Democratic Convention Watch: Open Thread

Saturday, May 24, 2008

Open Thread - VP Edition

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

Who should get the Democratic VP Slot? Have at it.

And please be excellent to one another. We do not accept name calling or any attacks on our commenters. Any objectionable comments will be deleted. Try to be civil.

Thanks!

438 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 438 Newer› Newest»

jethrock said...: 13ben--

First you have to pick someone who would do a good job... Then you have to get elected in order to do the job.

So although your point is noble... it does not consider the real fight we will be in for November.

I agree that the "celebrity" factor should not matter... that is why I think there are very few names on this page who would actually be considered. Whoever it is will have to be introduced to the National Stage and not chosen simply in order to carry their own state.

With that said "electability" and proper vetting is crucial. As much as we know we need to take back this country. It's not gonna happen without a fight.; May 24, 2008 7:45 PM
smoothie said...: Obama/Sebelius 08; May 24, 2008 7:46 PM
Independent Voter said...: pissed ant: the wording was "I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the Whitehouse, John McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the Whitehouse, and Senator Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002".; May 24, 2008 7:49 PM
Independent Voter said...: James, the problem is that she USED John McCain in her reference. You do NOT criticize your opponent (on YOUR side) by comparing them to the opponent on the other side.

Had she said, I will bring a lifetime of experience to the Whitehouse and Senator Obama will bring a speech. There is NOTHING wrong with saying that.

Its the first rule of politics, you don't give the other side AMMUNITION. Plain and simple. That is how we, here in CA, got stuck with Arnie for a second term.; May 24, 2008 8:00 PM
jethrock said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 24, 2008 8:27 PM
Unknown said...: I've long been in "read only" mode here, but the itch is getting too much now :)

I've seen several people suggest John Edwards for VP, but I can't help thinking that Edwards would be a bad choice for VP, despite the obvious positives he brings in terms of being well known and in sync with Obama about bringing change.

The populist message Edwards conveyed during his own campaign won't bring many votes that Obama cannot reach without Edwards' help, and I think they both have already realized that, as witnessed by Edwards' firm denial when asked about VP prospects after his endorsement of Obama.

I don't see much good coming from a "dream ticket" with Clinton as the VP choice, and I'm sure Obama doesn't want her and her baggage. However, it is going to be hard for him to avoid if she's determined to get on the ticket.

If Richardson can get most of the hispanic vote on board he might be a good choice, but there are doubts about that. Of course, once HRC concedes defeat that aspect may change.

Tactically, given the (likely?) option for John McCain of picking Charlie Crist as his running mate, which would pretty much seal the Florida vote, carrying both Ohio and Pennsylvania will be almost a must for Obama. That may prompt Obama to pick a candidate for VP that he expects will help there most of all.; May 24, 2008 8:29 PM
apissedant said...: Pennsylvania is in the bag. We win Pennsylvania when we have bad candidates and we lose the election, we will totally cover it this year. I hate the silly idea that that is a toss up state. Florida and Ohio are annoying, and I've decided I hate them. Ohio is only 20 electoral votes. Obama won Minnesota and Wisconsin, Ohio is no longer matters. If he then picks up Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Virginia, well then this entire conversation is pointless. Ohio and Florida voters are no more important than those of any other toss up state, like Oregon and Washington. So let us stop spending so much money trying to convert a bunch of rednecks who are afraid of the other race. We only need 271, we can forfeit Ohio and Florida. I would almost prefer this, so we don't have another presidential election aimed directly at only 10% of the population.; May 24, 2008 8:50 PM
apissedant said...: independent voter,
Thanks for clearing that up. Disgusting. I cannot excuse this talk about a fellow primary candidate who has as much in common as HRC and Obama have. Especially when Obama's website gives more details on his ideas on the issues than HRC's website gives on her ideas. Look and compare on any issue. Her website provides less information than his does.; May 24, 2008 8:56 PM
jethrock said...: This is from "The Fix" awhile back but gives some good pros/cons:

________________

BARACK OBAMA

"Tim Kaine: Kaine has three major things going for him -- he'll be looking for a job in January 2009, he was the among the first major elected officials to endorse Obama and he is popular in a state expected to be a central battleground in November. The problem for Kaine is that he does little to strength Obama's biggest weakness: foreign policy bona fides.

"Bill Richardson: Richardson's decision to weigh in for Obama even as the controversy over Rev. Jeremiah Wright bubbled threw the Illinois Senator a lifeline when he badly needed one. The New Mexico governor has an extremely deep resume that would nicely complement Obama's strengths. A Richardson pick could also serve as a symbolic olive branch to the Hispanic community, which has gone heavily against Obama in the primaries, and add to the historic nature of the ticket.

"Tim Roemer: Roemer is a new member of the Fix's veepstakes Line. A former congressman from the South Bend-based District in Indiana, Roemer could up his chances if he can help deliver the Hoosier State to Obama on May 6. As importantly, Roemer was a member of the high-profile 9/11 Commission and is currently the president of the Center for National
Policy -- a think tank that looks closely at national security issues.

"Kathleen Sebelius: If Obama wants to make a truly historic ticket, picking Sebelius might be the best way to do it. Sebelius has won two terms as governor of Kansas -- not exactly a Democratic stronghold -- and did well in her stint on the national stage as chair of the Democratic Governors Association. Sebelius has the same problem as Kaine, however; it's hard to see how she helps Obama convince voters he has the experience to handle the complicated world situation he would inherit as president.

"Jim Webb: The Virginia Senator, a decorated former Marine, has the heft on national security and foreign policy that has to make some Obama strategists salivate. Webb's background as former Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan Administration could also make him an appealing pick for Obama -- a re-affirmation of the "post-partisan" messaging of his
campaign. (Make sure to read Anita Kumar's profile of Webb's early days in the Senate.) The downside of Webb? He is the least conventional of politicians -- often looking ncomfortable when speaking before crowds and prone to make the occasional impolitic remark.; May 24, 2008 9:08 PM
Thomas said...: Former Senator of NJ Bill Bradley. I also think maybe Bill Richardson or Joe Biden.; May 24, 2008 10:11 PM
Sasha said...: I hate to be a naysayer, but Hegel would cause me to have serious doubts about voting for the ticket. Just imagine for 3 seconds what a Supreme Court nominee would look like if Hegel had to take over the Presidency.; May 24, 2008 10:25 PM
Mike said...: How about

Obama/Gore ticket- Brings executive experience, complement CHANGE, Tennessee will this time vote for him. Arkansas may follow suit.

Obama/Pelosi- will erode clinton's constituency, brings legislative experience. However, this will rob women of the current #3 spot in government. Obama/Siebelius will be great. The chemistry is superb; May 24, 2008 10:27 PM
Annette M said...: A comment regarding the risk of losing a seat in the Senate by picking a Senator as VP.

I'm pretty sure that's going to be a moot point. I feel there's going to be a wipe-out of Republicans in the Senate.

And here's why I say that.

The Obama camp has already set the stage for organizing a massive voter registration campaign when the primary is over.

Using the gazillions of (mostly young people) who have been swarming around campaigning for him, and redirecting all that energy ... they're going to begin a drive to get people registered to vote all over the country.

I know it sounds dry, but there are a LOT of disenfranchised cynics out there who gave up on voting long ago.

But these kids are incredible. They have a well-deserved sense of power, and feel unstoppable. They have every reason to feel that they pushed this guy from the bottom right up to the top. And he'd be the first one to admit that.

If they can put that same energy and confidence and dedication into getting people registered in the Democratic Party? Well, hold onto your hat.

I've been voting for (...counting on fingers...) four decades now (Good Lord.)

And I've NEVER seen anyone activate so many people so well. Ever. If this guy uses the same tactics to run the country, we may actually end up okay. :)

I think the Democratic party could end up wiping the Republicans off the face of the Earth.

So I'm not so sure that losing "a seat" in the Senate is going to be an issue.

Sorry I got so long-winded. I'm old. I rant. :)

INCIDENTALLY, I think I came up with a perfect idea for making Hillary and her voters (and even her husband) happy. Obama should appoint her to the Supreme Court.

I have NO CLUE how disastrous she'd be in that role. For all I know, she'd be pretty good.

Bill would have nothing to complain about.

Her loyal supporters (and they ARE loyal!) would love the idea.

She'd never have to campaign again.

And (BEST OF ALL) I'd sell my soul just to see the looks on the faces of the neo-cons when they see that Hillary is on the Court.

Just THAT would sustain me for the rest of my life.

(See? I ranted again.)

Annette; May 24, 2008 10:42 PM
StevenT said...: Ok, I can't lie, did not read all 213 posts. If it were my choice:

Sen. Claire McCaskill(D-MO). I absolutely love her, and would love this ticket. It would stick to the theme of changing Washington. Obviously many downsides-No real executive experince on the ticket, 2 first term Senators, etc. But she would help with the Woman vote(unless Clinton people take any other Woman as a "slap in the face" to Hillary?) and the Catholic vote. And did I mention she was Awesome?

Seibilus or Naplitonio(I know I spelt both of those wrong, forgive me) are other options as females. Boxer would get it over Feinstein(someone mentioned the Senior Senator from California), but I don't see what a Senator from California adds.

I like the idea of Richardson. Strickland or Bayh could be a "compromise" with team Clinton.; May 24, 2008 10:52 PM
tmess2 said...: McCaskill does have some executive experience. Before becoming Senator she was the elected Prosecuting Attorney in Jackson County (the Kansas City area) and the Missouri State Auditor. While not the same thing as being a Governor (and she would have been if Kerry hadn't pulled out of Missouri in late September), it is something.

My hunch says that McCaskill will not get the VP slot (though she would make a great VP). If the Dems win in November, I could see her potentially getting a cabinet position and she would make a much better A.G. than one of the previous occupants of her Senate seat -- John Ashcroft.; May 24, 2008 11:08 PM
Boyd Reed said...: Hillary Clinton is, apparently, not an option at all for an Obama ticket.

According to Al Giordano's blog, Clinton has already asked to be the VP choice, and Obama has already declined that request.; May 24, 2008 11:12 PM
Anonymous said...: independent voter,

Teddy was 43, JFK was 42.. George W was 55.. i think young age has been good for the US.

Putting aside Stephanie specifically, I think Obama should re-enforce his message with the VP pick, not try to fill a void since that also is a double edge sword of crystalizing a perceived weakness.

If this is going to an election of Change and Renewal, than Stephanie being young and more importantly a democrat that focuses on doing the right thing is a fantastic way for Obama to support his overall message. She would be a good candidate in this fashion, and some others as well.

I'm sure whomever he picks will be ready to take on the office in any event.; May 24, 2008 11:23 PM
Boyd Reed said...: My (meaningless) VP short list.

And no, Hillary Clinton isn't on the list.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (KS) - will be one of the last ones out, if she doesn't get the nod.

Sen. Jim Webb (VA) - A bit of a loose cannon, but his resume is impeccable.

Sen. Mark Warner (VA) - Might be the front-runner right now, at least in part because he can likely deliver VA in the GE.

Sen. Evan Bayh (IN) - A Clinton supporter who would pack some oomph for his state. 2-term Gov, 2-term Senator - experience to burn.

Gov. Ted Strickland (OH) - Very popular gov whose ability to carry rural Ohio could help put OH in the Dem column in the fall - which would seriously hurt McCain. Potential problem: he has his own "Dukakis tank" moment (Clinton's "shame on you!" press conference; Strickland's in the background, doing VERY strange stuff).

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (AR) - Not many people know her, but she's got 14 years in Congress, is still under 50 (!), has never lost an election, and

Worth considering, but unlikely:

Joe Biden, Ed Rendell, Janet Napolitano, Claire McCaskill, Tim Kaine, Michael Bloomberg, Chuck Hagel.

(NOTE: Someone mentioned Dianne Feinstein earlier. She was going to be Mondale's VP in '84, but 11th-hour vetting revealed that her husband has some politically radioactive business dealings. She wouldn't be likely to even make a semi-final cut.); May 24, 2008 11:23 PM
JoshX said...: Apissedant is right. WHat she actually said was, "I bring experience, McCain brings experience, Obama brings a speech he gave in '03"

THe meaning is clear and quite frankly, impugns her loyalty to the party and instead demonstrates an all-consuming narcissism. It was at that moment that I turned on her and began backing Obama.

JMK; May 25, 2008 12:05 AM
JoshX said...: Others have mentioned it, but look, Webb's essay "Why women can't fight" will be anathema to HRC's supporters and excludes him from contention.

Democrats always have problems with white men and national defense, that is not unique to Obama. THe way a democrat wins and STAYS A DEMOCRAT (unlike Clinton and Welfare reform/DOMA) is a big turnout from minorities and women.

As such, I'm not comfortable with Obama telling older women "you've got to vote for me no matter what I do." Because they don't. Ask John Kerry, ask Al Gore.

That's why I am increasingly for Sebelius, though McCaskill would be a good choice too I think.

JMK; May 25, 2008 12:12 AM
Kimberly said...: Only half joking, I nominate Martin O'Malley, governor of MD. I lived in Baltimore (and was familiar with O'Malley as mayor and rock star) when I saw Obama's address at the 2004 convention. At the time, my partner and I joked about a "Big O" ticket: Obama/O'Malley.

It's unlikely. O'Malley has a few strikes against him. He's young and lacks foreign policy experience.

When I started seriously thinking about O'Malley as veep, though, I realized that he actually would be a pretty good choice.

1. He made a big difference in Baltimore as mayor, in part by changing the old-guard system of policy decided by patronage. He increased standardize test score and decreased the amount of violent crime.

2. Although he doesn't have foreign policy experience, he does have homeland security experience, making key decisions about how to protect the city. Baltimore's region includes a major industrial harbor, an international airport, and a significant bridge and tunnel system, through which I-95 passes. Even though the city was underfunded, his administration did an excellent job of protecting the region's assets and citizens.

3. Maryland has historically been a Democratic state, but Republican Bob Ehrlich won the governorship in 2002. (MD residents were fed up with old-guard Democratic back-door governing.) O'Malley won the office back by proving to voters that he represented a new way of governing the state. (I'd also like to point out that MD is directly south of the Mason-Dixon line, for those of you thinking about southernness.)

4. He's a Clinton supporter from a working-class city in a state bordering Virginia and Pennsylvania. May not necessarily help, but it doesn't hurt. And he's Catholic.

5. He's young and hot. Or post-partisan and politically attractive, if you prefer. He's not afraid of confrontation and he speaks firmly, but he's also diplomatic and earnest, a great combination.

I live in TN now, and Bredesen would make a fine VP choice. But.

O'Malley as the VP on the ticket reinforces Obama's major strengths. Check him out.; May 25, 2008 12:14 AM
ireneinmass said...: To apissedant

No offense, but just because I have a difference of opinion with you doesn't mean I haven't "done my homework." You may not realize this but you come across like one of those high school teachers who only calls on students to mock their 'wrong' answers.

You might consider that the names of possible veeps listed here are, with few exceptions, on most lists that are in circulation. I'm familiar with all of the names,but only Jim Webb has captured my attention enough to warrant my reading his books. I just read his latest--where he covers the controversies and attacks from his senate race in detail-- but I also had previously read his book on the Scotch Irish. (Half my family is MacMillan--they say it's the interesting half, the other side says its the troublesome wing of the family...)

I am very familiar with his statements from 20 and 30 years ago about women in combat that rightfully caused controversy and also familiar with his evolution in thinking and policy. I applaud him for honestly admitting that the parts that weren't just stuck in a time warp were inexcusably immature. He had a particularly nasty campaign for Senate, and it made news all the way up here in Massachusetts as it was happening.

This open thread struck me as a platform for people to toss ideas about and offer differing points of view. For many commenters that seems to be the spirit in which their ideas have been posted and commented on by others. It was certainly what lead me to post my idea, and, after reviewing the commenters that followed in the next few hours, posting my followup.

But in reviewing your responses to people who post their suggestions-- even after you have instructed us all not to even consider Webb since your insider experience has determined he's not up to par-- it seems a bit too intense, and, as I mentioned at the start, a bit strained for you to assume that I have not "done my homework" simply because I find your argument unpersuasive.

One thing we probably can agree on is that the Obama team is likely to handle vetting Veep candidates with the same level of skill, discretion and precision and that they've so far handled just about every other aspect of the campaign.

They'll contact all the key people, insiders like yourself no doubt will be among the sources for any and all relevant information about all these men and women. Since they will do their homework, I really don't have to complete the assignment you gave with such exasperation.
I will support the ticket whoever is on it. I'll continue to read and follow Webb because the more I learn about him, the more I think he can and will be a part of important changes in our government. His GI Bill is clearly a strong indicator that he is a person who can get things done. And, I judge all senators by my senator, Ted Kennedy.; May 25, 2008 2:19 AM
Independent Voter said...: hmmmmm not sure what happened to my other post, but here goes.

I'm curious as to what others would think about Lincoln Chafee; May 25, 2008 2:39 AM
loki50 said...: Jester, I would note that it is the Hippocratic Oath. We Hippocrits are very sensitive on this point!

That being said, I agree with you..and therefore believe it should be anybody but Clinton!!!; May 25, 2008 4:30 AM
Mike said...: Seems Obama/Siebelius ticket is the new dream team

http://empowertube.blogspot.com/2008/05/dreamier-democrat-dream-ticket-abc-news.html; May 25, 2008 6:26 AM
StrVer said...: Joe Biden, Delware democrat, collegial, determined and well-known. Chairman of Foreign Relation & former Presidential Candidate. His weakness may be women & working-class.

Otherwise, Biden, would compliment Obama as a strong & loyal VP.; May 25, 2008 8:45 AM
Peter said...: Warner or Edwards. I`m not sure if Edwards will accept, but they poll well together and I think Edwards-Obama could carry NC and have a chance in SC.

Warner-Obama could carry VA.

I think both Edwards and Warner could help with older voters and white voters in the south. If Obama gets enough white voters in the south he could have a chance in states like Georgia or North Carolina.

I`m sorry to say it, but I`m not sure if putting a woman on the ticket would be a smart move. Is americe ready for an african-american and a woman on the same ticket? I am for sure, but I`m not sure if the majority of the american people is.
I don`t see which states Sebelius would carru either. Obama has no chance in Kansas.; May 25, 2008 10:42 AM
skipper said...: Senator Obama should select former Joint Chief of Staff Chairman, Former National Security Advisor, Former Secretary of State Colin Powell as his Vice Presidential running mate.; May 25, 2008 1:06 PM
jethrock said...: Skipper--

Although Colin Powell has somewhat admitted to it being a mistake on his part... He played the key role in selling the idea of going to war to the American people and to the UN.

It goes against everything that is Obama's campaign is based on.

Could Obama work with him on some level in the future? Yes, but not as VP.; May 25, 2008 2:01 PM
commentator said...: Of the talent on offer, Sebelius looks the best, lots of positives and no negatives. Ok, she hasn't much foreign policy experience, but that can be fixed. How about a quick get-to-know-you tour of major allies, say Canada, Mexico, Brazil, London, Paris, Berlin, all places where she would be well liked and get a very friendly welcome with plenty of good photo ops ? Of course, Barrack should do that too, once he has the nomination in the bag. Each of them will be such a breath of fresh air after Bush, it couldn't go wrong. OK, I'm not a US voter so it's not really my business, but I can tell you we are already looking forward to President Obamas first state visit in 2009 !; May 25, 2008 2:02 PM
yellowdog53 said...: Obama is by far the best choice for VP. The experience will allow him to be ready for the next cycle.; May 25, 2008 2:15 PM
Unknown said...: Survey USA has been running polls of various Pres/VP combos for Obama vs. McCain in specific states. I understand that they can't poll all the plausible combinations and get statistically significant results, but I find their list strange:

Edwards, Hagel, Sebelius, Rendell.

Not polling the Clinton option seems bizarre--many people have strong opinions whether she would help or hurt; it would be nice to have some data. Polling Sebelius and Rendell, on the other hand, doesn't seem very meaningful, as they are not yet known well nationally.

Does anyone know if SurveyUSA has given a justification for leaving Clinton off the list? Something to do with her still being an active candidate, perhaps?

Incidentally, I'm an Obama supporter, and have the usual share of complaints about some of the things Clinton has said and done. But if there were polls showing that she would make a huge difference in swing states then I'd be happy to welcome here aboard if she wants it. If, on the other hand, she would hurt more than help, then it takes away, e.g., Dan Abrams' argument.

Incidentally, although I very much doubt it will happen, my "dream cabinet" would have Hillary Clinton as Secretary of Defense.; May 25, 2008 2:43 PM
st paul sage said...: every winning p/vp combo since 1976 (with the exception of Bush/Quayle) has featured a relatively charismatic outsider with little foreign policy experience at the top and a dull washington insider with foreign policy/military exp on the bottom.

carter/mondale
reagan/bush
bush/quayle*
clinton/gore
bush/cheney

this is the winning formula and webb, richardson, and clark all fit it perfectly.; May 25, 2008 3:23 PM
jethrock said...: I'm surprised that no one has mentioned George Clooney

Dude, it's like so obvious!!!; May 25, 2008 4:24 PM
republican for change said...: A women would be great as long as it is not Her Royal Clinton! She IS NOT owed a VP spot and the match would be the worst thing Barack Obama could do. I don't trust her, she has been caught in too many lies and will do anything (change rules, purposely miscount to her advantage, pander, play the race card, promise anything and yes--lie) to get what she wants. I wonder if this "staying in the race" is to try to create so much disunity that Obama can't win in November and then she will have another shot before she gets as old as McCain!!! I will support Obama, donate money, campaign for him and vote for him but if he chooses HRC, I WOULD NOT VOTE FOR Obama. Anyone for VP except HRC!!!!; May 25, 2008 6:03 PM
Naomi said...: Some might argue that Sebelius could do the same, but there is no precedent that I know of of a candidate retaining a powerful influence in a state they left many years before. I don’t think Ohioans would consider her one of their own.

Sorry, this was rather long. I be more brief next time.; May 25, 2008 6:13 PM
Naomi said...: My earlier post was truncated for some reason. Here is the full version:

Some of you folks are forgetting that the name of the game is amassing electoral votes. It has been proven time and again that the only electoral votes the VP nominee truly affects is the votes from his home state, and in that respect VP nominees have been hugely successful. Of the 15 postwar presidential elections, VP nominees who are at least a senator or governor are 24-3 in carrying their home state. The only nominees who failed were John Edwards in 2004, Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, and Henry Cabot Lodge in 1960, and of those, Bentsen and Lodge were up against presidential candidates from the same state (Bush for Bentsen, Kennedy for Lodge), so if you exclude them it really is 24 out of 25.

Given that, it behooves us to look at which VP candidates provide us the most electorally. The following states can be dismissed as not in play regardless of the VP nominee:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

That leaves 21 states in play. However, a lot of those are small states have few electoral votes. It doesn't really make sense to waste the VP slot on a state with only 7 or less EVs, when there are states in play with three times that amount. We thus leave out Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas (Even with more EVs I think it's doubtful that Sebelius could deliver this deep-red state), Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota and South Dakota.

So that leaves us with the following states (EVs in parentheses): 1) Florida (27); 2) Pennsylvania (21); 3) Ohio (20); 4) Michigan (17); 5) New Jersey (15); 6) North Carolina (15); 7) Virginia (13); 8. Indiana (11). 9. Colorado Missouri (11); 10. Wisconsin (10) and 11. Colorado (9.)

Now, subtract from that list the states with no significant Democratic VP candidate:

Florida; Michigan, and New Jersey.

That leaves us with 8 states and their potential candidates:

1) Pennsylvania(21)-Rendell; 2) Ohio(20)- Strickland; 3) North Carolina(15)_- Edwards; 4) Virginia(13)-Kaine or Webb; 5) Indiana(11)-Bayh; 6) Missouri(11)-McCaskill; 7) Wisconsin(10)-Feingold and 8) Colorado(9)-Salazar.

Starting with the bottom of the list--these states are relatively small in comparison to the larger states at the top, so the candidates form these states are going to have bring appreciably more to the ticket than their big-state counterparts. In that regard, Salazar is newly-elected and doesn't seem to offer much more than his ethnicity at this stage in his career; and McCaskill is also rather inexperienced. Scratch them. Feingold and Bayh are old hands, but Feingold and Obama are possibly the two most liberal senators and would be a hard sell to the voting center, while Bayh is deadly dull, and might not be able to carry Indiana in any case.

So we're down to the Virginians, Edwards, Strickland, and Rendell. I would actually include Warner in here if there was any chance he would accept the nomination, but he apparently is not interested. As for Kaine and Webb, Kaine seems okay but nothing special, and Webb seems like a gamble. Unlike the rest of the finalists, he could actually be a serious detriment if the public is turned off by his demeanor. Edwards already has the dubious distinction of being the only VP candidate in 25 contests who couldn't carry his home state.

So we're down to Rendell and Strickland, who also happen to be from the two biggest states left. I think the difference between the two is obvious. PA went for Kerry and Obama is consistently up about 6 to 8 points in the polls there against McCain. Meanwhile, Kerry lost Ohio, and Obama and McCain are neck and neck there, with McCain probably slightly ahead. Ohio is clearly a tougher state for a Democrat to win than PA. As for Strickland, one could argue that he is new to the Governor's chair (elected 2006), but he was also a six term U.S. Congressman. He has plenty of experience. Yes, he was for Clinton, but so what? As long as he said nothing derogatory about Obama, that shouldn't be a problem. After all, Bush Senior labeled Reagan's supply side stuff "voodoo economics", but that didn't prevent him from getting the VP nomination, and it had no effect on the election results.

So I say Strickland. He does the best thing a VP candidate can possibly do for us, which is to put probably the most competitive big state in the blue column. Some might argue that Sebelius could do the same, but there is no precedent that I know of of a candidate retaining a powerful influence in a state they left many years before.

Sorry, this was rather long. I be more brief next time.; May 25, 2008 6:19 PM
jethrock said...: OK,

I'm curious about a serious discussions about the VP, as opposed to cheerleading our faves here. Although I know we can only speculate.

I am guilty of getting emotional and posting my thoughts about Hillary's recent comments and lack of fessing up to it here... as well as making a joke about George Clooney for VP.

But what I really would be rather discussing is what I believe is going to be the most critical issue beside the economy is foreign policy and national security which quite frankly is tied to our economy and the weak dollar and our truly horrible standing in world at large.

McCain currently has a false sense of dominance in this area based on his talk and the fact he was a p.o.w. But his foreign policies have been worse than Bush before Bush. That is why I hate it when people say McSame... and Bush's Third Term. The fact is McCain was for the Bush policies before Bush was on the scene. He was more trigger happy than the Neocons in the 90's. He is famous for his early proposals of going after rogue states in a preemptive fashion way before 9/11.

China and Russia announced a joint nuclear agreement today in response to Bush's new missile defense strategy. And we all know that we are going to be lucky if Bush does not launch an offensive against Iran before November... at best he is going to continue to inflame the situation.

Obama thoughtfulness, knowledge, insight and judgement are all incredibly strong in this arena. And that is what the GOP is going to be attacking with full force.

So as much as we would like to think of Governors, and traditional electability factors for the VP, or appeasing angry Clinton supporters with either a woman or one of her surrogates. What is going to matter in the general is the world experience that the veep can bring to the table.

As much as I personally love McCaskill, Sebelius and think Warner, Kaine, and Strickland are great guys... that don't add any foreign policy cred regardless of their ideas.

Clark, Webb, and Richardson all have serious weakness such as they are all as unlikable by Dems (not even referring to the general election) as they are they are likable.

Hagel, Chafee, and Powell are such a stretch that I think it's highly unlikely or feasible.

Feinstien, Feingold, Brown, Boxer, and Kuchinich as much as any of us may love them (or hate them) I know the other side hates them with a passion and would love to shred them (they'll be better off staying in the senate).

Reed (not Reid)??? Better off as AG if any position.

Bayh, Dodd, Casey, Nelson all come off weak on a National stage even if great Senators in their own right.

Edwards has consistently said "Not interested" and I doubt he would bring a lot to the ticket. Huge endorsement. But would be more interested in "Poverty Czar" than VP if not the Big P.

Strickland... too tied to the Telecommunications Industry... doesn't add any foreign policy experience.

Sam Nunn - Better off as an advisor or cabinet member.

Tim Roemer - Great government, foreign policy, and national security credentials. Main drawback for dems is that he's pro-life.

What about Generals that spoke out against the war? Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, Maj. Gen. John Batiste, Gen. Eric Shinseki, Gen. Anthony Zinni, Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton or Even the more recent Admiral Fallon who bucked the administration and was recently ousted as head of CentCom?

I don't think having worn the uniform is going to be critical... but I do think foreign policy and national security credentials will be.

So other than Jane Harman, Clark, Richardson, or Webb... Who has some real foreign policy credentials that could be a contender?

best--j; May 25, 2008 9:44 PM
Kevin M said...: Sorry for the length of this...

There would be no worse ticket than Obama/Clinton.

This election is going to be about passion, both positive and negative.

The Republicans are not passionate about McCain. I believe that Republican turnout in November is likely to be light. GOP Kool-Aid drinkers will show up, of course, but moderates and independents who lean Red just aren't going to show up to vote for the GOP's cold fish candidate unless they start 'seeing red'. And there is such hatred for Clinton outside her dedicated Democratic party base that these voters will come out in droves to vote AGAINST her.

This is also good reason to put someone on the ticket without a great deal of name recognition, but who has symbolic meaning. I mean a candidate about whom the vast majority of the voting public NOT have an opinion. In the few short months of the campaign, this symbolic candidate should add passion to the already passion-filled Obama campaign.

This is why my first choice is Kathleen Sebelius. What will your average voter learn about her 4-5 months?

1. She's a she. The people who supported Clinton mostly because they're passionate about putting a woman into the White House will see their hopes revived. PASSION!

2. She's Catholic. Latino voters who might feel disenfranchised after HRC bows out will also be re-inspired. PASSION!

3. She's the Governor of a "Red State", who won re-election by a significant margin, earning the respect of moderates who like to see a candidate with bi-partisanship. Who better to be the next President of the Senate?

4. She's strong on education, and fiscally conservative. Fiscal conservatives who are disgusted by the Bush administration's 'drunken sailor' approach to spending might cross the aisle to vote Democrat.

An Obama/Sebelius ticket is one that crackles with the electric charge of passion, which is why it is a winning ticket.

The last thing we need is another white male candidate out of the party ranks. Talk about 'wet blanket'!

Yes, ignorant, uneducated white men will go and vote for McCain... but then again, they might just decide to stay home, drink a few beers, and watch COPS re-runs.; May 25, 2008 10:17 PM
Unknown said...: Here's my top 10 list (in no particular order):

Gen. Wesley Clark (D-AR)
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)
Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA)
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA)
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS)
Gov. Mark Warner (D-VA)
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM)
Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA)
Mayor Mike Bloomberg(I-NY)
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

I think having two Senators is probably a bad idea, but one with the right combination of experience and expertise could work. Obama definitely needs someone with either executive experience(i.e. a Governor or at least a CEO type) and/or someone with impeccable national security/military experience or background. Regardless of his choice for Veep, I think we are going to see an amazing cabinet with a tremendous amount of experience and expertise, made up of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. His administration will be groundbreaking. No matter what has been said recently about Obama having to chose HRC for a myriad of reasons, I think that could be a disastrous ticket. His entire campaign has been about turning the page on the Bush-Clinton dynasties and politics-as-usual. He has campaigned heavily on stopping the status quo and typical Washington-insider politics. If he were to chose Clinton, it would be the greatest flip-flop in Presidential politics.; May 25, 2008 10:25 PM
jethrock said...: Sebelius did give the most lackluster/driest Democratic Response to the George W. Bush's "State of the Nation" speech earlier this year.

I do like her... I don't feel the "Passion"; May 25, 2008 10:32 PM
jethrock said...: I meant "State of the Union"

I hate typos... but I always mess up.; May 25, 2008 10:34 PM
Kevin M said...: Jethrock,

I frankly haven't heard her speak before. I do know she looks better on camera than Janet Napolitano.

Obama was once a dry speaker. Perhaps some good coaching can help Kathleen on short notice.; May 25, 2008 10:40 PM
jethrock said...: Kevin M,

Sebelius... Great Governor of Kansas for the past five years, Former Insurance Commissioner in Kansas, and she holds a Masters Degree of Public Administration from the University of Kansas.

As cool as I think she is... and as much as I think it would look as ticket.

For the life of me I can't get my head around any foreign policy experience she has... or what she could bring to the table to help defeat the GOP in such a complicated general election.

We Dems love her. Is that enough???; May 25, 2008 10:57 PM
Unknown said...: Nobody picked up on my SurveyUSA question before, but at the risk of being repetitive I'll raise it again.

One thing this election process has been is hard to predict up front. Sure, we can all predict Obama vs. Clinton results pretty well now, but that's because we've seen them play out in 48 states. (I'm a little surprised, frankly, that people seem so confident about PR, since we don't have any demographic track record and barely any polls. But I digress.) How many of us could really have predicted how this would play out in, say, November of last year?

So I think it's really hard to say whether HRC would be an asset or a drag in the VP slot. Sure, there are good arguments for or against her not related to electability, but I think the question of whether she helps or hurts Obama win the election is very hard to judge.

SurveyUSA is already doing polling for four potential Obama VP's (Edwards, Hagel, Sebelius, and Rendell). The numbers for Sebelius and Rendell are pretty meaningless, in my opinion, because not enough people nationally know who they are--maybe even Hagel is in that category. So right now, not surprisingly, Edwards seems to help Obama a lot and the others to hurt him a little. But with months of getting to know them, it's quite possible that any of the other three might turn out to be an asset, or at least neutral.

But whether Hillary helps or hurts we could get a pretty good read on right now. It's not like she needs any "introducing"! Yes, there might be some Obama supporters right now who would threaten to vote against the ticket or stay home but would actually come around given time. There are also some Clinton supporters who might claim that they would only vote for Obama if she were on the ticket, but who would in reality vote for the Democratic ticket no matter what. But a poll would, in my opinion, give some insight into what Clinton on the ticket would do to independents and that slice of Republicans who have been saying they'll vote for Obama. If support among those groups drops when Clinton is added to the ticket now, I feel pretty confident she'll also be a drag among them in November. If that support stays level, then maybe there's something to be said for the party unity argument.

This is clearly a blog for people who like data. And polling that question would provide meaningful data that could really affect the argument!; May 25, 2008 11:18 PM
Ken Kellogg-Smith said...: re: Kathleen Sebelius -- Wikipedia article notes, and related articles and additional photos of her appearing in foreign Wikipedias.

As an aid in further evaluating Governor Sebelius as a potential VP candidate, in the English Wikipedia article you can click on the "Discussion" tab to read various comments by users about the article and Gov. Sebelius, and also reply comments by the article's author.

To see other photos of Gov. Sebelius, there's an oil portrait of her in the French Wikipedia, and in foreign language Wikipedias carrying a related article there's a nice photo of her in Pakistan with U.S. troops stationed there.

To access the foreign Wikipedias from the English Wikipedia article, scroll all the way down to the bottom of the left hand sidebar and select a language of interest.

For what it's worth, it seems to me that Governor Sebelius would complement Senator Obama's message of hope and change, and his vision of a new, better, and more just America.; May 25, 2008 11:31 PM
republican for change said...: I agree with Kevin M--Obama/Sebelius ticket would be a strong, winning ticket. It solves the "female" problem, it teams a Senator with the exprience of a Governor. She is strong on energy, health care and education. Yes, she is weak on foreign policy but I don't think that will be a neg that would overshadow all her pos. She is 2nd term Gov that is popular in Kansas and roots in Ohio. She would do no "harm" and seems to have a really clean record. She is Catholic. She has more "real" expierence than HRC's 8 years as First Lady. Boy, if KS got the VP spot--I would "love" to be the fly on the wall when Her Royal Clinton heard it. Yes, I am one of those Hillary "dislikers". KS may not be well known but what people will learn about her is alot better than what we already "know" about HRC!!! Obama/Sebelius is a ticket that would attract voters like me--white, female, 60, conservative-- looking for a real BIG change for this country. It will take that kind of ticket to repair the damage that has been done to this country in the last 8 years. I might even change my party!!!; May 26, 2008 12:03 AM
Kevin M said...: Republican for Change --

Wow! Thanks for your supporting message.

As for foreign policy experience, I'd like to quickly point out that the number one goal the Obama presidency will likely have in foreign relations is to repair our reputation and goodwill around the world. To me, choosing someone with current foreign policy experience is basically choosing someone who is with the "old guard". Fresh faces in our foreign embassies and envoys might be what we need more than anything else.

If we're trying to convince the world that we've changed, why send all the same people they've been seeing?

And don't talk to me about the "learning curve" in dealing with foreign governments. All the State Department bureaucracy will still be there to advise the political appointees and get them up to speed.; May 26, 2008 12:24 AM
Kevin M said...: I just watched the Sebelius response to the State of the Union.

Yes, I was yawning... she definitely needs some coaching in being a more dynamic speaker.

However, she speaks with a warm tone, not strident (like Clinton or Pelosi). There's a compassionate undertone in her voice. Also, her approach of addressing the listeners not as Democrats and Republicans, but rather as Americans is right off the Obama "One America" script.

I think she's nearly perfect as a running-mate.; May 26, 2008 12:32 AM
Suewill said...: Barack Obama/Jim Webb; May 26, 2008 12:51 AM
jethrock said...: republican for change, and Kevin M--

I truly agree with both of you... but none of us are going to make the decision for Obama.

But it's important for us not to get our hearts set on anyone... There will not be a perfect pick to satisfy everyone's opinion.

All of them will have weaknesses. I have a good feeling that Obama will pick someone that can help him get the job done, that he can work well with before and after November.

But it's fun to guess

best--j; May 26, 2008 12:56 AM
suzihussein22 said...: coydecoy-I haven't read all the posts on this thread yet. I am very impressed with your logic. I've been thinking Obama needs someone older to balance out the ticket along with many other factors. I'm from TN. Right now, we're going through a bad budget year. Layoffs are being talked about. Also, Bredeson and his wife are wanting tax money to expand the Gov.'s mansion. I'm not sure how strong those negatives are in the big picture, but they're out there. So that's my 3 cents' worth.; May 26, 2008 1:07 AM
Cabinguy said...: I know that the common thought is that he would not take the job. But if he thought that working with Obama would be different than his experience with Clinton than wouldn't Al Gore be the perfect choice.
Vetted
Experienced
Southern
Might not be able to deliver Tenn. but it seems like more of a dream ticket than any other I can think of.; May 26, 2008 4:23 AM
Jester said...: Sebelius could be better. I mean, if she could go back in time and volunteer as a nurse in 'Nam or something.

Dry speaking style is exactly why she will appeal to those who think Obama is "All Flash" and "Just Speeches".

I hate to be overly crass, but between all the rock stars, a dying lion of a Kennedy, and Obama himself, this ticket has a surplus of charisma to go around.

This is THE post-Bush election. After eight years of Cheney, I don't think voters are looking for the Vice President to advise the POTUS on foreign policy.

I don't think Sebelius will help carry Ohio because her Dad was governor umptee-ump years ago, I think she'll help to carry it because she provides a "dry" but pragmatic and reasonable feet-on-the-ground flavor to Obamas head in the clouds style.

Think about that dry response to the SOTU....and ask yourself...could ANY American believe this woman would serve on a ticket with a secret Muslim bent on overthrowing the Country?; May 26, 2008 4:52 AM
apissedant said...: ireneinmass,
I respect your opinion, and I'm glad you have in fact read up on the candidates. I do not mean to belittle you, or your opinion. You had no previously given reasoning for your suggestion, and those that had gave very little. They had all said because he' a vet, because he used to work for Reagan as SECNAV, and because he has a nationally recognized name.
I don't see either of these as large positives, and I have made clear my belief that a VP has much more negative potential for a candidate than he/she has negative potential. No one has really argued with this point, nor mentioned a single time throughout history where a VP arguably "won" the the election for the ticket. For this reason, I think the long list of possible negatives with Jim Webb should be taken very seriously.
We have historically done terribly with military candidates on the presidential ticket. Being well known is pointless, no one knew Clinton and he did just fine. The media for the most part agrees he cannot deliver Virginia. I just cannot see the positives here.
I will support the ticket regardless, but I'm afraid naming Webb as his VP would be his first major mistake.
P.S. I don't teach history or P.S. because I realize my own bias and the strength with which I defend my convictions. I teach a less debatable and more firm subject.; May 26, 2008 7:28 AM
apissedant said...: indepedent,
I would go for Chafee, I also saw someone mentioned Bill Bradley, who I also like. Both of them are north-eastern men though. It would be nice to get some variation on the ticket. Chafee would be another candidate like Hagel, who would symbolize change and truly put action behind Obama's words. It would be pretty hard to say he's just pretty words if he put some serious action behind them, like nominating one of those two men for VP.; May 26, 2008 7:46 AM
Guelph said...: I think ted strickland of ohio would be a good choice. I am from ohio so I know him. I know he backed hillary but if some people are suggesting her as the perfect ticket, which I disagree with but for other reasons then she ran against him, why not a hillary supporter as vp. He would help heal the rift, is from a swing state, would also help with michigan and pennsylvania, he is a good campaigner, middle of road and has great appeal for working class white voters.; May 26, 2008 8:06 AM
Chin Shih Tang said...: Enjoyed the posts--I agree with tmess2's scenario, and I believe Obama likes the Team of Rivals approach and will look for jobs for many of his Dem nomination rivals.

I like Edwards or Dodd for Supreme Court (or Edwards for Atty. General); Richardson for EPA; Kucinich for Labor. Biden is probably too frank for State but would also be a good AG nominee. I like Hagel for something like Trade or Energy; basically, he's a businessman. Biden and Dodd are bored with the Senate, and Bloomberg should also be interested in a major Cabinet role.

In terms of the VP, I like Sebelius, Wes Clark, and Richardson of those named. Hagel is a creative thought, but I doubt he could get behind the domestic program. Hillary should be offered a job once Obama is sure she would decline (she's going for Gov. of NY, I think.)

Generally speaking, the VP nominee should have executive experience and/or foreign policy/military experience.

Here's a new name: Lee Hamilton, former Congressman from Indiana and longtime head of the House Foreign Relations Committee. He's already an Obama adviser on FP. Yes, he would be somewhat Cheney-like in some ways (no ambition to run for President), but he has enormous respect and would help in Indiana--which by current polls is not an impossible state for Obama to win.; May 26, 2008 9:58 AM
apissedant said...: Democrats are not winning Indiana. There is no city large enough to make this a viable Dem state. Bill Clinton won by 220 electoral votes in 1996, and still lost Indiana by 5.5 points. They have voted Republican at least back to 1968. If we win Indiana, we'll break 400 electoral votes, and this entire debate is pointless.; May 26, 2008 10:25 AM
Unknown said...: chin shih tang--your list of cabinet posts is fun, but I don't think most of them are going to happen. Moderates would feel betrayed if Obama picked Kucinich for Labor, I'm not sure Edwards would want the Supreme Court, and Richardson for the EPA seems almost like a demotion considering the positions he's held before.

Most of those, along with Gore, are more likely in my opinion to end up with advisory roles--things where it's not a full-time position, but they'd still have Obama's ear.

As for Hillary, just about anything could happen, because so much depends on how she handles her exit. If she really burns a lot of bridges, I could just barely see my favorite scenario coming about: Hillary as Secretary of Defense. It's a position that's visible, but without that much public politics--and public politics, not policy or administration, is where her loose cannon characteristics are most alarming (State seems like a terrible idea). She's very knowledgeable about the military, and the top brass has a lot of respect for her, from what I hear. It would be shattering another stereotype (admittedly not the one she wanted to go after!). It doesn't even seem as much like a subservient or second place position as the VP. And if things go well it would be a great position from which to run for President in 2016, if that's what she wanted.

But she'd really have to be chastened to end up accepting it--right now it might seem like too small a consolation prize.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, military service is not considered a prerequisite for the job--William Cohen, for example, was not a veteran.; May 26, 2008 10:57 AM
apissedant said...: Military service may not be a prereq for SECDEF, but I know I would personally rather have someone with more experience and knowledge than what is necessarily required. Why not Wes Clark, Jim Webb, or someone else that arguably speaks for the military? Since so little of her talks have had anything to do with the military, it seems like a silly place to put her.
Same with Edwards on the supreme court. I like Edwards, and he was an excellent attorney, but he isn't a Constitutional lawyer. AG would be fine, VP would be fine, but not SC. SC nominees should be promotions for other benches, or at least people that have argued or clerked for the SC. That is the typical process, and it works well. There are plenty of people to choose from in that pool, though I don't know any of their names. That is historically typical too. We'll know their names and we'll research their pasts after they have been nominated. The people that are truly inside the political scene know them, those of us looking in from outside don't typically know the ins and outs of that.; May 26, 2008 11:19 AM
Unknown said...: I doubt Edwards would even want the SC. But it's only in recent years that we've had the notion that SC justices should come up from the lower courts, or should have had some close connection to the SC. Earl Warren was a Governor and then a VP candidate--and then straight to Chief Justice.; May 26, 2008 11:43 AM
jethrock said...: The VP attacks begin... Not that anyone should listen to "The Prince of Darkness"

Here is the first attack on Kathleen Sebelius form the right today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/25/AR2008052502275.html; May 26, 2008 11:55 AM
Dink Singer said...: Tim Roemer is not just anti-abortion. The other major problem with his record is he was one of the minority of Democrats in the House who voted to authorize the Iraq war. The idea that National Security experience is important ignores the fact that since 1980 the only President with any National Security experience was George H. W. Bush. The American electorate wants people from outside Washington. This year will mark only the fourth time in our entire history that a member of Congress is elected President. (The other three were Garfield, Harding and Kennedy.)

One factual correction to a comment about Sebelius. It is her husband who is a Federal Magistrate Judge.; May 26, 2008 12:13 PM
apissedant said...: sarah,
I realize in the past that we have nominated and confirmed many without much experience, but isn't it better to have that experience? Also, Warren clerked, worked as an AG, and a DA. He had plenty of experience, Edwards has none.; May 26, 2008 12:19 PM
jethrock said...: Dink,

Regarding the House vote "To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq"

DEMOCRATIC VOTES:

The YEAS were 81 - The NAYS were 126

So it was not a small minority there... It would be hard to throw a rock in the House or Senate without hitting someone who voted YEA.

But you make a good point.; May 26, 2008 12:34 PM
suzihussein22 said...: apissedant-Lincoln Chafee-Positives-

former Rep., former Senator, voted against drilling in the Artic-is involved in pro-Israel peace policy

These are some points I got from Wiki searching "the Google":)

Of course Al Gore has come up in posting. I see him being in the EPA. I can already see some shallow attacks coming from the Rep. because a couple of images from his movie has been shown to be CGI/"fake". I'm surprised Bill Clinton hasn't come up more.

p.s.-apissedant-this picture is for you-

http://tinyurl.com/4t2q7k; May 26, 2008 12:36 PM
Kevin M said...: I just found this article:
http://tinyurl.com/4ozllx

Of course, I think that "what if" polling is mostly reflective of current name-recognition more than anything else. Same with how Clinton fared in early "what if" polling against Obama. Clinton simply had far more name recognition.; May 26, 2008 1:23 PM
Unknown said...: kevin m--yes, there's been a bunch of state-by-state polls like that by SurveyUSA (careful, by the way--that's a Pennsylvania poll, but the article you linked to doesn't make that at all clear). You can find them on RealClearPolitics or the SurveyUSA sites if you want.

I agree with you entirely about the name recognition thing. But it is interesting that Rendell doesn't seem to help above the generic poll in Pennsylvania! Edwards actually helps a little more. I'd totally discount the numbers for Sebelius though, because of low name recognition.

I do continue to wonder why SurveyUSA doesn't include Clinton in the VP-polling combos though. There's one case where name recognition isn't a problem!; May 26, 2008 2:01 PM
Kevin M said...: Just some comments as I catch up on this thread:

Feinstein and/or Pelosi = bad choices. California doesn't need any help voting Democrat in the General Election, and both of those women have some bad press/reputations amongst moderates.

If she weren't Canadian by birth, I'd say Jennifer Granholm would be a great VP choice, but alas...

We absolutely can not include anyone perceived as being a part of the "old-boy network" on the ticket. Americans are sick of the image of whiskey drinking, cigar smoking rich white men making the back room deals to make oil companies and Arabic royalty richer than they already are while calling it "good public policy".

The old guard must fall, and this election is the best chance we'll have to accomplish that for quite some time!; May 26, 2008 2:03 PM
Kevin M said...: This may seem a bit snarky, but I'd like to add to the resume of Kathleen Sebelius:

1970-1974, served as the "first daughter" of the state of Ohio.

(If Hillary can count being First Lady of the U.S. as experience, why not?)

Also, her father was the director of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) for two years. So... that means she has foreign policy experience, too!

This was meant to be somewhat humorous, by the way.

One note about Janet Napolitano... I like her a lot! But, to bring up something extremely shallow... and presidential campaigns often are... she's not very attractive. At least Kathleen Sebelius is moderately attractive.; May 26, 2008 2:56 PM
apissedant said...: softspoken- cute picture, I like it. Also, Chafee has even more positives than that. He was a true moderate Republican, with a firm history of voting for what he believed correct, not what the party or the lobbyists told him to vote for. I was actually sad when democrats won the senate majority, because it was his seat that gave us that majority.
His negatives are really just experience, and a lack of ambition. From coming from such a successful family, blacksmithing, horseshoeing, and studying the classics seems odd.
It says on wikipedia he wrote in George H. W. Bush in the 2004 election, which I just think is outstanding.

Kevin and Sarah,
I agree completely, except for Granholm. Granholm, in addition to being Canadian, has fierce negatives in Michigan. She is blamed, I believe unfairly, for much of Michigan's current problems. They expected her to fix 30 year old major problems, that were made worse by federal policies like NAFTA and CAFTA. How was she supposed to bring back GM and Ford jobs that had moved up to Canada due to lower costs and no import taxes? How was she supposed to bring those same jobs back that moved down south because of the same reasons? How was she supposed to stop GM, Ford, and Chrysler from continually hemorrhaging money and being forced to lay off more and more people? She couldn't off. The state is the main victim of poor national policies, and she is being blamed. That blame would go over quite poorly on the national stage. Not that this matters, since she is not eligible anyways.; May 26, 2008 3:08 PM
Kevin M said...: Chafee seems more like a liberal Republican than moderate. I like what I read in his Wikipedia article.

1. Pro-Choice
2. Pro Gay Rights
3. Pro Environment
4. Anti- Death Penalty
5. Pro- Tax reform (elimination of the federal estate tax and raising the rate on the highest tax bracket).
6. Pro- Israeli Peace
7. Anti- Iraq War
8. Pro- Minimum Wage increase
9. Pro- Federal Health Care funding
10. Anti- gun

I'm surprised the GOP didn't kick him out.; May 26, 2008 3:18 PM
jethrock said...: Regarding Lincoln Chafee

He is extremely weak on a ton of issues... very wishy washy? Better than a lot of Republicans... but not good enough in my opinion.

Rated 90% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.

Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record.

Rated 57% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record

Rated 63% by CURE, indicating mixed votes on rehabilitation

Rated 55% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education

Rated 79% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes

Rated 50% by the Christian Coalition: mixed voting record on families

Rated 92% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record

Rated 75% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record

Rated 40% by SANE, indicating a mixed record on military issues

Rated 31% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record

Rated 30% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record

Rated 46% by NTU, indicating "Satisfactory" on tax votes

Only Republican to vote against Iraq war, but keep Rumsfeld; May 26, 2008 3:54 PM
jethrock said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 26, 2008 3:54 PM
Muscle Car Society said...: check out this net roots Obama site.; May 26, 2008 4:09 PM
Amot said...: Well, I don't think AA/woman is a good idea, but I must say some nice words about Gov. Sebelius. In her response of 'State of The Union' speech I think she didn't show her best. She definetely sounds better if you watch her endorsement of Barack Obama. Yes, she needs some more passion. But if a woman is considered for the VP slot, she is the woman. One more skill she has - she knows how to campaign and win; she is a former chair of Democratic Governors Association and during her term Dems won several new seats. Not to mention her own campaigns. Maybe she does not add many positives to the ticket, but she definetely does not add negatives and that is a big bonus!; May 26, 2008 4:17 PM
apissedant said...: I don't shy away from potential bigots, so an AA/woman ticket does not scare me in the least. Most racists and sexists vote Republican, so the net loss is minimal. The lack of negatives and a person that fits in with the Obama message is most important. Sebelius has this, and she's got a number of positives too.; May 26, 2008 5:09 PM
jethrock said...: apissedant,

Then I suppose that you won't be upset if the VP pick is a man. I like Sebilius but her biggest weakness happens to be a lack of foreign policy experience. A lot of people are saying that does not matter historically speaking.

The fact is we will be having a truly historic already assuming Obama is the nominee, and (or) if Hillary manages to muscle her way to the top spot.

There are very major complicated issues that we face across the world that humanity has never faced before.

Although most people consider the economy the most critical issue McCain speaking today said that the war is the most important issue.

It will be a major issue in this election in order to beat McCain. McCain needs to be perceived as worse than Bush (he is), rather than us saying same as Bush. People have the misconception that he is a Maverick and bucked the administration regarding the war... but the fact is he was for taking out Iraq well before the year 2000.

I'm sure you know all of this and I'm preaching to the choir...

My point is that a whole heckuva lot of people to pay as much attention to the facts as we do. Unfortunately racism and sexism do exist in this Country... And I hope this country will make serious progress this year (we already have).

But the Democrats have a serious challenge in November. We know that the GOP will play into people's fears or generate false ones. We know the are going to be dirty regardless of how honorable McCain claims to be.

You and I will be able to see through all of this. But having lived in New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and New York and having traveled in virtually every state in the Union... and knowing a lot of plain conservative folks... as well as some crazy ones.

I guarantee you this is going to be a really tough election regardless of how much we have going for us this year.

We are so close and I don't want to lose it.

And I know foreign policy is going to be a major issue regardless if the VP pick is a Woman or a Man.

Best --j; May 26, 2008 5:46 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Anyone BUT a Clinton!

Rendell is NOT a good pick because of Rendell's ties to Farrahkan. Hagel is NOT a good pick because he is a Republican and he would be a heartbeat away from being President and then the Republicans would regain control of the White House.

Obama/Kathleen Sebelius
Obama/Blanche Lincoln
Obama/Lincoln Chafee
Obama/Bob Casey :)

OBAMA '08; May 26, 2008 5:51 PM
jethrock said...: apissedant,

Sorry I directed my above message to you... that was a mistake on my part.

best --j; May 26, 2008 6:12 PM
apissedant said...: jethrock,
no problem. It was a well constructed message anyways, so I wouldn't mind if it was directed towards me. I know there is plenty of bigotry left in this country, and odds are it will be there forever. However, almost every single one I've met has been a Republican. I have not yet heard a democrat say that they would not vote for a man, or that they would not vote for a woman. They have all said that they are wary of nominating one because they're afraid other people won't vote for them. I am sure we would lose SOME votes, but I think it would be minimal.
I would personally not mind a man, a hispanic, a woman, or anything else. My main criteria is that they are intelligent, honest, fit in with Obama's message, and don't carry excessive baggage. Everything beyond that is a bonus. Sebelius has the bonus of being a woman, which 6 months ago I wouldn't have cared about, but Hillary has changed the equation. She has convinced too many people that this is a sexism thing, and Obama could mute this effectively and quickly with her as his VP nominee.; May 26, 2008 6:30 PM
Mike said...: Lincoln Chafee brings nothing to the table. RI is too small a state to matter. And Chafee is not a heavy weight. Just picking a ny rebublican just because we ant to cross party line, at the expense of quality democrats has its problem.

A BIG NO to Chafee; May 26, 2008 6:31 PM
apissedant said...: Why isn't Chafee quality? His votes are better than many Democrats in Senate. Like I said, my only problem is his lackluster ascent to the top. More ambition would have been nice.; May 26, 2008 6:38 PM
Mike said...: To my surprise, most of the VP suggestions have been Obama's prospective VPs.

Questions:

(1) If she really believes that it is not over and she has a shot, why is she not spending money and preparing for campaign against McCain?

(2) Why is Bill looking for her to be Obama's VP and instead of her searching for her potential VP?

(3) Why are Hillary's supporters so vocal in threatening to vote for McCain, if Obama does not make her the VP when they should be screening their own VP?

4) A measure of electability is the success in the primary. If you can no win primary within your own party, how can you claim to be more electable?

June 3rd may be the decision day!

The Democrat will soon have a nominee and deal with the fallout from HRC supporters before the GE. The party needs to take a stand and affirm its authority. No party member is greater than the party, not even the Clintons.; May 26, 2008 6:49 PM
apissedant said...: I think Clinton does have an extensive GE war fund. If I recall correctly, you can donate for the primary fund or the GE fund, and she had a large GE fund a very long time ago.; May 26, 2008 6:55 PM
Unknown said...: It doesn't make sense for Hillary and her supporters to even think yet about who they'd pick as VP if she won the nomination. To get the nomination, seriously strange things would have to happen, and it probably wouldn't be settled until August. So much dust would be kicked up in the process that any political calculations now would end up being completely different...who would need appeasing? Who would get thrown under the bus? Who would need rewarding? We have no idea.

For Obama, on the other hand, the next few weeks are very critical. He's extremely likely to secure enough delegates to get the nomination during that time frame, so he and his supporters have to be thinking right away about what they've got to do for November (and even beyond). By June 4, there may be millions of people demanding Hillary be put on the ticket. He'd better have a plan for how to respond!

--Scott

(P.S. I figured I'd sign this one--my screen name understandably makes it look like my name's Sarah, but it's actually because Sarah Lawrence is my college...); May 26, 2008 7:36 PM
Mike said...: I dont think that Obama will make the mistake of offering her the VP.

As a courtesy, he'll offer her a cabinet post- Health Secretary, Education Secretary, etc., with the view of making her the Secretary of State, if it works. HRC will turn it down, since that will checkmate her desire to be president, through impeachment or other unfortunate circumstances.

I see Obama/Siebelus ticket as the most likely ticket.; May 26, 2008 8:04 PM
jethrock said...: OK ALL,

I know this is the VP thread, but this is too funny:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/26/18045/2089/549/523208; May 26, 2008 8:55 PM
suzihussein22 said...: jethrock-lol

Ted Strickland -pros-His roots in OH and KY, has an MA from a theological seminary, has support from Rep., has support from NRA, has supported HRC, and voted against an almost total ban on abortion.; May 26, 2008 9:49 PM
okiepokie said...: Christine Gregoire, Gov of Washington. At Least you can say her name, unlike the Kansas gal(This is a negative for her).
1 John Edwards- Can't hurt Obama

2 Bill Richardson or Women Gov.; May 27, 2008 12:01 AM
Chin Shih Tang said...: I think Edwards would relish the chance to cancel out John Roberts' vote (as needed) for the next 30 years. Plus, his electoral career is going nowhere.

Lee Hamilton is a better choice than Evan Bayh, any day of the week.

Ohio governor Strickland makes sense only in a pure electoral calculation point of view (LBJ in 1960 is the answer to the question of which VP candidate last helped win an important state for his ticket leader), and I don't think Obama will go that way.

He may be tempted to go with a HRC supporter, though, to try to make peace. If he does that, I think Wes Clark would be the best choice, and she might point him in that direction when (if) he asks her.

My recommendations are Sebelius, Clark, Hamilton, Webb, and Richardson, in that order.; May 27, 2008 12:14 PM
apissedant said...: Good call Chin. You win this round. Still, 1 election in 48 years is pretty sad. There are many more cases where the VP candidate helped topple the presidential candidate. That was a very close election in a very odd year, and I don't suspect we will be that close.
Another point, he was placed on the ticket to assuage the anti-Kennedy portion of the party, and reunify it. He was not chosen to carry a specific state or expand the party.
This is what many of us are suggesting here, someone like Sebelius to close the divide in the party, not someone like Webb to attempt to expand the party.
Still, very good point. Without LBJ, Kennedy wouldn't have had much of a chance at all.; May 27, 2008 3:54 PM
st paul sage said...: i have to argue with someting that apissedant said: "VPs are much more likely to damage your candidacy than to help your candidacy."

i think vps generally help win presidencies. cheney assured voters concerned about bush's intelligence and lack of foreign policy exp. gore helped win tennesee twice, reinforced clinton's moderate, young image and provided foriegn policy experience. quayle certainly didn't help bush 1 win, but if anyone was ever gonna lose a presidency from the vp spot it was him and he didn't. bush helped unify the party, helped win tx and new england, and provided foreign policy background. mondale provided inside background and cemented minnesota (which had voted for nixon in 1972).

on the losing side - eagleton in '72, ferraro in '84, quayle in '92 all probably hurt their tickets, but noone would blame them for their parties' presidential losses.

in fact in the history of the united states, i defy you to show me one case when a vp candidate caused a ticket to lose.

also i'm intrigued by what you did to help webb in '06 since it seems like you're well versed in george allen's opposition research about webb, but can't think of anything nice to say about him.

also, i think the only "woman problem" obama has is senator clinton, and once she endorses him he will return to the 55-60% female vote that democrats typically carry. to spend a valuable thing like the vp choice just to get a solid democratic constituency that votes in consistently high numbers doesn't seem to help much.; May 27, 2008 5:08 PM
apissedant said...: St. Paul,
I am active in the Democratic party, and I will volunteer for any candidate that I think can better America. George Allen was terrible, while Jim Webb is adequate. I have said as much several times. I've given many things I dislike about him, and I will leave that at that. As far as positives, I realize he has them, that's why I judge him adequate, but his positives are irrelevant. He is my Senator, and I will support him again in 2012. There are multiple VP candidates without his laundry list of negatives, and without specific negatives that are currently hurting Obama at this very moment. Lastly, he really doesn't fit Obama's message at all. He would look awkward at best on the ticket.
Choosing a VP is the first thing that a President does, prior to even gaining the office. A poor choice not only means a crappy VP, but it means that the President has poor judgment. It is a double hit.
Al Gore did not assist in winning Tennessee, if he had been the factor that sealed the fate of Tennessee, odds are he would have won it in 2000. If Tennessee liked the idea of having one of their own as VP, why wouldn't they want him as president, with WAY more power. Few would argue that Cheney was the winning factor for Bush. He is a prick, has no personality, has ties to all the companies Americans dislike, and was a part of the administration that people didn't like. Google search it, you're nearly alone in that belief. Besides, he lost the popular vote by 500,000 votes, so how well did that really work out?
Dukakis was terrible, and Quayle most definitely lost the VP fight. We elected a President first, in the case of a tie, we allow the VP candidate to finish our swing to either side. A terrible presidential candidate cannot be saved by a VP. A terrible VP, or anyone else in their inner circle, can easily destroy an otherwise good presidential candidate.
To show you this, just look at Al Gore in 2000. Not the best candidate, but rather good, yet the numerous Clinton scandals hurt him severely. Obama took a hit due to Rev. Wright, everyone associated with Tom Delay took a major hit. One bad association takes down dozens of good associations.

Again, the Gore argument is laughable. Clinton won in a landslide in both campaigns, so even if he'd lost Tennessee, who cares, he still wins by a landslide. Of course, Gore did not, because Gore couldn't carry it as the candidate, so how could he have possibly been the reason it was carried while he was the VP candidate?

The previous post about LBJ is a great post, and that one is unarguable. LBJ helped quite a bit, and really made the JFK election work. That is the one and only in at least 60 years. Quayle is a wonderful example of a negative, and there are much more, some that you have mentioned. He, combined with a recession, and the whole tax issue, destroyed the candidacy. Which one did the trick? I have no idea, but they all hurt.; May 27, 2008 9:53 PM
khassani said...: Wow, this thread died rather quickly. So, we're all in agreement that Sebelius should be the VP? :-); May 28, 2008 4:31 PM
apissedant said...: I'm in agreement. Oh, and the death of this thread was inevitable. The link to it is no longer front and center like it once was, now it must be hunted down. I think I'm going to leave a comment in another thread and complain, I like this thread.; May 28, 2008 5:42 PM
suzihussein22 said...: Brian Schweitzer-Pros-Irish mom ;), background in agriculture with B.S. and M.S., has lived in several other countries, is against gun control, and speaks a 2nd language.; May 28, 2008 9:54 PM
apissedant said...: soft,
OK, apparently I am missing something. I have heard several times that being against gun control is a good thing in this thread. EXPLAIN IT TO ME LIKE I AM 3, PLEASE!
People that say they are, "against gun control," say that there should be no restrictions, registrations, or limitations on gun ownership. Their theory is that if good people have guns as well as bad people, then the good people will shoot the bad people, and everything is ok.
People that are for gun control want to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals. They plan to do this by restricting guns that are not useful for personal protection or hunting. They want to require registration, so we can track down the owners of guns used in crimes. This prevents reselling of previously legal guns. They want to limit the number of guns purchased at any given time, again preventing reselling. They want background checks on all gun sales, preventing those who cannot legally buying guns from being legally sold guns.
These laws still allow you and I to own guns. We can own as many guns as we want. We can wallpaper are house with guns if we desire! These laws are just common sense, not satanic communist ideas. The Virginia Tech kid buying two weapons, despite being mentally disqualified is satanic. The fact that both gun dealers were working completely within the law is sick. What is the point of laws without teeth? What's the point of telling a consumer he cannot buy something, and telling retailers that it is completely ok? We don't do this with liquor or tobacco, or medication, so why do we do it with guns?; May 28, 2008 10:48 PM
suzihussein22 said...: apissedant-This is a fear-mongering, knee-jerk issue the Rep. use to keep the support of the NRA, but they don't cling to anything, right?:) As if I would go hunting with an automatic assault machine gun, eh?; May 28, 2008 11:12 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: AHA! I found the vp thread!

who do I think? well, I like Colin Powell, but he wouldn't take it and his name got tarnished by association.

I also like the idea of a woman, there are some awfully good ones out there that don't take too much BS. Pelosi? Sebelius?

More likely, Nunn or Webb or Edwards or Gore. Actually, I really like the idea of Gore on the ticket.; May 28, 2008 11:40 PM
khassani said...: Novak is saying that Mark Warner is on the short list. What surprised me about his senate run was that he would have been the favorite for the spot for either Obama or Clinton. Running for the senate makes it a little harder to pick him since he's sure to pick up the seat, and no other Dem would be better than a toss up. I suppose he could pull a Lieberman and run for both VP and the senate (though Lieberman was selfish in doing so; any Dem could have won the seat, but the governor was a Rep.). He takes the senate seat, resigns, and Kaine chooses a Dem for the seat.; May 29, 2008 12:06 AM
Clemens said...: from another board I read not my post, just putting it here for those who are interested

I recently talked with a friend who is a close national security advisor to Sen. Obama, part of his inner circle. He told me about some of the serious thinking about key cabinet positions. I remember a thread on here about this very subject a several days ago. He mentioned some names that are being seriously considered. Some are a bit of a surprise.

VP - Gen. Zinni/Former Sen. Sam Nunn

SecDef - Richard Danzig or John Hamre

NSA - Tony Lake

SecState - Sen. Biden or....... Sen. Clinton!; May 29, 2008 12:48 AM
suzihussein22 said...: What about HRC as Sec. of Health and Human Services?; May 29, 2008 2:40 AM
tmess2 said...: Not sure if Warner can pull a Lieberman and run for both, it is pretty much an issue of state law. More importantly, while that is something than an incumbent can do and get away with, I am not sure someone running for the first term can.

An earlier post mentioned Wes Clark as Secretary of Defense. I know that there is a period of ineligibility after retirement from active duty (to keep the military in civilian control). Has Clark been retired long enough?; May 29, 2008 2:56 AM
apissedant said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 29, 2008 9:19 AM
apissedant said...: No other Democrat has Mark Warner's bipartisan appeal and name recognition. There is no one Kaine could appoint that would have odds of keeping the seat. We will be lucky to keep Webb in in 4 years. You get Democratic Senators in red states, you leave them where they are.; May 29, 2008 9:23 AM
Unknown said...: At last, some public polling on Hillary in the VP slot!

This is in Michigan, a state where the Hillary supporters might be expected to be particularly energized due to the delegate issue.

The way I read the results is that putting Hillary on the ticket basically converts the large "undecided/don't know/refused" segment in the generic Obama-McCain race into Obama voters.

That means, in my view, that both pro- and anti-Hillary as VP supporters can take some solace from it.

For the pro-VP Clinton side, it's pretty clear that the undecideds in the generic poll are largely disgruntled Hillary supporters. Putting her on the ticket, as predicted, soothes them and they switch over. Also, putting Hillary on the ticket doesn't seem to help McCain's support at all--there's no evidence for the sometimes-predicted horror among independents that causes them to run away.

For the anti-VP Clinton side, it should be noted that those undecideds are largely disgruntled Hillary supporters. But they don't go so far as saying they'll support McCain. It's likely most of them will come back in November. In that case, the anti-VP Clinton side can argue, it frees Obama to choose the VP on the basis of other considerations, such as who would fit in better with his campaign or his administration.

If anyone can find more polls like this, I'd be very interested in seeing them...; May 29, 2008 12:55 PM
apissedant said...: Great post Scott. That is an interesting poll. Shows how retarded voters are though. Their is no question that Michigan's economy has gotten worse over the past 8 years. There is no question it has gotten worse over the past 16 years, so what the heck are 16% of the respondents talking about? There is no room for argument. It is a matter of fact, not opinion.; May 29, 2008 1:08 PM
LyJordan said...: Tim Kaine or Bill Richardson.

I like Jim Webb a lot, but he's a first term senator like Obama. Barack needs an executive with experience to fill out the ticket. Kaine or Richardson would both be good because they're both governor's in battleground states. Kaine could shore up support with white voters, Richardson could shore up latino support.; May 29, 2008 1:28 PM
apissedant said...: I'm not a huge fan of Richardson, but I don't think he would be a bad choice. I think Kaine would be an alright choice also. Edwards is still my favorite, but I think Sebelius would probably be the best choice. I figure if I say her name enough time... it will just magically happen.; May 29, 2008 10:25 PM
Kevin M said...: A few days ago, I sent an email to Gov. Sebelius through her website to encourage her to accept the offer should the Obama campaign contact her about it. I'm sure those are probably read by someone on her staff, but I like to think that maybe it gets mentioned to her.; May 30, 2008 5:11 PM
Bruce Young said...: I haven't settled yet on who I think would be the best VP--though obviously some others have.

Trying to narrow the field, I've been looking at youtube videos of the people we've listed, trying to get a feel for them, especially a sense of how they would be as campaigners. I know that's not the only or the most important consideration, but it is an important one. Also, someone whose speaking and thinking style (and substance) are appealing to me might very well make a good VP.

Here are my ratings so far based on looking at youtube videos or other speeches:

Anthony Zinni A
Mark Warner A
John Edwards A
Bill Richardson A-
Wesley Clark A-
Sam Nunn B+
Ted Strickland B
Kathleen Sebelius B- ?
Tim Kaine C

If I were going by their positions, abilities, and other factors, I might rank them differently (for instance, I'd put Richardson higher).

I know some of you rank Sebelius very high. Does anybody know of a video clip of her or of Kaine that would impress me more than what I've seen so far?; May 30, 2008 6:04 PM
suzihussein22 said...: Sam Nunn-Pros-He favors capping punitive damage awards, is more "conservative" than Obama, is in favor of a balanced budget, and has foreign policy and national security experience.; May 30, 2008 6:59 PM
apissedant said...: bruce young,
I have to admit, I like Kaine, but he is not impressive. I have watched him give multiple public speeches in person, and there is just nothing that would impress you. That's why when we had him running for governor, Creigh Deeds, Bobby Scott, Barack Obama, and Mark Warner spoke for him.
The thing is, I really like Mark Warner taking and owning a senate seat for the next three decades. He would by far be the best running mate, but I'm not willing to give up the senate seat.
On Sebelius, I must admit I know very little. I've read some biographical stuff, and heard the opinions of others on this site. She looks great on paper, but I've never seen her speak.; May 31, 2008 9:01 AM
apissedant said...: soft,
I don't like capping punitive damages either. If a company was reckless, they deserve to be punished. That is the point of punitive damages. The idea is to make the punishment so expensive, that their little risk management people actually fix problems, and warn customers instead of waiting for law suits and praying for out of court settlements.; May 31, 2008 9:03 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: I am still rooting for Kathleen Sebelius :); June 28, 2008 11:20 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: apissedant - are you here yet?

We probably should have asked DCW to add the link a long time ago - then the thread wouldn't have gone into limbo!

OBAMA/Sebelius '08; June 28, 2008 11:32 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: I've been playing the VeepStakes on MSNBC the past few weeks...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24764369

The ones that are left now in the lead are:

Hillary Clinton
Wesley Clark
Evan Bayh
John Edwards
Mike Bloomberg
Joe Biden
Kathleen Sebelius
Sam Nunn
___

I think that Obama might end up with a lot of people on his short list that we haven't even thought of yet and some people that we've never heard of ;); June 28, 2008 11:40 PM
Chad Nielson said...: LEAH,

We got one thing in common, we are both in the deep red. I live in Utah lol. at least texas is being considered by Some people to be a McCain lean. Utah would elect a decently dressed monkey if he was flying under the republican banner (George W. Puns aside).

I am all about Wesley Clark. I just can't help but feel that every time I sit down and listen to that man talk that he is the man for the job.; June 28, 2008 11:42 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Chad-

I think that Texas has a good chance of going BLUE this year :)

We have TONS of Obama supporters down here - so I have my fingers crossed. It is still really early in the game and anything can happen. I do NOT think that Utah will change from red though.

I read a bit about Wesley Clark the other day on wikipedia. If I was not such a huge Sebelius fan then I might root for Clark.

There are a few that I think DO NOT have a chance at all:

Rendell - NO, because there is a video on YouTube of Rendell praising Farrahkan at a dinner in honor of Farrahkan.

Warner - NO, because he said he will not take any job other than the one he is running for in Virginia.

Hagel - NO, because if anything were to happen to Obama then the Republicans would be in control of the White House again.

and now I can't think off the top of my head the other ones that I ruled out a while back LOL.; June 28, 2008 11:48 PM
tmess2 said...: FYI, Congressional Quarterly's website and MSNBC have done VP "brackets," polls of readers in which readers get to choose between two different vp contenders with the winners advancing to the next round and the loser being eliminated. Both started the Republicans sooner since McCain had clinched. Both started with 32 contenders for each party.

On CQ, the two finalists on the Democratic side are Wesley Clark and Joseph Biden (Rendell and Richardson lost in the semis, Clinton, Edwards, Sebellius, and Nunn lost in the quarters). Huckabee was the readers pick on the Republican side (beating Sarah Palin in the finals, with Tim Pawlenty and Rob Portman losing in the semi-finals, and Mike Sanford, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Bobby Jindal, and Charlie Crist losing in the quarterfinals).

On MSNBC, the Democrats are currently in the seconc round (where Ed Rendell lost in the first round to Chuck Hagel). The Republicans are currently in the semi-finals were the four remaining picks are Colin Powell against Bobby Jindal and Mitt Romney against Tim Pawlenty(both Romney and Powell lost in the second round on CQ; Huckabee lost in the quarters and Palin lost in the second round on MSNBC).

While I don't think that head to head is the best way to get the sentiments of the users of these sites on who should be VP. I think the divergence between the two sites is interesting.

CQ is scheduled to finish on Tuesday but MSNBC won't be finished until the 21st. I think MSNBC may just barely finish before we know who Senator Obama will pick. My hunch is that next week will be a dead media week with the Fourth of July coming up and that there will be an appearance with President Clinton some time around July 9th or 10th. That should allow Senator Obama to get favorable press through the 15th or 16th of July and if he can name his VP around the 30th, he should basically wrap up the media coverage though the end of the Olympics and the start of the Democratic Convention.; June 29, 2008 12:00 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: I don't think that McCain will put Powell on his short list for several reasons:

1) Powell doesn't want to be VP.

2) Powell's wife doesn't want him to be VP or President.

3) Powell like Obama and he wants Obama to win ;)

4) Powell wouldn't take it because people would think that the repubs are picking him because he IS African-American.

5) Powell is older and retired and McCain will need to pick a youngster.

If McCain picks Jindall then the Republicans will lose by a landslide!

The Republicans are going to lose by a landslide anyway, in my opinion :); June 29, 2008 12:12 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: I don't like the idea that the Democrats have their convention before the Republicans.

Obama will have to pick his VP choice first and then McCain will have the advantage while picking his.

If Obama picks a MAN then McCain might pick a WOMAN.

It is not really fair!!! ;); June 29, 2008 12:16 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: tmess2-

I don't see the one on CQ.
Where is the veepstakes on their website?; June 29, 2008 12:22 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 29, 2008 12:22 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: I found it nevermind :)

http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness

.; June 29, 2008 12:24 AM
stopOBAMAnow said...: My Two Cents on BHO's VP:

The Gallup poll shows since Mar 7, both Obama and McCain are nearly tied at 44%.

BHO = McCain = 44% --> McCain No McSame/McBush.

What could shake up this inertia?

VP selection, Debates, New Scandals.

BHO should take some one who is as a bleeding liberal as he is, and as inexperienced and unknown as he is. Otherwise, it would create a real image problem, and logistical nightmare for his campaign managers.

He must borrow a page from Herbert Walker Bush. He chose Dan Q. That looked very appropriate and the team won one term, and alas lost the second term. That was okay.

Who would be the Dan Q for Obama?

Stay tuned.; June 29, 2008 10:18 AM
stopOBAMAnow said...: BHO would choose someone so unknown that will put off most of his ardent emotional admirers! A terrible choice.

McCain will choose Gov. Palin. A terrific choice.

Wait and see.; June 29, 2008 10:27 AM
tmess2 said...: Wondering if I should offer to post a bet that Yam/SON is wrong again on McCain's VP choice or beg McCain to pick Palin. If McCain is that concerned about holding on to Alaska to pick an unknown first term governor as his VP pick, this race is beyond over.

Unfortunately, since Bush won last time, the Democrats have to go first with their convention. That does not mean that Obama will pick first just that the Dems convention is first.

The real deadline for VP pick is around August 4th or so. The Olympics start on August 8th. Anything political that happens after August 4th will quickly be drowned out by sports news. The Olympics end the day before the Democratic Convention. Labor Day weekend begins the day after the Democratic Convention. In other words, McCain has to make his pick by August 4th or wait until the Tuesday or Wednesday of the Republican convention. Both parties have learned that announcing your pick during the convention interferes with the convention as the press will spend the Monday and Tuesday talking about VP rumors instead of the speeches at the convention.

My hunch is that Obama (with just a little bit of other stagecraft to keep the media happy) can probably delay making a pick until late July. If he can delay that long and keep dominating the media with good news, McCain will probably be forced to go first just to grab some media attention.; June 29, 2008 1:50 PM
Chad Nielson said...: If we are going to have republican drones posting trash talk on this blog, then at least they should have to have something intelligent to say... or be able to put together a sentence that makes sense. I really hate most blog sites because of trash like that and this is one of the few where there is actually a conversation going on most of the time.

on the plus side, if stopOBAMAnow represents the intelligence of the republican party this year, a well timed ice cream van distraction could be enough to win the election.; June 29, 2008 2:44 PM
Karen Anne said...: Anyone who thinks Jim Webb should be on the ticket, should watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UebXkJhGpyA

The Repubs play this, and we lose very woman's vote in the country.; June 29, 2008 2:54 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Chad-

Just ignore stopOBAMAnow.
He is our resident troll on the other Open Thread and most people ignore him. He is not going away, we just have to learn to live with him. The more you engage him the more he will type and the more irritating he becomes.; June 29, 2008 4:35 PM
apissedant said...: Leah! I'm here. Yeah, I wished they had done the link earlier, but then again, I would probably be tired of talking about VP by now if they had. This keeps it sorta fresh.

I like the voter choices on MSNBC with the exception of Hillary. Edwards, Clark, Sebelius, there are plenty of good choices. Sebelius is still my favorite for now. Clark I have trouble with over the 3 am phone call, and I don't feel like hearing about the 2004 election which would occur if he put Edwards up. With Sebelius, we would have to listen to a week or two about how he chose a woman just because she was a woman, but then she'd get up and speak a few times, and the talk would die down.; June 29, 2008 6:46 PM
suzihussein22 said...: Be careful what you "wish" for-

http://www.236.com/blog/w/will_durst/talking_veepstakes_7430.php

I hope some of those slips of paper get lost.

Sebelius is on my short list.; June 29, 2008 10:54 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: ap - good to see you here :)

ss - good article, thanks for posting the link!

Quote...
"The presidential campaign has entered what can only be described as its dormant hibernation phase. "

I wish Obama and McCain would just take a couple of weeks off so I can get some things done around the house! Too many websites to check and too many articles to read LOL ;); June 29, 2008 11:18 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: A quote from electoral-vote.com

Politico asked some Republican gurus for plausible but longshot Veep candidates. Here is the list: Bill Gates, Meg Whitman, Eric Cantor, William Cohen, Robert Rubin, Tim Roemer, Donna Shalala, and Colin Powell. It's a pretty wild list. To start with, although Bill Gates retired from Microsoft Friday, his political affiliation is not known. Given his track record of donating billions of dollars to help poor people all over the world, he might well be a Democrat (like his good friend and fellow billionaire Warren Buffet). Colin Powell is known to be disgusted with the Republicans and has hinted he may support Obama shortly. He would never accept a spot on the GOP ticket. He would have been a plausible Democratic Veep with Hillary Clinton, but having two black guys on the Democratic ticket is probably one too many. The rest are indeed longshots.

.; June 29, 2008 11:23 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Timing the VP Picks

If you're looking for a timeframe when Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama announce their picks for running mates, think early August.

The Obama campaign would like their pick to be after McCain's if possible to give them a nice run up to the Democratic convention in late August. However, the Olympics begin in Beijing on August 8 and run about two weeks.

Therefore, both campaigns will have a limited window to announce their picks and will probably try to do it in the first week of August.

The above is from:

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/06/timing-the-veep-picks.html; June 29, 2008 11:34 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Longshots in the Veepstakes

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11419.html; June 29, 2008 11:35 PM
suzihussein22 said...: Isn't it interesting how Gore keeps coming up?-

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121485373544116901.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I'm beginning to wonder if he shouldn't be kept in the news just to make McCain devote more sources here than he can afford to. That wouldn't be another operation chaos, would it?; July 02, 2008 1:05 AM
Taimuri said...: Nowhere in this thread did I see the popular former Gov/Sen Bob Graham's name mentioned. Not only would he help put Florida in play; but, he also adds some national security/foreign policy expertise. However, at 72, he may be too old? But, on the other hand, it might provide a nice balance with the youthful Obama. And, of course, 72 is today's 60. Assuming that Graham has no presidential aspirations, he would be 80 at the end of "an Obama" second term.; July 05, 2008 11:17 PM
uplandpoet said...: Bob Graham: much loved but nearly forgotten by half the voters in Florida, was a non starter for pres a few years ago.

Al Gore and John Kerry: both names keep coming up because of their past, not their future, dont see either one saying yes, hardly see obama asking.

HRC: sure 18 million reasons why, ok, now down to about 4 million reasons, but those folks arent going to be happy anyway. her real demcrats are gonna vote for him, the others are probably GOPers causing trouble.

Webb: ok, but can we hold his seat and he is too conservative and a bit of a loose canon.

Hagel: I like, as conservative as Webb, but not as loose and cost us nothing in the senate.

Bayh is ok, and is Brain, and Richardson.

I like Sebelius, does she deliver kansas?

I think the thing to keep in mind is that Obama has this thing won already. He can still ,lose it by doing something stupid or getting too conservative, either in his positions or his gamesmanship, but it is his to lose. the VP will not win or lose except if someone can deliver a big state that is likely not to go Obamas way. I think an absolute nobody would do little harm, but locking up kansas or montana or indiana or missouri would be nice.; July 07, 2008 6:47 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: July 7, 2008

From NBC's Mark Murray

Virginia Sen. Jim Webb just issued a statement from his Senate office saying that -- "[u]nder no circumstances" -- does he want to be considered as Obama's veep. "Last week I communicated to Sen. Obama and his presidential campaign my firm intention to remain in the United States Senate, where I believe I am best equipped to serve the people of Virginia and this country. Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for vice president.

But Webb also said he would campaign hard to help Obama win the battleground of Virginia in the general election. "He is a man who speaks eloquently about our national goals and calls for the practical solutions that must be put into place to obtain them," he said. "I will proudly campaign for him."

Below is the full statement...

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/07/1185085.aspx; July 07, 2008 4:03 PM
Independent Voter said...: I don't know. I still like Lincoln Chafee.; July 07, 2008 11:18 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: From an article over at www.FiveThirtyEight.com

The overall favorites for the Democrats' VP slot according to Intrade, translated loosely to Vegas-style odds, are as follows:

Clinton 9-2
Sebelius 9-1
Bayh 10-1
Hagel 10-1
Rendell 12-1
Richardson 12-1
Biden 12-1
McCaskill 15-1
Edwards 15-1
Kaine 15-1
Reed (RI) 20-1
Schweitzer 20-1
Clark 20-1
Gephardt 20-1
Gore 20-1
Nunn 20-1
Bloomberg 25-1
Webb 30-1
Zinni 30-1
Warner 35-1
Reid (NV) 50-1
Jones 60-1
Wexler 80-1
Nelson 100-1
Napolitano 100-1
Daschle 100-1
Easley 100-1

.; July 08, 2008 12:37 AM
Kevin M said...: Damn! Can I take some action against the 9-2 Clinton odds? She is probably not his worst choice, but damn close.; July 08, 2008 12:53 AM
Beryl said...: I still like Hagel but don't see the Dems allowing it. HRC would be fine if she'd divorce Bill.; July 08, 2008 11:35 AM
Kevin M said...: Beryl-

Agreed about Hagel. We don't need a Republican an assassin's bullet away from the Presidency.

And there's not much chance of HRC divorcing Bill.; July 08, 2008 11:39 AM
jean said...: Edwards said he would NOW consider being VP. CNN Political Ticker.
Don't you dare say woman are fickel.
jean; July 08, 2008 7:15 PM
jean said...: OK I should of said women.
Leah,
15-1 for Edwards seems a bit high.
jean; July 08, 2008 7:18 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: So far we know for sure that

Webb
Strickland
Warner
Rendell

have all said that they WILL NOT accept the VP slot no matter what.

Now if ten more people come on out and say that then it will be easier to pinpoint who it might be LOL :); July 09, 2008 12:31 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Two potential VPs will be accompanying Senator Obama on his trip overseas:

Senator Chuck Hagel(R) and Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed (D).

----

On another note Chris Dodd has been blabbing about his being vetted by the Obama VP vetting committee.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius when asked about being vetted said - "all queries should be directed to the Obama campaign."
---

I think Dodd messed up by talking about being vetted.; July 12, 2008 1:53 AM
Mike said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; July 15, 2008 12:46 AM
Mike said...: It will be a grave mistake putting HRC or a republican on the ticket (as VP). Both would incite potential assasins to try their luck.

Also, if a republican becomes a president by proxy nothing stops him or her from appointing a republican VP, making it Bush's third term.

There are making qualified Democrats for the VP spot, keep out the republican. Cabinet position is more than enough to show bipartisanship.

I wish McCain offers the VP position to Hillary, in order to attract her die hard fanatics.; July 15, 2008 12:59 AM
Beryl said...: As a hater of BOTH parties, I'd like to see the party lines blurred until they no longer exist. We need Hagel and other reasonable Repubs in an Obama Administration.

HRC's "anything can happen" comments and references to Bobby Kennedy makes her in the VP spot very hard to swallow (in addition to Bill).; July 15, 2008 8:42 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Beryl,

How can you say that Hagel is a 'reasonable Repub'?

Yes, he was one of the first Repigs to oppose the war on Iraq, but there are many other issues to consider.

Condider:
Chuck Hagel on Abortion
* Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
* Voted YES on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
* Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
* Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
* Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
* Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
* Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
* Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
* Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
* Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
* Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)

Chuck Hagel on Budget & Economy
* Voted YES on paying down federal debt by rating programs' effectiveness. (Mar 2007)
* Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
* Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
* Voted YES on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
* Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)

Chuck Hagel on Civil Rights
* Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
* Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
* Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
* Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
* Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
* Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
* Rated 11% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)

More info can be found here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm

Mike; July 19, 2008 4:53 AM
Beryl said...: Mike - re Hagel

I don't agree with him on everything and Civil Rights is where we differ most. I am slightly right of center so most of his conservative views align with mine.

Thanks for that link. It underscored what I learned about him.; July 19, 2008 9:42 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Beryl,

Civil rights are among the most important issues for me. If we don't have freedom of speech, the right to assemble, the right to have security from searches of our homes without probable cause, the right to vote, etc., then is it any advantage to live in the US?

Those are some of the most fundamental rights, and if we don't have them, we live, in effect, under a tyrannical government. Just look at how Shrub has tried to stop free speech; how he has tapped out communications; how he has tried to stop the freedom of assembly, etc.

If the citizenry is rich, but always in fear that the police will invade their home at will, is being rich satisfying? If you can't go to the place of worship you choose or choose not to go, is it worth having a large bank account? Is it worth having a good job when the businesses decide that profits are worth more than the good health of the citizenry, and thus sell dangerous products that will injure, kill or poison the citizenry?

Since Hagel is much more 'pro-business' than for the health and safety of the citizenry, he is not a good supporter of our fundamental rights, since a lot of those rights can be used against abusive business practices.

I don't trust, and cannot support, a politician who is not able to support those fundamental rights. And because of his record, I can't support Hagel being on the ticket.

Mike; July 19, 2008 6:58 PM
tmess2 said...: Looking at the other side, I can't believe that McCain is seriously considering Mitt Romney.

Let's see, you hold on to Nevada and keep the margin in Michigan close. In exchange, you drive every Southern Baptist and Evangelical in the South to Bob Barr and lose Virginia, North Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, and Georgia.; July 20, 2008 1:23 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Jack Reed's Statement...

From NBC/NJ's Mike Memoli

"I am interested in serving in the United States Senate and that interest trumps any consideration of serving as a vice president," Rhode Island Democrat Reed said in an interview with the Providence Journal this afternoon.

Reed was asked: "If you were offered this position you would decline, is that correct?"

"Yeah," he answered, "but I frankly I don't expect to be offered the position."

-----; July 25, 2008 8:35 PM
walleyeb1 said...: Gephart has been talked about very little and would be a good solid choice. He would sew up mo and really help with the blue color voters of oh pn. Would be kind of a surprise since no one is bringing up his name.; July 26, 2008 11:26 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: More on Reed from ThePage.Time.com

Reed Would Say “No” to Veep Offer

Getty

In an interview with Rhode Island’s Providence Journal, the Senator tries to tamp down suggestions he may serve as Obama’s No. 2.

“I am interested in serving in the United States Senate and that interest trumps any consideration of serving as a vice president.”

When asked if he’d decline the position if offered: “Yeah. But I frankly I don’t expect to be offered the position.”
.
------

p.s. Regarding John Edwards there is a rumor in the media about him and a 'love child' so I think we can count him out for now.; July 27, 2008 2:35 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: From Electoral-vote.com

In other Veep news, the Obama VP team floated the name of former Bush Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman. Don't bet on it. She tangled with the Democratic senators repeatedly when she was in the cabinet, is virtually unknown, and would antagonize his own base. If Obama wants a woman as running mate, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS), Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ), or even Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) make a lot more sense. Futhermore, mad cow disease really isn't the issue du jour today. Names get floated for many reasons, often to please some demographic group that candidates they like are being taken seriously. For example, by floating the names of many women, Obama can then safely pick, say, Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM), and say to women: "I considered many women in this process" when in truth someone like Veneman is absurd as Democratic Veep. She might be a longshot for Republican Veep but in reality she can't hold a candle to Sen. Hutchison if McCain really wants a woman.; July 27, 2008 2:37 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Also from Electoral-vote.com regarding the Republicans...

Scratch Sarah. One of the more tantalizing possibilities floating around for the Republican Vice Presidential slot is Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK). Adding a wildly popular, good-looking young woman to the Republican ticket would add more pop than than equally good looking but more conventional choice of Mitt Romney. But Sarah has a problem. Her sister, who is married to state trooper Mike Wooten, is in the middle of a bitter divorce and child custody battle. According to former state safety commissioner Walt Monegan, Palin pressured him to fire Wooten. When he refused, she fired him out of the blue claiming the department needed new direction. So far it is his word against hers, but until this incident, Palin had only good things to say about Monegan. Even the Republican-controlled state legislature smells a dead fish here and is planning to appoint an independent investigator. With Palin on the ticket, there was always the danger she would overshadow McCain; now it is a certainty. If McCain decides he needs a woman on the ticket, it will probably be Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX). Palin has her hands full surviving as governor at this point. A VP run is out of the question.; July 27, 2008 2:39 AM
tmess2 said...: So sad to hear that news on Sarah Palin. Wonder who our favorite troll will now be pushing as the VP pick that will win McCain the election.

We might need a new contest. How many times can a troll be wrong in a single election cycle?; July 27, 2008 2:36 PM
Beryl said...: Tim Kaine is getting a lot of press today as a possible VP. Perhaps his minimal foreign affairs experience won't be an issue now.

Thoughts?; July 29, 2008 11:32 AM
Beryl said...: Lots of discusson on the MSM today about Kaine. The top 3 are Kaine, Biden, and Bayh and no others are on the current short list -- per MSNBC Countdown this evening.

If no others are in the running, what is everyone's position on them?; July 29, 2008 8:47 PM
Kevin M said...: Opinions---

Bayh: I like that he is not just a senator, but a former governor of Indiana. Maybe could help pick up that state, as well as a good campaigner for Ohio and Michigan? He's been on the Armed Services and Select Intelligence Committees, which shore up the military aspects on the ticket.

Kaine: Good that he's a governor. Very, very Catholic, which could help with the Hispanic vote. I don't know... he doesn't really excite me.

Biden: A very 'safe' bet. But strikes me as someone who's spent his whole career as a Washington insider. I mean, good God! He was elected to the Senate when we were still fighting in Vietnam! That doesn't jive with the kind of Obama campaign I've been so enthusiastic about.

All 3 of these choices are the same kind of white men we've had in power since George Washington. Time to get away from the 'cigars and brandy in the drawing room' club.

I still prefer Kathleen Sebelius.; July 29, 2008 11:20 PM
Kevin M said...: Opinions---

Bayh: I like that he is not just a senator, but a former governor of Indiana. Maybe could help pick up that state, as well as a good campaigner for Ohio and Michigan? He's been on the Armed Services and Select Intelligence Committees, which shore up the military aspects on the ticket.

Kaine: Good that he's a governor. Very, very Catholic, which could help with the Hispanic vote. I don't know... he doesn't really excite me.

Biden: A very 'safe' bet. But strikes me as someone who's spent his whole career as a Washington insider. I mean, good God! He was elected to the Senate when we were still fighting in Vietnam! That doesn't jive with the kind of Obama campaign I've been so enthusiastic about.

All 3 of these choices are the same kind of white men we've had in power since George Washington. Time to get away from the 'cigars and brandy in the drawing room' club.

I still prefer Kathleen Sebelius.; July 29, 2008 11:21 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: That day when an article came out about Bayh, Biden, and Kaine it also listed Sebelius - then later in the day they edited the article. Can't remember now where the original article was but they had a link to it on HuffPost. I even seen other people comment to the fact that they edited out Sebelius from the headline.

Obama/Sebelius '08; August 02, 2008 8:50 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Okay, so now McCain is considering Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor as VP??? This shows the kind of judgment McCain possesses! Cantor is two years younger than Obama and has MUCH less experience than Obama. So McCain thinks that if he were to die Cantor would be able to be the president and a world leader??? How ridiculous!

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/02/mccain-campaign-asks-rep-cantor-for-personal-records/

.; August 02, 2008 8:53 PM
Beryl said...: "Okay, so now McCain is considering Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor as VP??? This shows the kind of judgment McCain possesses! Cantor is two years younger than Obama and has MUCH less experience than Obama. So McCain thinks that if he were to die Cantor would be able to be the president and a world leader???"

Yep, I heard about that. I'm thinking that McCain is trying to shore up VA. It irritates me that there is such a double-standard regarding experience. Obama is more experienced than Cantor who would be a heartbeat from the president (which is important given McCain's age). He is also older and had equivalent experience as Bill Clinton. Bill did a fine job.; August 02, 2008 11:06 PM
tmess2 said...: Obama is in Indiana this week. Does that mean that Bayh is the VP pick (with an announcement Wednesday) or is Obama going to wait until some time during the Olympics (to be backed up by his media buy)?; August 05, 2008 6:22 PM
suzihussein22 said...: tmess-I just popped in to also mention I saw a rumor that Obama will pick Bayh soon, maybe this Wednesday.; August 05, 2008 8:40 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: So, this is going to be strange now that Bill Clinton is going to talk on Wednesday before Obama's VP pick speaks.

I am getting worried that the VP pick might be HRC - who else could it be that Bill would introduce?

Could be Bayh, but I doubt Bill would be talking before Sebelius...; August 08, 2008 12:04 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Anyone here?; August 08, 2008 12:09 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Leah,

Yes I'm here for a few minutes.

Mike; August 08, 2008 12:15 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah I'm here. I guess you are stuck with me for now.Jean; August 08, 2008 12:16 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Anyone see the bumper sticker someone placed on the back bumper of the 'Straight Talk Express' bus while it was in Florida earlier this week?

'Obama 08' VBG

Apparently the Mc"Needs A"Cane campaign staff were not amused.

Mike; August 08, 2008 12:17 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: This is ridiculous!

From MSNBC...

President Bush dedicated a massive new $434 million U.S. embassy in Beijing on Friday, calling it a symbol of deepening ties between the two trading partners and sometimes political rivals.
----
Spending that kind of money overseas is just not right when money is needed here at home!; August 08, 2008 12:18 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Mike in Maryland

I got the email I wanted to answer it but was having so much trouble with the new thread.

I do think that Bill could have gave a better speech than he did but it wasn't that bad. Jean; August 08, 2008 12:18 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Mike -

Yeah! That was a hoot! The bumper sticker story made it on TV last night. The day after the photo of the sticker was taken the bus was in an accident - it hit a SUV while turning a corner!

McCain and his bus should retire!; August 08, 2008 12:20 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Oh geez... now 'stop/MyUsa' is posting on the new format Open Thread! Hahaha!; August 08, 2008 12:23 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Aunt Jean,

??????????

What email? Answer what??

Your post makes no sense, since there is absolutely no context to connect to.

And I didn't write about Bill Clinton or any speech, so what was that all about?

Mike; August 08, 2008 12:23 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Mike that is all BS and quit insulting Hillary. As far as that Susan Rice calling her a monster well sound like she is a bit##. Jean; August 08, 2008 12:28 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Quite a few bad things have come out about McCain in the past day or two (like the foreign guy that bundled all that money for McCain) but with the media talking about Paris Hilton and now the Clintons - the media is not exposing all the McCain stuff!

If Obama was caught doing some of the things that are coming out about McCain the media would be talking about it 24/7

Really makes me mad!; August 08, 2008 12:28 AM
apissedant said...: I have to respond to an old post. I haven't been here in awhile.

Mike said,
Condider:
Chuck Hagel on Abortion
* Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)

Take something into consideration...
My wife is foreign as mentioned a million times by me. I am in college, as mentioned a million times by me. My wife could not find a job in her field because the US did not recognize her education. End result, until December, we're a bit on the poor side. When we found out we were pregnant, despite using BC, Eva went and applied for Medicaid. I wasn't in love with this idea, and felt ashamed, but the child is more important than my pride.

Well anyways, Eva is not a US citizen, so she cannot be approved for Medicaid. Because a fetus is not recognized as a living item, it could not be approved for Medicaid. End result, we were rejected, but told that they would cover the cost of the birth, because at that point it would be a child, and a US citizen.

WHAT?!?!? Prenatal care is essential to a child's future. There is no period more important to the development of the child. We have to take care of these fetuses, or we end up with much worse off children, and eventually adults. These children and adults WILL be a drain on the US, because they will require special government assistance their entire life, and will be less productive than their healthy counterparts.

There is a difference between allowing abortion, and forcing abortion. I finish college in December, and we will be more than willing to take care of the child, but we could not afford the prenatal portion. Even those that can't afford this and won't be able to afford to take care of their children, and will still have the children anyways. Some may make more than the threshold to receive Medicaid, but still not make enough to actually afford proper food and healthcare during the prenatal period. We need to help them now in order to save our own pocketbooks later.

Our situation is obviously a very strange and unusual one, but I guarantee there are much more normal situations that also need extra assistance and don't apply under current rules.

Did you know women can't change cat littler while they're pregnant? Or have more than 1 or 2 cups of coffee(8 ounces, not 24 ounce starbucks cups)? There are a million other little rules that are important, but people don't naturally know. They need access to care in order to be well informed.; August 08, 2008 12:28 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Mike IN Maryland I got an email with your post on the new thread saying that is it had been Hillary that he would have said YES YES YES! That is what I was refering to. Jean; August 08, 2008 12:30 AM
apissedant said...: aunt jean,
The daily show tonight showed him emphatically saying that several other candidates were more than qualified for the job, including Biden. Obama is the only candidate he never outright said was qualified for the job. That is not anti-Hillary, that is just a sad fact.; August 08, 2008 12:34 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Aunt Jean said...
Mike that is all BS and quit insulting Hillary. As far as that Susan Rice calling her a monster well sound like she is a bit##. Jean

Aunt Jean,

Are you in a parallel universe?

Where did I make a comment about Hillary today, or in the last month?

Just what in the H are you talking about?

Mike; August 08, 2008 12:35 AM
apissedant said...: So please do not tear of the scab of our previous disagreements. They have healed nicely, and I would like to keep them that way.; August 08, 2008 12:35 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Well one thing is for sure - as screwy as the 'new' thread is over there it will take a long time before 'stop' sees my post about us being over here on this thread! Hahahaha!; August 08, 2008 12:35 AM
apissedant said...: Mike,
Please let it go, I know you didn't start it or do anything wrong... just let it go for all of our sakes.; August 08, 2008 12:36 AM
apissedant said...: Leah,
LOL, that's great!

The best part will be when he comes over here as stop after denying he was stop over there. How dumb must he be to think we're that stupid?; August 08, 2008 12:37 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Mike-

Maybe Aunt Jean is reading comments on the first page of this thread or something?

Some old posts?; August 08, 2008 12:38 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yeah, it was some other 'mike' on the first page of this thread that said that...

look at: May 24, 2008 7:38 PM
---------

AUNT JEAN you are on the wrong page!!!!; August 08, 2008 12:40 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: appissedant-

No matter what name 'stop' uses it is always easy to know that it is him. There is something in his voice!; August 08, 2008 12:43 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????

Jean; August 08, 2008 12:45 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: I wish that John Edwards would come out and say something/anything

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/07/edwards-party-role-clouded-by-allegations/

the press is not going to let go of this and it's been front page news now for a couple of days!

I guess it is good that it happened before Obama picked his VP - although I have never thought that he would pick Edwards anyway.; August 08, 2008 12:46 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah

I got an email from the new thread with Mike In Maryland. All my comments came to my email. Jean; August 08, 2008 12:47 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 438 Newer› Newest»

Welcome to Democratic Convention Watch

Blog Archive

Democratic Convention 2008

Democratic National Convention History

Denver & Colorado Democrats

DCW in the News

Friends of DCW

2008 Republican National Convention

Saturday, May 24, 2008

Open Thread - VP Edition

438 comments:

Tags