Who Will Hillary Pick for Veep?

And then there's Julia Louis Dreyfus.

She made it clear on SNL that she supported Clinton over all the other candidates.

Just realized a big problem with Franken. Our last swath of presidents have been pretty young at inauguration, but at 69 Hillary will tie Reagan as the oldest, if she wins. She seems pretty hale and hearty but any VP has to be credible enough as president to avoid opening up that flank for attack. I don't think Franken's there yet.

Good point, there's also not a need for him to be VP to go at Trump, though it would give him a bigger platform to do so.

I'm just looking at the Warren goes after Trump video. I like her, for sure, but I want her in the Senate. In a way, whatever their different takes on things, they are two somewhat rambunctious women, pretty east coast. You know, double Bossy broads. That might make a negative dent in male votes - but so what? Still, I like her in the Senate, and I still like Hickenlooper for what I understand of his views, his apparent likeability, and what area of the country he is Governor of -with high approval ratings.

Anybody have a list of who Maddow named? I don't do tv and the youtube seemed out of sync..

That criticism doesn't make any sense. There were plenty of VP's with less previous experience than Senator Franken: Truman for instance; Spiro Agnew (cough cough); Henry A. Wallace; etc....

Not all situations are created equal, the dynamics of races change and Hillary is older than most running mates have been.

That's why she needs a younger running mate. Not older.

Right, nobody said that she needs an older running mate.

I said "credible."

Biden's age and experience (and establishment white-guy-ness) balanced Obama's youth, inexperience, and outsider status.

While a trailblazer gender-wise, Hillary has more of a Biden role here in terms of age and experience, and needs someone younger to balance that; but then also people must believe that this person would be able to step into the presidency if anything happens to Hillary, and because of her age, that's more of an issue than it has been in the recent past. (Probably won't come up, but the wrong VP choice could open that up as a line of attack in the campaign.)

The sole concrete criticism in The New Republic's recent takedown was an allusion to Booker "hinting that he'd be open to raising the Social Security retirement age for young people -- before backtracking furiously when progressives called him on it." Booker had been paraphrased in the Bergen Record as saying that he "opposes raising the retirement age for most people in the country -- except, perhaps, for people in their 20s or younger." When the vagueness of that position prompted furious criticism, Booker tweeted that he opposes all cuts to Social Security and Medicare; would, if anything, expand the programs; and also opposes raising the retirement age and curbing benefits through the "chained CPI" inflation index.

What Booker's critics mainly take issue with are his associations, his persona, and unprovable allegations about his "worldview." Exhibit A is always Booker's notorious appearance on Meet the Press in May 2012, in which he called the Obama campaign's attacks on private equity "nauseating" and pleaded for more civility in the campaign. Booker subsequently attempted to clarify that he supported the specific critiques of Mitt Romney's record that had been leveled, but for some liberals, the betrayal was complete and irreversible.

Yeah, well some liberals are wanting to hang Elizabeth Warren for her "complete and irreversible" betrayal right about now, too. I think some liberals' sense of outrage might be just a tad superficial.

I don't know, I remember some New Yorker article re the folly by the combo of Booker and Zuckerberg. I don't now know the text.

My bet is a young Hispanic like Julian Castro.

I read an article from an interview with Hillary on the subject and she said the most important qualification for her in the choice of VP was the VP had to be able to hit the ground running in the event he or she would need to. I do not think Castro would exactly qualify for that qualification.

I agree. But, to be fair, the list of those that would really fit that bill has got to be exceedingly short. And deciding who qualifies to "hit the ground running" is a subjective exercise, at best.

my early preference for Hickenlooper seems to have some real-life legs

I just googled clinton hickenlooper and got over 250,000 hits

including http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/report-colorado-governor-john-hickenlooper-a-top-5-choice-for-vice-president

which linked back to

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279879-hillary-clintons-top-five-vice-presidential-picks

Actually that is what Clinton said, not me. I really wouldn't know who would fit that description. I suppose the five picks on the link ehbeth provided would be fine. Personally I like Warren the best.

Doing some reading about Hickenlooper. Might be a good fit for Hillary's VP. The only thing I see that may clash a little is that he has serious qualms about the death penalty.

when I first learned about him , he met the basic requirements I'd set in my search - male, not too old, west/centre-westish, reasonable position re gun control

then I read a bit and thought, not perfect but has potential to add useful things as a running mate

Oh, that's good news.. to me.

I think she should grab Putin before Trump does.