hillary is always wrong about everything.
if you think you've got the best idea, and you're right, she'll probably do something else. and, if she picks x over y, it's probably the wrong choice.
what i'm getting at - and this is important - is that if you want to understand what she's going to do, you need to throw any kind of concept of optimization under the bus. she's never going to do the thing that makes the most sense or is most likely to succeed - we have decades of public records that indicates she never does, so why do you think she will now, all of a sudden? no. rather, you need to try and get into her head, which means making a number of substitutions. one example....
instead of thinking about what is best for the country, or the planet, or whatever other collective concept of things, you need to always analyze decisions in terms of what is best for hillary's career. the importance of self-interest is truly paramount. i think this is where she loses a lot of leftists in not understanding her. like, consider iraq, for example. it was obviously the wrong choice in just about every context - except the context of her own career advancement. which, it turns out, she was wrong about. but, to understand why she made the choice, you need to look at questions of self-promotion - and not at what the iaea said, or what the united nations voted for.
so, i mean, it's not like i'm denying some logic in picking warren. it could even be the right choice. but, if it is, you can be sure she won't make it.
rather, you should expect that the choice that she does make will backfire in some way.