Headline at WaPo.
I thought it couldn't be Warren because she's one of the Democratic Senators whose vacated seat would give a Republican governor the power to name the replacement. But I guess the need to win the presidency could supersede the desire to control the Senate.
I would guess that today's meeting is more about getting Warren lined up to lend her support to Hillary's campaign where it will be most helpful and to perform a little theater for us out here in the public. We can talk about the VP possibilities and what it would mean to have a ticket with 2 women.
Okay, let me do that for a second: Hillary just reveled in the history-makingness of her being the first woman to get a major-party nomination for the presidency. Why would she like that historical distinction to be immediately intruded upon by a second woman, sharing a second distinction, the first 2-woman major party ticket? I'll just gesture subtly at the "other woman" theme in Hillary's life and say that her preference is probably to stand alone as the woman, not to be there with another woman. I know some people are putting it in terms of whether America is ready for 2 women, as if it's America's fault for being so sexist, but I think Hillary herself doesn't and shouldn't want to share the stage with another woman.
Especially Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren is such a passionate speaker that it's actually pretty weird. If you align with her on the issues, you may think it's absolutely wonderful, but if you don't, you might feel very uneasy, as I did watching her on the Rachel Maddow show last night. Warren gets so excited, it's like she's in the middle of a heated argument. It's very theatrical. That alone could be off-putting to many people, if we were just deciding if we wanted to hand power to her. But think about the set of her and Hillary. Hillary's style is so emotionally flat, it's almost robotic. Why would you pair that with Warren? If it were a TV show, it might be great fun — a kind of Kirk and Spock effect, but with Spock in the captain's chair.
I don't care enough about "Star Trek" to know if there was ever an episode or movie plot where Spock got to be captain and Kirk was subordinated. If so, how'd that work out? Badly, right? The emotionless one in command would replicate traditional patriarchy, and the emotional, subordinated one would seem like a traditional wife. In traditional wife-and-husband stories where there is an emotionally vibrant wife and an stony, logical husband, the story would almost certainly have the wife ultimately undermining the husband's attempted domination.
How could Hillary set up a show like that?