Elizabeth Warren is No Traitor

Let's be honest, Sanders supporters are a bit out there. To be fair, any politician has at least a few proponents that are arrogant in their support and at times show signs of bigotry. The Sanders crowd just managed to grow large and vocal enough to become a source of mockery for the campaign. Their latest target has turned towards Massachusetts Senator and rock-star of the Democratic Party Elizabeth Warren after a campaign appearance with Hillary Clinton in Ohio.

Sanders supporters have called her a sell-out, liar, traitor, most likely far worse than that if you've followed their comments towards Clinton and any journalist that give any hint of disapproval for the Vermont senator. They are an untoward rabid group of arrogant individuals that are rightfully fed up with a dysfunctional political process but naively believe that a politician is absolutely corrupt or absolutely principled, never any middle ground.

When we consider the influence and popularity that Warren has, it's understandable and fair for her not to sway public opinion towards one candidate or another. She was perhaps one of the most sought after endorsements during the primary, whether by fellow Clinton surrogates or petitions by Sanders supporters. She followed the same course as Vice President Joe Biden and President Barack Obama, allowing the primary process to take its course before voicing their support.

Part of Sanders agenda in running was to allow a discourse to emerge about the future path of the Democratic party, which exactly happened but would have been hampered by a Warren endorsement. Her patience offers her a position of power to influence the Clinton campaign that Sanders had helped initiate. If Sanders' supporters are serious about fostering progressive policies in the near future, having a heavyweight in Clinton's corner would only help push that cause.

The true bottom line is that most Democrats, including Warren, are becoming increasingly frightened by the idea of Donald Trump as president. Combined with the latest populist revolt in the U.K. against the European Union, and one can slightly hear the alarm bells ringing in the halls of the DNC. Even Sanders has adjusted his message to make sure Trump does not win the election, his supporters must do the same. Attacking a progressive hero like Warren or Al Franken not only doesn't help but will tarnish future relationships necessary to bringing about progressive policies.

Leave Elizabeth Warren in the Senate

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?

Consider if Warren was President Obama’s VP, would she still have the freedom to protest the Trans Pacific Partnership, or criticize the slap-on-the-wrists punishments doled out to bankers that committed massive fraud? Making her Clinton’s right-hand would only mean she would be silenced by the opposite hand. With this and the value of keeping Warren in the Senate in mind, it becomes clearer that Clinton should be vetting other candidates for the slot. Not Sanders either, nor Cory Booker or any other Senator. Go with Julian Castro, even if the thought of Trump’s wall has the Latino vote racing for Democrats, he has much smaller shoes to fill.