm has a significant Indian law practice group, of which I was a co-founder over 3 decades ago. I know what the Dawes Act says, and the Cherokee aspects. I know way more about this subject and Warren's claim to be a Cherokee than you two pretenders. But feel free to keep talking about something you know next to nothing about.

    I am sorry, but if you can't show any indication of being Cherokee since before the Trail of Tears, it is highly highly unlikely that you are Cherokee, and you certainly aren't enough to be claiming minority status to employees and federal compliance forms.

    I also know that it is a total joke amongst Indians that so many people claim to be Cherokee. There are about 325,000 enrolled members of the recognized Cherokee tribes, yet triple that number claim to be Cherokee in the US census--at least as of the last time I looked. This is what creates the joke among Indians.

    Keep on posting if you want. You continue to make this Indian chuckle.


    Parent

    I see (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:12:23 PM EST
    You are not a real Indian if you don't have papers.

    The funniest part is you don't even get how funny that is.

    Chuckle away.

    Parent

    Captain, don't know where you (none / 0) (#196)
    by Green26 on Wed May 18, 2016 at 12:52:03 PM EST
    got that from. I certainly never said it.

    I will say, however, that one is not a real Indian if you don't have papers, have proof of Native American blood, OR have a reasonable connection to your Native American heritage or NA people. And, someone without those things certainly doesn't have the right to list themselves as Native American/minority in national listings and use NA heritage with employers and employment searches.

    Given what is known on the Warren situation, do you believe it was okay for her to list herself as minority/Native American and inform various law schools that she was minority/Native American?

    Note that Harvard law touted her as their only person-of-color professor.

    Parent

    And Native Americans who managed (none / 0) (#186)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:55:41 PM EST
    To stay in the South and avoid the Trail of Tears made no list likely.

    There could actually be persons with no connection to any list who have more Native American DNA than I do. And because birth certicates aren't truth certificates and my connection to Dawes goes from male, to daughter, then son, then daughter, and then my father...there's lots of room for less than the full truth in there ;)

    Parent

    MT, actually, (none / 0) (#189)
    by Green26 on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:03:49 PM EST
    roughly 1,000 Cherokees stayed in the east, and roughly 15,000 were moved. The Baker rolls, done in the 1920's, form the basis of the Eastern Band of Cherokees members, which gained federal recognition in the 20th Century. There is considerable data on the Baker rolls, as well as lists of those rejected, I believe. I believe the tribal membership of the Eastern Cherokees requires evidence of 1/16 Cherokee blood.

    To me, there are 2 important questions.

    Is the person claiming to be NA connected to his/her heritage? This also could be looked at from the family point of view.

    Does the person have any NA blood in them?

    If someone is a tribal member or even associate tribal member, they are definitely Native American.

    Parent

    There are people all over down here (none / 0) (#191)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:33:47 AM EST
    Whose Native American family wasn't on any roll. Can we please remember that the Cherokee Indians were one of the first tribes who attempted assimilation? And named their children after leading White Americans. My poor great grand father's first and middle name were Grover Cleaveland.

    You have no clue how many went unlisted. Yer just pulling stuff out of your ass. When the roll closed in Oklahoma and your full brother or sister showed up, they wouldn't place them on the roll because the royal they weren't giving out any more land. You realize how rediculous you sound? We were preforming a genocide and nobody ran away or hid? We got everybody counted?

    As for being connected to your heritage, that heritage destroyed the fabric of her family, that causes people to have to embrace the bloodline or develop some kind of reflexive denial so they too would hopefully not be shunned.

    From what I read this morning about Warrens mother, she was from Oklahoma, not the East

    Also I'm reading that in Warren's book 2014, she goes into greater detail on her family history and she hasn't walked anything back..

    You know what, just shame on you guys. Shame Shame Shame.

    Parent

    The thing is (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:38:53 AM EST
    It's all coming from concern trolls like this one or Trevor who is giving ever wacko comment a five and we are not supposed to know that the actual agenda is to smear a liberal icon in any way possible.

    And rah rah neo con warmongering in between.

    Parent

    No, much of it is coming from Native Americans (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Green26 on Wed May 18, 2016 at 11:31:08 AM EST
    and real Cherokees. They know where to search and have done the research.

    Regardless of whether Warren has any Cherokee blood in her whatsoever, she has not had any connection to Cherokee heritage (other than discussion by some family members and interestingly not by other family members), and it was dishonest of her to list herself as a minority and Native American and dishonest of her to use this either tiny or non-existent connection to help with law school jobs.

    She should release her person-of-color questionnaire, so everyone can see whether she checked or didn't check the NA box. Don't think she ever released. Not allowing its release speaks volumes, in my view.

    The real question is not whether she has some minuscule amount of Cherokee blood in her. It's whether and how much she was using that tiny connection with law schools and for ob advancement.


    Parent

    I read some of these REAL Cherokees (none / 0) (#194)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 11:43:54 AM EST
    I say some because it's only a handful of narcissists. Elizabeth Warren is most likely AS MUCH REAL Cherokee as the existing Chief in Oklahoma. The Donald Trump campaign demonstrates that anyone can say and feel anything about anyone that they want and get quoted. And it's meaningless. I don't care what a couple of emotionally bankrupt 1/32 REAL Cherokees have to say about Elizabeth Warren in order to seek their 15 minutes of fame. I just don't.

    And once again SHAME ON YOU! Just wanting to harm and damage someone over something they have no control over...that they simply must try to survive.

    It is exactly the same as being a Navy SEAL, giving your life in service to your country, and a bunch of a-holes have to keep bringing up who your grandfather was. You don't get to choose that stuff, it becomes what you must survive though.

    Just Shame On You

    Parent

    Shame on yourself, MT (none / 0) (#195)
    by Green26 on Wed May 18, 2016 at 12:43:41 PM EST
    You disparage Native Americans. You are often off base on comments about the military. although I agree with you on the recent Seal death. You have disparaged my son who served in the military and got a big hole in him the first time he went to Iraq.

    Warren is nothing close to having the Cherokee blood and heritage of the chief of the Cherokee Nation. Yes, Cherokee blood lines have been diluted over the years, but he is 4th generation Cherokee. He was born and raised in Cherokee county. He served on the tribal council for a dozen years prior to becoming the chief. He has devoted his life to his home area and Cherokee people. Shame on you for disparaging him.

    Shame on Elizabeth Warren for using her little or imaginary heritage with law schools. She has zero connection to Indian heritage. She's a big consumer advocate, but, in my view, she committed fraud on the subject we have been discussing.

    You come across as clueless about Native American matters and heritage. I don't know why you persist on this topic.

    Parent

    Wrong, I did Not disparage NA (none / 0) (#197)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 01:15:44 PM EST
    I disparaged particular individuals who are NA who disparage other NAs as if it's some sort of club, a clique. I disparaged NAs who would disparage other NAs for 15 minutes of attention and fame.

    And SHAME ON YOU TO THE Nth degree. Read the Warren story, how the family suffered, how the children suffered. It's something very abusive in you and others trying to batter her in this fashion. And I'm appalled at other Native Americans Uncle Tomming Elizabeth Warren for a smidgen of feeling more special than others. But I didn't blanket disparage any ethnicity. I'm calling out specific behavior that any one of any ethnicity can do to others using their ethnicity.

    Parent

    MT, you obviously don't understand (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Green26 on Wed May 18, 2016 at 03:20:20 PM EST
    ethnicity. No one forced Warren to start listing and representing herself as a NA/minority.

    You refuse to even address the central question. You just run off swinging in the wrong direction.

    I grew up without electricity or running water in a two-room shack, in the early years. We had to drive 10 miles to get to a paved road and 5 more miles to get to a small town. In the my first year of school, my dad drove me to school and picked me up every day. He died when I was 10, leaving my mom with 3 little kids. We all did just fine. We probably appreciate functioning toilets a lot more than most of you.

    Parent

    My God you're so phucking abusive (none / 0) (#199)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 06:32:40 PM EST
    You realize that her family was shunned for being NA? Many women in adulthood make efforts to repair their damaged self esteem once they feel safe enough and strong enough to do that.

    She is Native American. I don't care when or where or how she chose to share that with the rest of the damn world and it's none of your business really as long as she is Native American...and she is.

    You are just an abusive jacka$$

    Parent

    It is not (none / 0) (#200)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed May 18, 2016 at 07:01:31 PM EST
    A smear, if it is true.
    Green has presented a well thought out case,
    Along with the fact that Native Americans are the ones bringing it up.

    Parent
    I've never had a VP nominee (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CoralGables on Fri May 13, 2016 at 02:44:12 PM EST
    change the way I vote. That approach isn't going to change this November either.

    Order of succession: (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Fri May 13, 2016 at 04:09:12 PM EST
    After the Pres. and VP comes Paul Ryan.

    Parent
    I won't vote based on Ryan either (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by CoralGables on Fri May 13, 2016 at 05:25:57 PM EST


    Parent
    I think that the balance of power (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by desertswine on Fri May 13, 2016 at 06:01:37 PM EST
    is so close in the Senate, that Warren's Senate seat is too valuable to even potentially give up.  I'm certain that Clinton can find a vp candidate worthy of the choice.  

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 13, 2016 at 06:34:21 PM EST
    a lot of people would agree and it's not like there's a dearth of choices out there.

    Parent
    VP would be fine, no problem with that. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by dk on Fri May 13, 2016 at 09:47:11 PM EST
    But, wouldn't a more effective use for her be as Secretary of the Treasury (and wouldn't she enjoy it more)?  That's what I'm hoping for.

    Dadler you could start (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by fishcamp on Sat May 14, 2016 at 12:04:56 PM EST
    a political, election satire strip, maybe one or two a week to avoid stress.  Your year long one was fantastic, but must have been difficult for you.  I loved those cartoons.  There's so much stuff out there now that would be perfect for you.  C'mon man...

    Sherrod Brown (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by mm on Sat May 14, 2016 at 01:17:27 PM EST
    That's my vote for what it's worth.

    I've seen that a lot (none / 0) (#85)
    by Nemi on Sat May 14, 2016 at 05:34:43 PM EST
    around the web for some time now, and in my research - as I knew nothing about him - I came up with this pretty good piece from january, 2015:
    Sherrod Brown: Why aren't progressives begging him to run for president?

    On the prospect of running for president:

    But instead of offering himself up, Brown, who has campaigned on that very issue ['the plight of the middle class'] for years, said he has "zero interest" in running for higher office.

    "I don't think you can do your job well in the Senate if you're looking over your shoulder wanting to be president," he said. He may be a fan of Warren and Sanders, but he isn't above taking minor potshots at their headline-grabbing ways -- pointing out, for example, that it's much easier to be a progressive in Massachusetts and Vermont than in his home state of Ohio.

    [...]

    Brown said he understands that the media attention that comes with a presidential run can be good for getting a message out, but it can also have a negative effect on building credibility with his colleagues.



    Parent
    Brown for VP (none / 0) (#90)
    by CoralGables on Sun May 15, 2016 at 08:53:07 AM EST
    has the same problem as Warren for VP. It adds a Republican to the Senate. (if you think that's important)

    Parent
    much as i like the idea of Sen. Warren (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by cpinva on Sat May 14, 2016 at 02:20:25 PM EST
    one heartbeat from the presidency, I like her better in the senate, which actually makes the laws. she's one of the (very) few democrats willing and able to take on the republicans, and the rightwingnutjobs in general. her voice in congress is way too valuable to be wasted as VP.

    HIspanic VP would be a wise choice (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Coral on Sun May 15, 2016 at 10:27:41 PM EST
    Someone not in Senate. Castro or Perez might be good. A shame we don't have enough Democratic governors.

    Definitely need to keep the Senate in Democratic hands, as we MUST get Supreme Court nominee confirmed.

    Julian Castro has a strong, somewhat (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by christinep on Sun May 15, 2016 at 11:19:51 PM EST
    charismatic personality. A good speaker with a genuine exuberance. In addition to an effective Hispanic voice, he adds another positive: youth.

    Parent
    I still see picking a Mayor (none / 0) (#126)
    by CoralGables on Mon May 16, 2016 at 07:38:19 AM EST
    as a reach that isn't needed. You reach when you are nearly guaranteed to fail otherwise

    Parent
    Castro (none / 0) (#136)
    by jbindc on Mon May 16, 2016 at 08:17:44 AM EST
    Is the current Secretary of HUD. He previously was mayor of San Antonio.

    Parent
    And the highest office ever achieved by election (none / 0) (#139)
    by CoralGables on Mon May 16, 2016 at 08:40:50 AM EST
    was mayor.

    Not to worry, if chosen he doesn't change my vote.

    Parent

    Mayor of San Antonio (none / 0) (#167)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon May 16, 2016 at 05:04:57 PM EST
    Really doesn't do much.
    The executive authority lies with the City Manager.

    San Antonio, the second-largest city in Texas and seventh-largest in the nation, has a council-manager-weak mayor form of government. The manager runs the city. "The office of the city manager serves as the focal point for the executive leadership and direction of the city organization," says the website of San Antonio City Manager Sheryl Sculley. The site says Sculley, in office seven years, has "appointed executive leadership, reorganized city departments, streamlined city business systems, improved customer service and elevated the professionalism of city management." Sculley makes $355,000 a year, one of the highest salaries for a local office in Texas.

    The office of mayor carries with it no executive authority. Castro's website says he has "focused on attracting well-paying jobs in 21st century industries, positioning San Antonio to be a leader in the New Energy Economy." Castro's site says he has also "brought a sense of urgency" to urban revitalization, and has created something called SA2020, "a community-wide visioning effort turned nonprofit that has galvanized thousands of San Antonians around a simple, but powerful vision for San Antonio -- to create a brainpower community that is the liveliest city in the nation."

    Creating visioning efforts, senses of urgency, and brainpower communities brings the mayor far, far less money than the city manager. "The mayor's job pays $20 a meeting plus a one-time $2,000 fee, so I basically make $4,000 a year," Castro told San Antonio television station KENS last year.

    Parent

    "youth" is not a plus (none / 0) (#141)
    by Mr Natural on Mon May 16, 2016 at 09:18:25 AM EST


    Parent
    I am reading that progressives are trying to (none / 0) (#148)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 16, 2016 at 10:48:04 AM EST
    derail the possible choice of Julian Castro as VEEP. Anybody know why?

    Parent
    Rumor only right now (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 10:58:05 AM EST
    A non-Latino front group figured out a way to bait a progressive front group into have a knee jerk reaction and go after him.

    Parent
    IMO, Repubs are concerned (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by christinep on Mon May 16, 2016 at 12:21:41 PM EST
    about the J. Castro possibility.  They should be.  Of course, there are other very good potential VP candidates--especially if a strong candidate could be found in the Midwest--yet, as an addition to a Hillary Clinton, the engaging energy representing a key Democratic demographic would be singularly important during this cycle.  (When I first encountered him at a CO annual Dem Dinner, I prepared for a just-another-speech 15 or 20 minutes ... not only was my supposition about a junior wrong, but my husband won a bet with me for predicting that my attitude about this relative newbie would change.  Subsequently, the occasional snaps & clips of Hillary and Julian sharing the same stage during the primary season had a genuinely good sense in a complementary way, FWIW.)

    Parent
    Sherrod Brown activates and energizes Ohio (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 01:58:04 PM EST
    The Castro brothers could cause/energize Texas to turn blue though. Texas goes blue....that changes everything.

    I harbor no doubts that certain think tanks are taking a look at Texas demographics and having the begining of infarction. Texas gets on my last nerve sometimes, but I love Texas too. When Texas falls in love, it's just as deep and crazy as when it discusses succession. Texas loves its statesmen/women who are Democrats and get things done when you can get Texas to snap out of it.

    The pendulum is starting to swing in the other direction in Texas.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#149)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 10:50:08 AM EST
    But personally I agree with CG that there are lots of other choices that are more credible.

    It might be that?

    Parent

    The DASP program at HUD (none / 0) (#150)
    by jbindc on Mon May 16, 2016 at 10:58:00 AM EST
    Mo6ght be one reason....

    Parent
    If Warren runs as Madame Kissinger's VP, Tent... (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Dadler on Sat May 14, 2016 at 08:57:09 AM EST
    ...I will go down on you AND give you half an hour to draw a crowd. Warren would be giving up her entire process be identity to ru. With Shillary. Please. This idea to s a joke.

    Why (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 14, 2016 at 09:02:24 AM EST
    must you always resort to Trumpian name calling. Shillary, how juvenile.

    Parent
    Hillary's gossamer skinned (1.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jondee on Sat May 14, 2016 at 11:09:02 AM EST
    vestal torchbearers should start  toughening their hides, because the GOP's loose cannon with a touch-of-tourettes is going to "go there" (where angels fear to tread) in ways guaranteed to make you long for that awful awful man Bernie Sanders with his sardonic, condescending tone and all those self-righteous, irrational supporters.

    By October, "Shillary" is going to seem like affectionate chiding.

    Parent

    Shrillary (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 14, 2016 at 11:16:24 AM EST
    has already been used by Trump. Both Bernie supporters and Trump supporters use the same memes. She should be used to it by then.

    Parent
    No one is getting hurt, hides are tough enough. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ruffian on Sat May 14, 2016 at 06:07:09 PM EST
    It's just stupid. I had little brothers. It's a lot like getting made fun of by them.

    Parent
    lol; I had little sisters. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Mr Natural on Sat May 14, 2016 at 07:56:02 PM EST


    Parent
    Charming as ever, Dadler. (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by caseyOR on Sat May 14, 2016 at 11:10:35 AM EST
    Such insightful political commentary.

    Parent
    seriously dadler, is this really the very best (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by cpinva on Sat May 14, 2016 at 02:22:01 PM EST
    you can do? you've sunk to trumpian levels of idiocy.

    Parent
    Oh, of all the indignities.. (3.00 / 2) (#95)
    by jondee on Sun May 15, 2016 at 12:43:12 PM EST
    I wouldn't tempt him. I've known Dadler long enough to know that's not the best he can do.

    I also know that at one time Dadler's mom was once one of those "dead beats" her majesty looks down upon with disdain from the intoxicating heights of Oscar de la Renta's villa.

    But, I said above, thou best gird thy loins in preperation for the next few months, because Trump and his unscrupulous minions have a flaming sh*t-filled flame thrower
    squarely aimed at that heaped up pile of Clinton baggage
     

    Parent

    The only baggage I'm seeing here ... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun May 15, 2016 at 04:32:48 PM EST
    ... is your own class envy, going round and round on Turnstile No. 3 in Claim Area B.

    Parent
    The one downside (none / 0) (#2)
    by CST on Fri May 13, 2016 at 11:32:28 AM EST
    I can think of is that this would likely leave us with a Republican in that seat - at least on a temporary basis until a special election is held.

    I can think of several downsides, (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 13, 2016 at 11:49:42 AM EST
    many of them to Warren herself.

    The VEEP is a powerless person, saying and doing everything in service to the president's agenda. No striking out on one's own, only fighting for issues chosen by the president. Not in a position to challenge the administration on anything.

    Right now Warren is a senator with a great deal of influence and power, especially for a first-term senator. She is free to speak out on anything she chooses, anything. She sets her own agenda. All of that gone if she is VEEP.

    Yes, an all female ticket would be exciting, but not worth losing Warren's independent voice.She can continue to tweet the daylights out of Trump from the Senate. And she will be in a position to keep attention on the issues she has so ably carved out as her particular interests.

    I do not see the upside for Warren to joining the ticket. She does not bring enough to the ticket to make up for what we all would lose in having her independent voice in the senate.

    Parent

    I'm not either (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by jbindc on Fri May 13, 2016 at 12:11:30 PM EST
    While she is a good advocate for her one big issue, I don't see that she really adds much to the ticket, besides the "two women" thing, and she would temporarily leave a vacancy to be filled by a Republican governor.  If Dems can retake the Senate, it won't be by much, so every vote needs to be there. I think she is MUCH more valuable to the Dems in the Senate.

    Tim Kaine seems to be leading the prognostications right now, since a Dem would replace him and he is fluent in Spanish.

    But I still am intrigued (and amazed it's kind of been seriously discussed) of an an Al Franken vice-presidency.

    Parent

    Tim Kaine (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 13, 2016 at 01:49:45 PM EST
    on the surface seems to be about the least appealing of all the candidates who have been put out there. Al Franken I find fascinating because he'd be the perfect foil for the hair that ate NY.

    Parent
    really don't like Tim Kaine (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CST on Fri May 13, 2016 at 02:47:31 PM EST
    I hadn't even thought of Al Franken, but now that I think about it, I could definitely get on board.

    Although I would also be OK with Warren.  MA holds special elections relatively quickly, and I would hope that the Dems have learned their lesson about turnout from the Scott Brown debacle.  As long as Coakley isn't the nominee again.

    Parent

    I know, those are all my downsides too (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by ruffian on Fri May 13, 2016 at 12:22:02 PM EST
    the same reasons I did not want her to run for POTUS.

    Also my first reaction to thinking of her as VP was an embarrassing gut reaction: 'oh no, you can't have an all-female ticket! The country is not not ready for that!'

    Since I saw Armando tweet about this the other night, I have been thinking about it, and dang, it sure would be fun. She is such an awesome campaigner.  And I think she'd be a really good VP.  

    But I think we will get the campaigning without her actually being on the ticket.

    So, I will do the only thing any of us can do anyway - let Hillary make the decision.

    Parent

    The Bernie supporters (none / 0) (#67)
    by sallywally on Sat May 14, 2016 at 08:05:59 AM EST
    Turned on Warren when she didn't endorse Bernie, very nastily, too. Putting her up with Clinton would just "prove" she is as bad as they side she was.  We need her in the Senate pushing Hillary to the left.


    Parent
    One Senator (none / 0) (#69)
    by CoralGables on Sat May 14, 2016 at 08:11:39 AM EST
    doesn't push anyone anywhere. If she can bring 59 along with her that has value.

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#6)
    by FlJoe on Fri May 13, 2016 at 12:15:25 PM EST
    agree, I think Warren is becoming a powerful force in the Senate, it would be a shame to put her on the sideline holding a clipboard in the VP's post.

    Parent
    So, was VP Biden merely the mouthpiece (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Fri May 13, 2016 at 12:18:45 PM EST
    for President Obama when the VP publicly supported same sex marriage?

    Parent
    Other than that (none / 0) (#9)
    by Steve13209 on Fri May 13, 2016 at 12:23:30 PM EST
    he was invisible. That is probably not where Warren wants to be. I would rather he be in the Senate to torment the GOP and hold out the prospect of primarying HRC in 2020 if appropriate.

    Parent
    I don't think you can compare Biden & Warren (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Fri May 13, 2016 at 12:28:51 PM EST
    Biden, unlike Warren, had years of legislative experience and was brought on a) to make up for Obama's lack of relationships on the Hill because of his very limited exerience, and b) to help bolster Obama's lack of goreign policy experience. (Hillary doesn't need someone to bolster her knowledge of how Washington works).

    I don't think was his "mouthpiece" on gay marriage (i.e., I don't think he was out there to keep Obama out of it, like putting up a trial balloon)  - I think Biden dragged Obama where he wasn't quite willing to go yet.


    Parent

    As you pointed out, jbindc (none / 0) (#87)
    by christinep on Sat May 14, 2016 at 07:03:58 PM EST
    it can really help when the VP choice fills a need, supplements an area that needs supplementing, helps with a state/locale, or makes a real statement to & for an important demographic group.  For that classical reason: Sherrod Brown and Julian Castro seem to me to fill important areas.  Ohio, as it often is, could be extremely important as is cementing the relationship with the progressives (S. Brown); and, without question and in terms of electoral votes in key states, fully incorporating a key Hispanic leader is a reality that meets the times (J. Castro.)  

    Parent
    but a VP (none / 0) (#5)
    by athyrio on Fri May 13, 2016 at 12:14:54 PM EST
    is also president of the senate too
    The VP can only vote to break a tie. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 13, 2016 at 12:47:39 PM EST
    He or she has no voice in the debate on the floor or in committee.

    Parent
    I obviously agree (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 13, 2016 at 02:32:01 PM EST
    And I hope she does pick Warren.  But for some reason I doubt she will.  Actually for a couple of reasons.

    I agree...this was just a tease (none / 0) (#42)
    by pitachips on Fri May 13, 2016 at 04:53:53 PM EST
    Someone mentioned that the media will take every opportunity to create a wedge. Will be too much of a distraction.

    Parent
    No. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Towanda on Fri May 13, 2016 at 02:39:08 PM EST


    Why? (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Fri May 13, 2016 at 04:09:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Long term loss for short term marginal gain. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Belswyn on Fri May 13, 2016 at 04:24:58 PM EST
    She'd be a great campaigner for Hillary but she's already doing that to a considerable extent. She can be much more effective in the senate than as VP.

    Parent
    Ok. Waiting for Towanda's (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Fri May 13, 2016 at 04:28:58 PM EST
    rationale also.

    Parent
    For the record, (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 13, 2016 at 10:49:36 PM EST
    I am not, "Towanda."

    But, I agree, Senator Warren should not accept the V.P. slot, if offered (which I highly doubt will be the case.)

    Some reasons:

    1. Warren enjoys her current independence a lot.

    2. In a tight race, not sure if "2 women" would be a net, (+) or (-)

    3. Adding to #2, how many voters would be thinking, "I wish the ticket were reversed?"

    4. One is associated as being, "with Wall St," the other, "Wall St, the enemy."

    5. It's "out there," Video of Warren trying to explain Hillary's, flip-flop (betrayal) on Senate Bankruptcy Bill: (paraphrase)"It comes down to the Banks, they have so much money raining down on Congress, its hard to resist."

    6. As already mentioned, Warren is one the very brightest of Democratic lights in the Senate, too high a price to pay.

    7. Finally, just my hunch, but, I don't think they like each other very much.


    Parent
    To amplify (none / 0) (#40)
    by Belswyn on Fri May 13, 2016 at 04:37:29 PM EST
    There is a reasonable chance of retaking the senate this year with Trump on the ticket. We would be minus one more in MA with Warren gone. With a pending Supreme Court appointment looming, I want maximal chances for a liberal appointment here (I'm assuming Garland won't get appointed).

    My preferred choices would be any of a number of current (e.g., Nixon) or former (e.g., Vilsack, Crist) governors, or Joe Biden.

    Parent

    I think you are wrong (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Fri May 13, 2016 at 04:48:37 PM EST
    I think Garland gets confirmed in November, regardless of who wins.

    Parent
    GOP says they are not having a confirmation (none / 0) (#113)
    by ruffian on Sun May 15, 2016 at 06:06:57 PM EST
    hearing or vote on Garland no matter who wins in Nov. I guess they could change their mind if Hillary wins.

    Parent
    A VP nominee ought be a supporter (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Towanda on Fri May 13, 2016 at 05:45:44 PM EST
    of the presidential nominee, certainly by this late date in the primary season.

    Warren has refused to endorse Clinton.  

    (And in Warren's book, her actual attack on Clinton would be effective fodder in the campaign.  It already has been widely quoted against Clinton.)  

    Parent

    And for campaign spokesman. (none / 0) (#55)
    by ExPatObserver on Fri May 13, 2016 at 10:35:06 PM EST
    John Miller?

    or (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 13, 2016 at 11:41:01 PM EST
    John Barron! ROTFLMAO.

    Parent
    When Dick Cheney (none / 0) (#60)
    by ragebot on Sat May 14, 2016 at 01:15:20 AM EST
    was selected as VP for Bush it was pointed out one reason was insurance that no one would assassinate Bush for fear that Cheney would become president.

    There seem to be a lot of folks who would rather see someone more liberal than Hillary as prez.  Just a thought about why I doubt Warren will be the choice for VP.

    Have you been drinking? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by CoralGables on Sat May 14, 2016 at 07:46:52 AM EST


    Parent
    Not yet at this camp (none / 0) (#66)
    by fishcamp on Sat May 14, 2016 at 07:54:51 AM EST
    but if the tarpon still have lockjaw when it comes to eating chicken feathers,  there will be drinking later.  Boat drinks of course.

    Parent
    If the chicken feather doesn't cure lockjaw (none / 0) (#68)
    by CoralGables on Sat May 14, 2016 at 08:09:07 AM EST
    a chicken leg can get you a bucket of blue crabs.

    Parent
    No drinking till later (none / 0) (#79)
    by ragebot on Sat May 14, 2016 at 12:12:02 PM EST
    Dragon boat races today

    Parent
    Clinton/Grayson (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 14, 2016 at 07:50:49 AM EST


    Parent
    Ha! Yes, that would be about right (none / 0) (#94)
    by ruffian on Sun May 15, 2016 at 10:11:33 AM EST
    Kind of like Dan Quayle, the original impeachment insurance VP.

    Parent
    I desired a younger VP (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 14, 2016 at 12:42:42 PM EST
    For a 16 yr plan. But where are they? Why are they silent, too afraid to stand for something?

    I can easily get behind VP Warren

    Picking Warren would be like (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Sun May 15, 2016 at 01:09:15 AM EST
    Dallas drafting Ezekiel Elliott.   Sounds unwise at first blush but does generate a lot of enthusiasm and excitement, doubling down on a strength.

    BTD, Zeke is going to give the Giants hell....  

    Trump referred to (none / 0) (#97)
    by KeysDan on Sun May 15, 2016 at 12:52:44 PM EST
    Senator Warren as "Pocahontas," in Maureen Dowd's interview-based column (NYTimes, Sunday, May 15. Guess that's his big comeback line.

    it may be effective... (none / 0) (#100)
    by linea on Sun May 15, 2016 at 02:09:03 PM EST
    i had thought this was old news and at this point everyone was either (1) indifferent to the issue like me or (2) a republican.

    but based on the spittle and "prove it!" comments here, there may still be some life to this meme.  people do seem to go balistic over these sorts of things.  like the way they went balistic over the woman in washington state who considered herself culturally black.

    Parent

    Mark Halperin (hahaha) suggests that Clinton (none / 0) (#98)
    by desertswine on Sun May 15, 2016 at 01:45:17 PM EST
    will pick a prominent GOP female as a running mate.

    Wait, I've fallen down and can't get up.

    Mark Halperin's existence... (none / 0) (#112)
    by pitachips on Sun May 15, 2016 at 05:54:36 PM EST
    is the very definition of privilege.

    Parent
    V.P. (none / 0) (#99)
    by mogal on Sun May 15, 2016 at 02:02:41 PM EST
    I agree, Sen. Warren would be great but she is needed in the Senate. So remember you heard it first from a gal from Mo. Our Senator, Claire, will be Hillary's running mate.


    i dont feel the senate is as important (none / 0) (#101)
    by linea on Sun May 15, 2016 at 02:16:04 PM EST
    i cant imagine anyone passing up a chance to be veep. i also feel the ticket would look better with two women and elizabeth warren would pull in the progressive vote.

    Parent
    Why is the Senate not as important to you, ... (none / 0) (#109)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun May 15, 2016 at 04:43:54 PM EST
    ... especially when one considers its capacity to become a clogged bottleneck in the legislative process when it's in the hands of a reactionary leadership?

    Please don't over-inflate in your own mind what a president can accomplish in the face of a hostile Congress, particularly one whose current majority members would gladly block the present chief executive's access to the Oval Office bathroom, if ever given the opportunity.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    well... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by linea on Sun May 15, 2016 at 05:00:58 PM EST
    there's lots of senators.  losing one good senator to increase the likelihood of winning the general seems like a reasonable bargain to me.  

    besides, by this logic all senators would be off-limits as veep.. and we woudnt want to lose a good govenor as veep either... what's left?

    Parent

    Warren is a singular (none / 0) (#121)
    by sallywally on Sun May 15, 2016 at 11:59:47 PM EST
    and powerful senator, not just one of the group. She has substantial influence and national standing as a progressive leader. Her value in the Senate is significant; it's not likely that she would be replaced with someone who could fill her shoes there, and her power and influence would be limited in the VP position.

    Parent
    ok then... (none / 0) (#122)
    by linea on Mon May 16, 2016 at 12:30:47 AM EST
    how about... i would feel better with elizabeth warren on the ticket as veep.

    Parent
    And in other VP news, Newt says (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Sun May 15, 2016 at 04:28:27 PM EST
    he is available to be Trump's running mate.

    I Keep Imagining (none / 0) (#111)
    by RickyJim on Sun May 15, 2016 at 05:53:42 PM EST
    that the one Trump really wants as VP is Bernie Sanders.  It is a choice that goes hand in hand with the other surprises of his campaign.  And I could imagine Bernie (and the Bernie Bros) accepting.  And if Trump is right that his supporters wouldn't budge if he started to shoot people, they would accept Sanders too.

    Parent
    I said the same thing (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 08:46:33 AM EST
    A few days ago.

    Parent
    Would love to see (none / 0) (#157)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 16, 2016 at 03:48:20 PM EST
    the pre-nup Bernie would ask for.

    Parent
    I'm starting to think (none / 0) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 03:53:57 PM EST
    Donald might actually pick Newt.   He clearly wants it.  Donald has hinted he's open.  He has the establishment cred.   He has the governing experience.  

    He would be a Cheneyish VP.

    The question might be bodies he threaten Donald.  

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 03:55:50 PM EST
    I don't think his body threatens Donald.  

    "....might be DOES he threaten Donald"

    Parent

    Also (none / 0) (#160)
    by FlJoe on Mon May 16, 2016 at 04:06:29 PM EST
    he went head to head with Bill Clinton and came up on the short end, and you know how Trump hates loooosers.

    Parent
    Yeah, he might be on the short list (none / 0) (#169)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 16, 2016 at 05:10:24 PM EST
    He, certainly passes the "Slime Test." For sure, there's no one slimier.

    I don't know, what do you think? I mean, would Donald pick someone with even lower scruples then he, himself has? And, with Christie already there, he and Newt would be in danger of giving each other concussions racing to see who could kiss Donald's butt fastest.

    Yeah, definitely possible.

    Parent

    It's (none / 0) (#170)
    by FlJoe on Mon May 16, 2016 at 05:15:06 PM EST
    all becoming clear to me now, The Apprentice-V.P. Edition, coming to your TV screen soon!

    Parent
    Well, he'll have to do something. (none / 0) (#174)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 16, 2016 at 05:56:11 PM EST
    I mean, after the history of sewage, which was Trump's life the past few decades, and which Hillary's opp-research team will dredge up big-time, and, be rained down on his head (non-stop) in the General, where's he going? His "brand" will be worth next to nothing.

    Parent
    Newt is the only candidate (none / 0) (#171)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 05:32:46 PM EST
    With more ex-wives than Donald.  So there is that.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#175)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 05:58:20 PM EST
    I guess it's a tie, on second thought.  Isn't it.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 16, 2016 at 06:58:16 PM EST
    a half a dozen with Newt and Trump together.

    Parent
    Can you imagine (none / 0) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 16, 2016 at 04:24:35 PM EST
    two candidates spouting conspiracy theories all the way to the election?

    Parent
    I can actually (none / 0) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 04:33:01 PM EST


    Parent
    A great ticket, two policy (none / 0) (#168)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 16, 2016 at 05:09:02 PM EST
    wonks.  Trump's beautiful wall, paid for by the Mexicans and Gingrich's plan to have poor kids clean the toilets of their rich classmates to teach work habits. Question, however, how would they refer to their wives? Melona as Third Lady, and Callista, the Healthy Wife?  

    Parent
    Trump-Gingrich (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 05:35:38 PM EST
    CLOSED BORDERS-OPEN MARRIAGES

    Parent
    Baa waa (none / 0) (#173)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 16, 2016 at 05:41:45 PM EST
    waa.

    Parent
    It's not a new suggestion (none / 0) (#154)
    by Caro on Mon May 16, 2016 at 11:50:25 AM EST
    My friend Brent Budowsky pushed the idea in 2014 - http://huff.to/1XuKKte.

    VP (none / 0) (#179)
    by IzikLA on Tue May 17, 2016 at 12:10:45 AM EST
    I don't think an Elizabeth Warren VP slot is in the cards.  I think Hillary will look at what reflects her best and go from there.  I'd go on the record to say Cory Booker is that person right now.  I'm not sure there are complaints from either side about him.  He has supported her from the beginning and he reflects much of what she stands for.

    About Sherrod Brown (none / 0) (#201)
    by sallywally on Sun May 22, 2016 at 10:21:59 AM EST
    liking Sanders : He has endorsed Hillary and appears with her at events. He is  also a great presence in the Senate, like Warren.

    I'm on the bandwagon: Warren for VP | 201 comments (201 topical)