Hick For Veep After All?

Gov. John Hickenlooper.

Gov. John Hickenlooper.

You’d better pay attention to what the AP is reporting via the Colorado Statesman this weekend:

Hillary Clinton summoned contenders to become her running mate to her Washington home on Friday as she closes in on a pick for vice president.

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren were seen in separate cars departing the former secretary of state’s home on Friday afternoon.

A person familiar with the process said Clinton also met with Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro at her home. The person would only speak on condition of anonymity to discuss the private meeting.

The meetings came a day after the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee campaigned alongside another contender, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, in northern Virginia.

ABC News reports Friday’s confab was no cursory matter:

According to sources, Hickenlooper met with Clinton for more than two hours. Hickenlooper arrived at approximately 4 p.m. and separated after 6:30 p.m.

Hickenlooper has been a close friend of the Clintons for many years and has held many fundraisers for Clinton during this election cycle. Just last week, Hickenlooper hosted a fundraiser for Clinton at his Denver residence. Clinton also met with the Colorado governor for coffee at that time for what the governor described at that time as “brief” social conversation.

It’s been long suspected that Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado would likely take a Cabinet post in Hillary Clinton’s administration, and his name has appeared on some–though not all–speculative lists of who she might select for vice president. As a popular Western governor with a generally progressive record (excepting his famous weak spot on energy issues), and also with a good reputation for engagement across the aisle, Hickenlooper has plenty to offer this ticket.

Which is certainly not to say that other candidates such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren HUD Secretary Julian Castro are in any way less qualified. Obviously, the Clinton campaign has many factors to weigh in this selection, and reader opinions are likely to be…diverse on where Colorado’s governor lands in that process. One other point for locals to keep in mind is that in the event of Hickenlooper ascending to the vice-presidency Colorado would swear in our first woman governor: Donna Lynne.

Needless to say, we’ll be watching this very, very closely over the next few days.

61 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Early Worm says:

    All hail Governor Lynn. Hick is going to get cabinet position at the least.

    • BlueCat says:

      I sincerely hope it's a cabinet position. I don't think they have any idea how unpopular Hick is with progressives. I hope they go after progressives with their VP pick.

      As far as working across the aisle, Rs hate HRC at least as much as they hate Obama and we all saw how well his first term reaching across the aisle charm offensive went.

      We need the biggest Dem majorities we can get which requires the biggest Dem turn out we can get. And we need a President who will focus first on rallying those majorities instead of labeling them as part of the problem of extremists on both sides, as Obama so falsely did during his first term, wasting a lot of energy failing to get any R support while pissing off his own Dems instead of pressuring and cajoling and carrot and sticking them into presenting a much stronger more united front when he had enough of them to pass more of his agenda. 

      This ain't the 90s. Any triangulation should be with Bernie's wing, with Latinos, with newly energized young voters, all or any of those overlapping demos.

      This is not an election that will be won by Dems going all pro-corporate DLC Republican Lite which is what Hick is and why he's been close for so long to the formerly similarly inclined Clintons when they were primarily the Bill, not revamped, more liberal Hillary Clintons. Something, incidentally, I think Bill is blind to, another reason to keep him on the fund raising, dyed in the wool Bill fans sidelines.

  2. JohnInDenver says:

    huh … I'm honestly curious what Hickenlooper initiatives you see as "progressive."

    I've seen him more as a pragmatist, limited by TABOR and a split legislature, one who takes incremental steps when he moves at all (e.g., capital punishment).

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      Hell, I'm more interested in just a little inkling, a hint even, into what "plenty" they think Gov. DoLittle has to "offer this ticket"?? . . . 

      . . . Fracktail recipes? Six years of no significant initiatives or legislative accomplishments at a time when our infrastructure is being ever more stressed?  the political fortitude of a leaf of wilted lettuce when it come to addressing the state's budgets and our environment? A last name funnier than "Drumpf"?  Yet another reason to take a second look at the Green Party?  Beverage tester?  What, what, what!?! . . . 

       

      • Voyageur says:

        Hell, I'm more interested in just a little inkling, a hint even, into what "plenty" they think Gov. DoLittle has to "offer this ticket"?? . . .  

        As Ike said about Nixon, Give me a week and I might think of one. 

    • JeffcoBlue says:

      Gun control? Death penalty? Loan sharks? I don't love his stand on energy but I'm not gonna sit here and watch Hick get shit on like this. He has in fact done plenty of progressive things in office. Cut him a break already.

  3. Gray in Mountains says:

    Hillary needs a VP who is aggressive. That is not Hick. What Hick does bring to the ticket is some Western regional appeal. I agree wholeheartedly with BC about his weaknesses however. 

    Caine brings a battleground state. Warren brings attack dog cred which I LOVE. But, I don't think a ticket seen as really liberal is a winning ticket. In fact that is likely the most beneficial to TP

    Caine or Perez. 

    Warren will still attack. Hick can still campaign in the West and get a cabinet position (please, not Interior)

    • BlueCat says:

      Too bad Kaine, who speaks fluent Spanish and has a lot of pluses, is so awful on choice. It's not just that he opposes abortion on religious grounds. He also says he isn't for overturning Roe V Wade. But he is for a lot of restrictions including "informed" consent which is code for subjecting women to unnecessary procedures, waiting periods, forcing doctors to give women negative misinformation and other onerous, intrusive and medically uncalled for hurdles. 

      Of course as a VP he'd be in no position to act on abortion issues, not being a legislator, apart from tie breaking status in the Senate, so his views on choice need not be seen as a deal breaker but are at odds with HRC's core supporters and the progressive wing. 

      I disagree that a liberal VP hurts the ticket. This election will be more about consolidating the Dem vote than attracting near mythical "moderates" in this era of polarization.  Republican and Republican leaning moderates who really can't stomach Trump or HRC may well vote for a third party candidate who appeals to the right and takes votes away from Trump which will counter votes HRC loses to Bernie or Busters and Greens.

      HRC needs the best turnout possible among minorities, youth and women first and foremost. To keep the HRC and Bernie/Warren wings together we don't necessarily need a VP as liberal as they are but we definitely need a VP that results in a ticket Bernie and Warren can continue to enthusiastically support. We need them. I have no idea how they feel about Kaine.  

      • Gray in Mountains says:

        An unmentioned name. Wes Clark. Friend long time. Might save SOS for him

      • Gray in Mountains says:

        K. Right, thanks. I hope and wish you right re viability of progressive/liberal ticket.

        • BlueCat says:

          Mind you there's  lot of room within that range. I agree with you in so far as that avoiding  extremes is a good thing.

          Since VPs  in our era don't play much of a geographic role or even a strong role in bringing in constituencies, they can do harm in turning constituencies off, creating PR problems, scandals etc.  

          I think the best bet is someone who helps unite the party, adds a little rather than subtracts while doing no particular harm. With the exception of the unique Cheney/Bush regime, it is still essentially the bucket of warm piss job where you  are required to submerge yourself in being supportive and available just in case. 

  4. mamajama55 says:

    Hick for Veep? Be still my beating heart. Still, we might have the same motive as Chris Christie's constituents; "TAKE HIM! For the love of God, TAKE HIM!"

    Warren, Castro, practically anyone else mentioned would be better. And their names fit better on bumper stickers. Clinton – Hickenlooper? Really? Clinton-Hick, maybe. Hillary – Hick at least has that alliterative kick. But “Hick” slides neatly into Easterner perceptions about us shitkickers here in ColoRAHdoe, who may or may not actually have roads. Now, Mark Udall, he would have made a great Veep. Sigh.

    If HRC makes the centrist error of picking Hick, then Donna Lynne as governor might not be too bad. V aside, I don't get too excited about the symbolic value of a female governor. But she knows health care administration, and would help make Coloradocare work if the voters put the plan through. For those of you who claim to be experts, but have never actually read the Coloradocare ballot initiative, the first couple of years are basically study, logistics, and planning. Donna Lynne would be an expert.

  5. BlueCat says:

    I felt the same about New Orleans changing their NBA team name to "Pelicans". Too many syllables. I thought they should have arranged some kind of trade including Utah, taking "Jazz" from them, which would make sense in New Orleans while Utah is arguably the least jazzy locale in entire nation.

  6. Diogenesdemar says:

    "Hick for Veep after all?"

    . . . by which you mean "after all" the rest of the other qualified, important, or sensible, likely-choice candidates have turned down the offer?

    Ok, then, sure — after all — why not?

  7. Blackie101 says:

    So-called "progressives" aren't going to be happy with anyone–so HRC should pick one with she can work with.

    • BlueCat says:

      Don't know what you mean by so called progressives but actual progressives have expressed preferences and would be much happier with some candidates than with others. 

    • mamajama55 says:

      "So-called progressives", Blackie?

      So in your expert opinion, who or what is a real progressive?

      And, BTW, we were pretty happy with Bernie.

    • TobiasFunke says:

      This is precisely correct.

      Liz Warren? She's a turncoat and a traitor to the Bernie revLOLution. Hell, even Bernie is a traitor to the revLOLution. 

      Berniecrats are going to find something to bitch about regardless. Trying to placate them isn't going to work, so let them have their moanfest and get someone who will do the job.

      • Voyageur says:

        You're gonna keep using that revLOLution thing until somebody finds it funny, obviousy.  Has anyone stepped up?  Anyone?  Buehler? Moddy? Anyone? 

      • mamajama55 says:

        90% of Bernie supporters would  be happy with Elizabeth Warren, I think. And those of us reluctantly voting for HRC will vote for her regardless of the VP pic, although we will certainly bitch and moan about a Blue Dog or obvious corporatist like Hick. The extreme purists are a small minority, (5-10% of Bernie voters and like dp, will probably vote Green.)

        Your arrogant contempt for [progressives, "Berniecrats", the "revlolution" ] anyone not sharing your precise political leanings will probably continue to fuel many happy cocktail hours….but it won't help you heal your party.

        To make your party stronger going forward, you will have to accept and welcome the Sanders "revolution", which is really just a return to the democratic "We're all in this together – equal rights – war on poverty" FDR /LBJ roots of the Democratic party.

         

         

        • TobiasFunke says:

          Eh, I actually don't have "contempt" for anyone but the "Bernie or Bust" folks who have pledged (lol) not to vote at all if Bernie isn't the nominee. They're loud, they're proud, they're… a very small minority of people. So I laugh at them.

          At some point, they're actually going to have to take control of their own emotions — and make no mistake, they're fueled by emotion and little else — and come to the realization that a Trump presidency will do more harm to the long-term goals of their revolution. 

          If they're so obsessed (like V above) with me and what I, an anonymous poster on the internet, have to say about them that they're willing to give up the valid ideas and good work they've fought so hard for to this point, I don't believe they can be reached with trivial things like logic.

  8. Gray in Mountains says:

    An unmentioned name. Wes Clark. Friend long time. Might save SOS for him

  9. davebarnes says:

    I liked Hick as my Mayor.
    I like Hick as my Governor.

    As Veep? No fucking way. Adds nothing to the ticket. Hurts Colorado.

  10. DaftPunk says:

    On the bottom line, Veep should help you carry their own state. Not sure Hick even  does that.  All the same problems with all the same people who need convincing. 

    • BlueCat says:

      Despite all the complaints here the guy has won every race he's run in Colorado so he's very good at the whole election thing, is progressive on social issues and is considerably more popular in general than on our left leaning blog. But who is he to rest of the country? According to numerous polls, HRC is doing a pretty good job of carrying Colorado on her own so it's hard to see what he brings and easy to see how such a staunch pro-fracker could seriously piss off that part of the progressive wing that is already only begrudgingly beginning to see her as acceptable. 

      Better for her to reward him with a cabinet post. 

  11. Mike W. says:

    Just keep an eye on the Wikipedia page edits for the next few days. The VP pick will spike about 24 hours before its announced. Happened with Ryan, happened with Pence. Hick's had a bit of activity last night, but not quite as strong as you'd expect. 

  12. notsure says:

    Love the governor, but not sure he excites the rest of the nation. 

  13. winstin says:

    I think Hick compliments hillary well.  As a never Trumper gop voter looking for a home I would be comfortable with Hick.  

  14. No2CCSS says:

    Establishment candidate Tim Kaine will be picked because Terry McAuliff wants him to be VP. 

    • Gray in Mountains says:

      If Kaine is picked it will have nothing to do with McAuliffe who may appoint himself to Senate. He can't run again for gov and hasn't been indicted. Yet

       

      • BlueCat says:

        But the fact that Kaine's state has a Dem Guv is a huge point in his favor. Even if said Guv is the guy who most reminds me of all the things I didn't like about the Clintons.

  15. No2CCSS says:

    Terry McAuliff Chairman of Clinton's 2008 Campaign is pushing for Kaine:

    http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/15/terry-mcauliffe-hillary-clinton-would-be-stronger-/

    McAuliff and Clinton are so intertwined financially, it's impossible to separate the two. See for example:

    http://time.com/4348675/terry-mcauliffe-hillary-clinton-china-investigation/

     

  16. flatiron says:

    If Udall had won re-election, he would have been an attractive Western veep. (((Sigh))))

    Hick is a thoughtful guy but definitely one who fits the definition of "leading from behind" most of the time.

  17. Craig says:

    He has lots to offer.  Like a spine that's no stiffer than a limp ……..  Well, you get the idea.

  18. How are all of you??? Just wanted to chime in, as this is large news – 

    What Hick brings to the ticket is BUSINESS experience. I fear that Trump has the edge with business voters, particularly independents who are worried about the economy.

    Hick is an awesome business story. Unlike Trump, he started his empire with NOTHING to his name, and built a multitude of businesses that employed 100's (actually, 1000's), with all of his businesses praised for their transparency and honesty. 

    While Trump is the guy that understands 'mega-corporate' structures, Hick truly understands how you can take someone who is penniless (but full of good ideas) and allow them to become a millionaire – something that Trump doesn't understand. 

    Right now, Trump has the 'independent-economy' vote, whether we like it or not. And the election could depend on that vote. 

    I don't know any other Democrat who has Hick's business credentials, other than a total outsider, like Howard Schultz, Bloomberg or Elon Musk. And I actually admire that Hilary's team has identified this as a weakness. The only other elected-official that has business cred is Gavin Newsom, who was a very successful entrepreneur much like Hick. Outside of that, I actually think Hick is a great choice, primarily for the business aspect. 

  19. Voyageur says:

    Great to hear from you, Ali.   But bankrupt-four-times Trump is a famous name in the business world like Typhoid Mary is in medical community.

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      And, lest we forget, our last "CEO President," the one who presided over what his most-recent biographer described as “easily the worst foreign policy decision ever made by an American president", Hurricane Katrina, and the Great Recession, to name but a few of those business-experience enhanced highlights. 

      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/books/review/george-w-bush-biography-by-jean-edward-smith.html

      And, prior to that, Saint Ronald of the Silver Screen, did demonstrate some practical business aptitude . . .

      . . . by selling arms to the Ayatollah.

      Maybe so-called business experience is more an asset if you're in business? — nobody I've known was ever that much concerned about choosing their physician for his or her MBA.

      But, agree that it's great to hear from Ali again!

      • Davie says:

        The question of would a successful businessman translate into a successful president has been looked at a few times, all with the same answer — NO

        So the number of highly successful businessmen who became highly successful presidents? None. Or conversely, the number of successful presidents who were successful businessmen? None. The number of successful businessmen who failed as president? Three. Truman, a very successful president, failed in business. The best model the Republicans can offer is Poppy Bush, successful businessman and a respectable president. But even he ranks below Carter, who the Republicans always disparage as a failed president, on the presidential success meter.
         
        The conclusion – Romney's business experience is largely irrelevant and may even be a liability. Historically, business success correlates more with presidential failure than success. So, there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that Romney's past business success means he will be a good president.

         

        http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/262749-history-shows-businessmen-make-bad-presidents

         

        • BlueCat says:

          Probably because a nation is not a business and being a CEO or a real estate con man is nothing like being President, Commander in Chief and Leader of the Free World.

          • All good replies here, but Trump and Romney aren't the same. Romney was a venture capitalist. Not to defend Trump, but he has built things that have value – it's a far greater resume than Romney.

            Both men were greatly aided by the fact that they came from money.

            I say this with affection for everyone above: I think you are all underestimating Trump's appeal to the indie-voters who are economics-centric and jobs-centric (as well as the Reagan Democrats). Hilary needs to show strength on the business front, because right now, there is not much evidence that she knows how to create jobs. 

            • BlueCat says:

              Trump is estimated by many to be worth less than what he inherited. He has lost enormous sums for investors.  He owns not much more than his name in gold letters on much of "his" real estate. His golf course in Scotland has been a huge money loser, not maker. His phony "university' was simply a rip off scam. There is little evidence the he has has "built' things of great enough value to offset the value that he has lost for anyone taken in by his flim flam. 

              Real multi-billionaires don't need income from reality TV shows  and countless business ventures that take people's money and then go bankrupt. He's scamming as fast as he can to keep all those plates spinning and he's very good at it but only for his own enrichment. Everyone else gets screwed and that's not just fine with him. It's his con artist "business" model. It's purposeful. He's a con man. That's how they make their money.

              Of course the bottom line is business isn't government. States and countries aren't businesses. The idea that states and countries should be run like businesses has always proved disastrous. 

              Governors who have  tried to run their states like businesses have run them into the ground, Kansas being a perfect textbook example. CEO model presidents and governors have not presided over robust economies that lift all boats so the fact that there is nothing legit about Trump is simply an additional reason for any sensible voter to reject his candidacy. It's not the only reason.

              Even if he really was a great business man instead of a great con man self promoter, it's the wrong model.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.