New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, not the staunchest friend of Hillary Clinton, is offering a plan to keep her “in check” if she becomes the Democratic nominee. Krugman would put Elizabeth Warren in the VP slot to keep an eye on Hillary so she doesn’t stray too far from the Democratic base.

Report from the Huffington Post:

Nobel Prize-winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has an interesting vision of the 2016 Democratic presidential ticket: Hillary Clinton for president and Sen. Elizabeth Warren “looking over her shoulder so she doesn’t stray too far.”

Speaking on HuffPost Live Wednesday about Clinton’s domestic policy, Krugman said, “When she talks now, she sounds substantially to the left of the old Hillary Clinton.”

“If she becomes president and then turns … [and] runs back to the right, that’s going to be a problem. … I guess part of one’s hope, if she becomes president, [is that] she will in fact feel some need to avoid alienating the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, which is for all practical purposes led by Elizabeth Warren right now,” Krugman said. [Emphasis added]

As for a presidential bid from the Democratic senator from Massachusetts, he said it “would be an interesting thing” but predicted it would be unsuccessful.

As Krugman notes, he’d prefer Warren at the top of the ticket since, as he puts it, she leads the base of the party right now. Would an all-female ticket be the next big thing in politics following Barack Obama? Doubtful as Hillary would never want to share the limelight with anyone else.

23 COMMENTS

  1. I don’t think this is a winning combo, even if the roles were reversed. I admire both ladies but their personalities simply do not mesh. At heart, Hilary is a hawk although she hides this admirably. The things that draws me to Elizabeth Warren is “what you see, is what you get”. She doesn’t indulge in the crazy-quilt hysterias that flows from Democratic camps, Republican camps, and Tea Party rituals. She has a “one for all and all for one” philosophy, as in ” If a war is unavoidable and in our national interest, then we should be willing to pay for it as we fight it. Either all of us go to war, or none of us go to war.”

  2. I agree. I don’t think Hillary would want a female on her ticket. But I still don’t think she’ll be the nominee. She is great one-on-one, or in the senate, but she’s a lousy campaigner. She can communicate to persons, but not to “people.” One on one, she seems knowledgeable and dedicated, but on the stump, that seems smug.

    Right, Tess?

    😉

    • I feel a tinge of guilt but the answer is “yes”. It is unbelievable that she did not study and capture the brilliant charms of her husband for her own political purposes. His taste in women was questionable, since he seemed to pick the vengeful ones. Out side of that, I believe Historians, twenty years from now, will prove Bill Clinton’s presidency produced one of the best economic periods the US has known..

      • Tess does it again — a laughable post:

        “brilliant charms of her husband” — Bill Clinton

        “His taste in women was questionable, since he seemed to pick the vengeful ones.” — are you talking about Billy’s wife, or mistresses?

        “Bill Clinton’s presidency produced one of the best economic periods the US has known” — utter nonsense!

        Tess, keep on posting — since your liberal leftist posts expose how sick-and-wrong the Dems dogma is!

        Can’t wait for your next post…. LOL!

        • Surf: You hate blindly.

          Bill Clinton hardly has time to sleep because he is wanted on the campaign trail everywhere. And that’s because of his personal magnetism (among those who are not haters). Bill’s real ability was to reassure.

          Obama doesn’t have it. Obama seems like a technocrat, and while he’s a little above average in giving speeches, and like Hillary, is amazing one-on-one, Obama can’t really speak to the nation.

          Some got it, some don’t.

          Obama doesn’t
          Bush didn’t
          • Clinton–DID
          GHW Bush didn’t
          • Reagan–DID
          Carter didn’t
          Ford didn’t
          Nixon didn’t
          LBJ didn’t
          • Kennedy–DID
          • IKE DID
          Truman didn’t
          • FDR–DID

          I don’t think it’s something that can be learned. If it were, they’d all have it, because their resources are unlimited.

          • Another GGG (Goofy Goethe Generalization) — LOL… I do not hate blindly as you sillily assume, I despise objectively.

            Slick Willy was, is, and will end as a sleaze-ball — only unthinking liberals find him otherwise….

            • You’re obviously wrong. The same Wall Street Journal poll–

              http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJNBCpoll03052014.pdf

              –Nate cited that said Obama was the least respected president since World War II ALSO says Bill Clinton is now as admired as Pope Francis–55%–and a point higher than last year.

              You always blather on about what you believe, but you never give us facts to back it up. You even ridiculed Tess for “Googling” to support her points–because you really don’t want to be bothered by the truth.

            • Goethe — “You even ridiculed Tess for “Googling” to support her points–because you really don’t want to be bothered by the truth.”

              So, according to you (and Tess) Google = truth.

              That is one of the silliest statements you made in your long, constant postings here.

              Google is owned by a Zionist Russian Jew (also a big time member of the anti-human Bilderberg Group).

              If you Google how much is 2+2, you’ll get the right answer: 4.

              However, if you Google anything on political or historical matter — you’ll find that Google gives slanted to the left info, and revisionist history!

              Only brainwashed, or brain-dead, liberals equate Google with truth on all subjects.

            • Goethe — who admires Bill Clinton…is the proper question?

              Answer: the easily manipulated by the media slobs.

              No real American can find merit in a President that was impeached, lied under oath, perjured himself and destroyed a generation’s moral fiber by said perjury (“I didn’t know getting a BJ was sex…)! If he was a boss in a private enterprise — what he did to Monica would have gotten him fired FOR SEXUAL ABUSE AT THE WORK PLACE!

              Had Slick Willie been a Republican — he would have been crucified for this transgression — but being a Democrook, he got way with it!

              And you, and Tess, dare point him as an example?!?!

    • Maybe the larger point is being missed. What gives either one them qualifications to hold the highest office in the land? Do we even set minimum qualifications anymore? (See B. Obama)

      One term in the Senate? A few years in the cabinet?

      • This is a very provacative post that lingered in my mind even though I allowed myself to get off topic. As far as I can tell, there is only three constitutional requirements to be met to become president of the United States. The person must be 35 years of age, a natural born citizen, and have lived in the
        United States for at least 14 years. Once in office, this person is faced with a multitude of responsibilities and some are unprepared. Maybe a consitutional amendment is needed to spell out qualifications but what would they be?

        • The debate over what constitutes a list of qualifications would become highly partisan. Probably the current list, which as you noted is already in the Constitution, are the most broad terms everyone could agree on.

          • It was previously the job of the party organizations to review all politicians in their party, and pick the best soldier-candidate to fight for their side. Most of the time, that provided two very qualified candidates.

            Hate to sound like a reactionary, but sometimes I long for the time when the parties picked. Too often, we see total CLOWNS running, since they can get the airtime as novelty acts. I get so sick of morons and maniacs.

            But that’s also why I think a long primary season is good–to shake out the clowns, and to give the nominee solid background n answering charges.

      • Nate:
        If we are going to set a minimum time in Congress in order to run for the Presidency then neither Senator Ted Cruz nor Senator Rand Paul qualify with their ONE CONGRESSIONAL TERM IN OFFICE either . The burden falls on the public to investigate his or her qualifications deeper than we have been and make an educated opinion. As I’ve stated before in my opinion none of the candidates considering running have the “gravitas” to lead our nation.

        As President Kennedy said during a White House interview on 16th December 1962 with William Lawrence of ABC and Sandor Vanocur of NBC. “There is no experience you can get that could possibly prepare you adequately for the Presidency.” (see the last paragraph in the link below)

        http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9060

  3. Silly stuff!

    Warren wants to take down Hitlery, so she can become Prez.

    Both of these Liberal anti-Americans will annihilate each other….

    Can’t wait for the fireworks when these two debate…will be quite a show, of bitches Gone Wild!

    • Can’t wait for the fireworks when these two debate…will be quite a show, of b* Gone Wild!

      Wow, that’s classy calling women that word.

      • Is the word “bitch” what you seemingly could not bring yourself to spell out…to be classy you have to be above vulgarities.

            • It was probably appropriate in Surfisher’s case, since it was really their their gender that made them hate-able. If that’s your mindset, no sense “putting lipstick on a pig” (so to speak).

            • Another GGG (Goofy Goethe Generalization) — my posts have nothing to do with their gender, but with the lack of merit of these candidates.

              If Sarah Palin is running for Prez — this patriotic lady will have my full support!

  4. Not a winning combo because there would be no balance to the ticket. Ignoring gender, they’re both far left. No political consultant, regardless of party, would advise such a move.

    • Oh, man, no. Hillary is a solid NeoCon who puts Israel above the US. And I don’t remember her ever talking about consumer issues. Oh, wait. She did vote to limit credit card interest to THIRTY PERCENT.

      It is the fact that she is NOT very liberal that scares the GOP so much. Bill took the GOP issues, so they had nothing left. Hillary would do likewise, only not as skillfully.

      Bill is like a cat, who, when he screwed up, would say, “I meant to do that,” and it seemed right. Hillary is too tough to move so sleekly. Intellectually, she moves more like a St. Bernard.

Comments are closed.