j reacts to the smoke and mirrors around warren as "anti-establishment" pick for vp

see, like it or not, this is what i would expect hillary's logic to be something like: she wants an insider to help her get an agenda through, and warren is consequently not just useless but a potential liability.

i think the article is playing up the liability aspect, but that's probably to send a message.

i've been pushing back against the idea that warren is in any way left-wing: i think she's a republican from a past era, and kind of a fish out of water. there's a pretty big swath of space to the left of ted cruz before you get to be called left wing. she's a good way to the right of center, still. rumour has it that she is even the author of clinton's bizarrely calvinist "debt-free tuition" plan that would convert students into slave labour for corporate interests - but would keep them out of debt. and, truthfully, probably out of graduation, too - it's hard to study when you're making shoes for nike. it's the next logical step of the school-to-prison pipeline system, really.

but, that's not why she won't get the pick; if anything, it's a reason she would. the reason she won't is that she just doesn't have those backroom channels.

i haven't seen bill's name thrown around. but, he might honestly be her ideal choice. that's what she really wants:

1) somebody who can make backroom deals of questionable legality.
2) somebody who is a foreign policy hawk.

i still think franken is the only pick i've seen that i'd actually support. but, i've been clear that i don't expect her to pick somebody i'd support.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/elizabeth-warren-wall-street-vice-president-224489