Why is Secretary Hillary
Clinton and other
Democrats so adamant about making Elizabeth Warren Vice President? And why
is Warren so open
to the idea?
The better question is how likely would Massachusetts elect
a Democrat to take Warren's vacant seat? That goes without mentioning that
Republican Governor Charlie Baker has the honor of picking the replacement
Senator until said election takes place.
All of this depends on the likelihood of Democrats having
enough gains to garner a majority in the Senate. Why would Senate Minority
Leader Harry
Reid risk a vote in the congressional chamber that can barely pass laws
without a supermajority? Of course the House will most likely remain in Speaker
Paul Ryan and fellow Republican's hands for the time being, so any chance of
Clinton being able to muster up support for her policy proposals in that arena is
very slim.
Even still, why sacrifice the crowning jewel the Democrats
have in the Capitol? It's understandable that party elites are nervous and are
attempting to strengthen their ballot with a popular progressive. I'm sure the
Clinton camp hasn't forgotten the grassroots group that tried their hardest to
draft Warren into the presidential election. If she had chosen to run, Senator
Bernie Sanders claimed he would not have thrown his hat in the ring.
Don’t get me wrong, it is enticing to have Democratic ticket
with two women. The chance of Warren being just a heartbeat away from telling
bankers to eat dirt makes it only sweeter. But in a hypothetical cost-benefit analysis, there is more
cost than benefit. What much can Warren do as Veep? Haplessly defend
Clinton’s relationship with Wall Street and Corporate America?

No comments:
Post a Comment