What a juicy thought. And, possibly, a very real possibility.
Other than for Warren's media war against Trump, she has a desirably political characteristic: "Between the left and the center-left, Warren is the missing link." She could help unify the party and fold in Bernie supporters.
I'm not as skeptical as some about having two women on the ticket, especially if Warren can be let loose with her views about economic inequality and the concentration of wealth and power.
Putting Warren on the ticket would come at some cost, how much cannot be determined now. "On Monday, Politico reported that unnamed Wall Street Democratic donors did not believe that Clinton would pick Warren, and might withhold their contributions if she did." On the other hand, I'll bet Warren's presence on the ticket would rake in cash from new places (like Bernie's many supporters).
Vetting is happening now.
My source is Benjamin Wallace-Wells at the New Yorker. Check out his piece for more background on the Warren-as-VP possibility.
BTW, from the Wallace-Wells piece: "... Clinton is often said to prize loyalty. Even during her appearance with Maddow, Warren made only a narrow case on Clinton’s behalf. The senator kept calling the nominee a partisan “fighter” but did not vouch for her as a champion of working families or praise her commitment to progressive ideals. It isn’t hard to see how Clinton and her advisers might perceive Warren’s ideological commitments and prominence as a potential problem ..."
However, here is a Warren fund-raising letter on behalf of Clinton.
I haven’t been in the Senate for long, but I’ve learned: If you don’t fight, you can’t win. And I’ll be honest, when things get tough, too often our side just folds and gives up.
But not Hillary Clinton. For 25 years, she’s been on the receiving end of attack after attack. She didn’t whimper. She didn’t whine. She’s always fought back with grace and determination – and no matter how many punches she took, each time she came out fighting stronger.
Hillary is a fighter. Throughout this campaign, she has said she’ll hold Wall Street accountable, raise the minimum wage, protect and expand Social Security, and help students graduate from college without being buried in debt. She’ll fight for women’s rights and LGBT rights and immigrant rights and civil rights. That’s Hillary’s agenda, and it is a progressive agenda.
We need a candidate who fights for the right values -- and who isn’t afraid to fight back against right-wing lunatics trying to undermine progress in our country. Because let’s be honest, the Republicans have nominated the looniest of the right-wing lunatics to become our country’s next Commander-in-Chief.
Donald Trump is a man who built his campaign on racism, sexism, and xenophobia. A man who got rich while declaring bankruptcy, skipping out on what he owed to others, and scamming people. A man who is a small, insecure, moneygrubbing bully who doesn’t care who gets hurt, so long as he makes a buck off it. A man who should never, ever be allowed to set foot in the White House.
So here’s the deal: Hillary is smart as a whip, and she’s a tough cookie. She can take Donald Trump’s attacks and nasty name-calling. ...
That's more than a "narrow case."
Hillary Clinton Can Pick Any Veep She Pleases
Brian Beutler (New Republic) argues that Clinton is in a position of strength due to her organization and finances, so: "... her decision will tell us more than usual about what kind of president she wants to be." Will she select someone friendly to Wall Street or will she select someone progressive that will help her lead the Democratic party more leftward.
Clinton will either select a Wall Street-friendly running mate or she won’t, but these donors are acting as if she’s running for her old Senate seat from New York rather than the presidency. If the fact that the Clinton campaign is coasting with about $40 million cash on hand—while her opponent, Donald Trump, struggles to stay afloat with less than $2 million—doesn’t take the teeth out of this threat, then the fact that the alternative to a Clinton-Warren ticket would be President Donald Trump certainly should.
Clinton wouldn’t be taking too much for granted by ignoring Wall Street’s panicky, thin-skinned, anti-Warren offensive. But the relative strength of her own campaign—her field operation, her lead in the polls, her fundraising apparatus—will put Clinton’s vice presidential choice in klieg lights for different reasons.
If Clinton does select Warren, or another progressive, like Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, political junkies will undoubtedly interpret it as a strategic decision to keep movement progressives in the Democratic fold—or, in Brown’s case, to tighten the Democratic Party’s hold on a crucial swing state. But it would actually be an indication that Clinton approves of the party’s ideological drift since the end of her husband’s presidency, and wants her presidency to boost its momentum in that direction.