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!

439 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 439   Newer›   Newest»
ireneinmass said...

Jim Webb

mjaroneski said...

The opposite of Dick Cheney would be a good start. I am ready for a powerless vice president. Or at least for a positively idealistic one with little power and a respect for the law. So, no HRC (aka Her Royal Clinton) does not fit the bill.

I see Webb in the cabinet (though I do not want to give up a senate seat). Warner should just go ahead and win that senate seat in VA.

So that brings us to governors and representatives. I have run out of ideas, but I hope this starts some good discussion.

apissedant said...

Tim Kaine. Jim Webb is cold, comes off arrogant, is too conservative, is terrible in the spotlight, and just all around a mediocre Senator. By the way, I am a vet currently going to school off the GI Bill, so you'd think I'd like him. I also campaigned for him, met him 3 times, and spoke with him on three different occasions.

apissedant said...

Warner will be taking John Warner's old seat. We don't have another good candidate for a second Senate seat right now. Keep Webb in the Senate, he isn't doing any harm, and he can't do much help anywhere else.

NYCSoxFan44 said...

Jim Webb or Chuck Hagel. Hagel would completely change the election, demonstrating Obama's bipartisanship. The left might not be happy with him, but we need Obama in office, and I think Hagel would be a trump card against McCain.

Dan said...

Tim Kaine is my first pick. He helps Obama solidify winning VA, and also helps with the Catholic bloc and the Hispanic bloc (Kaine is white, but speaks Spanish).

Beyond that? Perhaps Evan Bayh, or perhaps Sherrod Brown, or Joe Biden.

apissedant said...

I know nothing about Sebelius, but from what I heard, she would be good. Of course I love Edwards, but the odds of him taking the spot aren't too great.
I think the VP candidate has to be able to fit in with Obama's message of change, not draw negative attention, and shouldn't overshadow him. This conforms with mjaroneski's idea: If you pick too strong a leader, they end up looking too powerful and overshadowing the President. Then we have another situation like with Cheney, where we say the VP is running the White House, not the President.
This is a tried and true policy of all successful presidencies. The VP is POTUS' employee. We do not want a Jefferson, Burr, Teddy Roosevelt, Humphrey, or Cheney like VP. It only worked with Teddy because the actual President died, otherwise that would have been another catastrophe with a giant power struggle.

Walter said...

Gen. Wesley Clark

Sasha said...

Copied directly from a blog post of mine from nearly two weeks ago:

I am supporting the Governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, a genuine rancher and gun toting liberal. He has his own foreign policy.

"Why wouldn’t we create an economic engine that will take us into the next century, and let those sheiks and dictators and rats and crooks from all over the world boil in their own oil?" Schweitzer said at a press conference.

He is 52 years old, takes his dog to work in his official state S.U.V., supports abortion rights, opposes school vouchers, and hates that Real ID crap. And he is a Roman Catholic. Check him out. I think you'll like what you see.

apissedant said...

nycsox,
I like Hagel for the same reasons. If that were possible, it would truly reshape the election. It is a long shot, but I agree.
I already said why I don't like Webb, so I won't become too much of a broken record.

dan,
You don't think Biden would be too strong, liberal, and divisive? I like him, he's a great Senator, but I would like to draw something new and fresh. One good thing about him, is we would easily be able to retain his Senate seat. One bad thing, is that we would then have a ticket with two liberal northerners.

markhwebb said...

Evan Bayh (IN) would be a good choice, but there are some interesting choices out of Pennsylvania as well.

mjaroneski said...

Sasha, I have to agree with you. I like the Montana governor. He used to be on Air America all the time and I was very impressed with him.

Billy said...

Tim Kaine-- has more personality than Webb. Also a supporter of Obama from the beginning.

Brian .. The Old Wizzard said...

Jim Webb.

He compliments Barack where he needs it most - military/security. He was Reagan's Scty of Navy, has son in Iraq, etc.

He will be able to answer McCain's attacks bluntly and believably. I differ with APISSEDANT (with due respect) in that I have seen Webb on Meet The Press several times and he did excellent. And there was a very positive cover story about him in last week's PARADE insert in many local Sunday papers.

Webb wrote a book on the need for poor whites and African Americans to see how much they have in common - another area of need for the O man.

I have to add that, in my opinion, Edwards is a proven loser as a VP candidate, not helping Kerry at all - with the Swift Boat people or in his home state.

Obama / Webb is the ticket!

Amot said...

Bayh or Strickland - Obama should pick the one he has better understanding with. If he doesn't like both of them he can also choose amongst Kulongoski, Schweitzer, Lynch, Doyle and Freudental.

markhwebb said...

I, too, agree that Schweitzer is a very interesting choice, and that Webb is a better choice for Cabinet.

Amot said...

And I agree Kaine deserves some attention too, but the others should be preffered if Obama likes them.

Billy said...

The question with Bayh, Strickland, etc. is will Obama reward those who worked against him in the primaries?

Blame said...

Sebelius would do wonders for the women’s vote, but more important she is a very competent Governor.

Obama has talent but no real experience in administration. I suspect he knows more about psychology and sociology than politics. Sebelius would be a good mentor for him.

Gray Kane said...

I second the vote for Kathleen Sebelius. She shares Obama's non-divisive rhetoric and she'll strengthen his claim to the Midwest, women, and Catholics.

Also, by being a governor (one of Time's nominations for the top governors of 2005), she's out of Washington.

Reiner Wandler said...

no matter who, but the Billarys not!

Emit R Detsaw said...

First nod I would go with Selebius. Brings in possibly Ohio (grew up there and her father was a popular governor there) and Kansas. She brings strong exec power to the ticket, got the Kansas budget deficit overcome without raising taxes, and took on the insurance companies successfully.

One folks are not talking about that would help secure Penn and possibly other states like Kentucky/West Virginia would be Casey.

Personally I like Webb and Biden, but I don't think you should take strength out of the Senate at this point.

Several folks mention the need for Foreign Policy or Military background. Neither of those two areas are real jobs of the VP. If those are areas of concern (and I think Obama's positions on those are strong) you announce your cabinet positions early.

VP Sebelius
Sec of State Richardson
Sec of Defense Clark
Attorney General Edwards
Gore an Environmental post
Hagel one of the other top posts

apissedant said...

brian,
I will ask you a question I asked someone else yesterday: Name a VP that arguably won the campaign for the presidential campaign.
Edwards did not hurt Kerry. Kerry was hurt by many, many things, but not Edwards. He was successfully painted as a liberal elitist. He gave long, complicated answers that were chopped up into nonsensical silly sound bites. He did not press hard enough and show his strength. The Iraq war and the constant terrorist threats assisted Bush, as well as voting irregularities. Kerry is a good mand and a good Senator, but he was NOT a good presidential candidate. George Washington couldn't have won that election for him.
Also, I have also seen Webb on Meet the Press and other tv shows. He did just fine against wimpy little Lindsey Graham, but that isn't hard to do. He has no personality, and he is mostly lip service.

apissedant said...

For anyone thinking about Webb... please go back and read the articles from the 2006 campaign. I was here, on the ground, and let me tell you, Webb did not win that campaign. Senator Allen made more gaffes and did more stupid things than any candidate I have ever seen. Senator Allen LOST that campaign, Senator Webb won it by default. We were lucky to get it, and I would like to keep it. Like I said, he is doing no harm in Senate right now, and I do not see a replacement for him at the moment.

Marcus said...

I would be reluctant to choose a Red State senator, unless you're fairly sure you have a good Dem lined up to replace him. Obama is going to need every vote he can get to over come McConnell and his record number of filibusters.

Personally I find Sebelius to be an intriguing possibility. Obama (and McCain, for that matter) would do well to nominate a woman to capture some of the upwelling of support for a female president that Clinton's candidacy was able to bring about. Beyond that, she's a successful two term governor in a Conservative state and while the ability of the VP choice to sway people can definitely be overstated, I think she will help bring moderate voters to the ticket. The same can be said of Schweitzer, though he's running for reelection this year, so may be reluctant to give that up.

Codey H. said...

I'm enjoying the dialog this morning everyone! *long time reader, first time posting* and I'm glad to see it's not all pro-HRC talk in here.

I don't have one definite choice to post this morning, but I realize that we need a cocktail of sorts in a VP candidate to get Obama elected.

1. the poor, uneducated white vote that HRC has successfully disenfranchised from the Obama campaign.
2. The hispanic/latino vote. HRC is strong in this category. We need someone that our fastest growing population can get excited about.
3. The 'across-the-aisle' guy that can possibly pull the evangelical vote in the heavily red states.

There's a lot of needs.. And I just don't see anyone filling the void.

So we need the best of what's around for the above points, along with someone that will actually do well in the office!

loki said...

I like the Tim Kaine and Brian Schweitzer ideas. And even though John Edwards may not be strong on the attack, I think America has come to know him and generally holds him in high esteem. I also like the Chris Dodd and Joe Biden ideas but they don't deliver any states that I think will not go blue in November, anyway. Bill Richardson is an intriging idea and may do wonders to bring our Latino friends into the fold. Kathleen Sebelius and Janet Nepalitano are strong governors but I don't think they help with any states.

I think Jim Webb perfectly compliments Obama. As the former Secretary of the Navy under Reagan, he has executive and militray experience on an unimpeachable level and being a former Republican, he fits into the unity theme. The guy has 1 Navy Cross, 1 Silver Star, 2 Bronze Stars and 2 Purple Hearts. He is easily an equal war hero to Senator McCain. This pick would alleviate any perceived 'patriotism gap' through the Rust Belt. He happens to be Scotch/Irish, the exact demographic that Senator Obama had trouble with in OH, PA, KY and WV and he's literally written the book on that demographic. (Born Fighting..)
Finally, the icing on the cake, Governor Kaine can appoint another Democrat to Senator Webb's seat.

apissedant said...

emit,
I like your picks. All of those people are good, and we wouldn't be depleting our power in Senate. I really need to do some homework on Sebelius though. I'll take your word for it for now.

Does Montana have a one term limit? Why isn't the Governor running again, or is he?

apissedant said...

Senator Webb was SECNAV for less than a year before he was effectively canned. He has a lot of negatives you guys are definitely missing. He has a lot of letters and things from his military days which will only amplify the anti-woman rhetoric that HRC has created. He is WAY TO DIVISIVE. PLEASE read up on this guy. Read up on the election. I was here, I volunteered for it, it did not go well. We only won by 7,000 votes, and the opponent was shooting himself in the foot at least once a week.

apissedant said...

Selebius could help cool the anti-woman thing. This could help in all states. Webb will not get us more than a point in Virginia, Tim Kaine worked under the ever popular Mark Warner, and could easily bring more votes than Webb could. He is also a Governor, which is a positive, and already has a proven track record of being second in command and doing well at it. Webb doesn't play #2.

drmagoo said...

I lean towards one of the western governors - either Bill Richardson (my first choice) or Brian Schwietzer. Obama will run well out west, and a small bump from the right choice might turn a couple more states blue. I do think Richardson helps more with the Latino vote, but if he's not the choice, I second the recommendation of him as SecState.

smoothie said...

Heres my list

1. Strickland
(if he can deliver Ohio, he essentially is giving us the presidency)


2. Fiengold.
Not only can he deliver Wisconsin, but he would be an immediate impact to the Floridian Jewish crowd might be ablle to steal FL.)

3. Hagel
(biggest advantage is that he allows displaced consevatives to feel good about voting for Obama)

4. Sebillius/Nepolitano
(can offset what sure to be the now titled Hillary Vote)


I think Webb, Byah, and Biden are needed in the Senate. I rthink Bill Richardson and John Edwards compliment a strong cabinet, and I can forsee the same potentially for Wes Clark.

apissedant said...

I misspelled Sebelius. Ok, I take away my vote for her because I can't even pronounce her name. That just won't work, I'll walk around like an idiot for 8 years calling the VP by the wrong name.

dd42 said...

Well Edwards is my personal favorite: great name recognition and positives, a good campaigner (he only lost as the "non-historical candidate" this year). And for what it's worth, the new Survey USA polls with Pres/VP combinations has him giving Obama the greatest boost. He could also, since its close anyway, be the deciding factor in a few southern states.

Otherwise Strickland and Rendell make sense as Clinton supporters in swing states. And Richardson has not been mentioned here. He would help greatly with Hispanics, which could be the deciding factor, and could help win in NM, CO and who knows - maybe even Texas...

apissedant said...

smoothie,
love the list.

Dr. Dean said...

Richardson would be a very good vice president. Bloomberg would be a very good tactical choice. Kathleen Sebelius would be my choice.

apissedant said...

dean,
Bloomberg is another good choice. Only problem is again that whole all northern all urban ticket.

daddymak said...

Jim Webb or Chuck Hagel seem to be the obvious choices. With Hagel, you have a Republican who crossed party lines and that is a true unity ticket. With Webb, you keep it within the party. Both are strong on national security but Webb is stronger. He was a former Republican, who was Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy and Undersecretary of Defense. They both oppose any further troop escalation in Iraq. That bipartisan GI bill seems to be the deal breaker. Other than that, you have Clinton loyalists Evan Bayh, Wesley Clark, Ed Rendell, and Rod Strickland. Another wild card is General Anthony Zinni, who totally trumps John McCain on national security.

Blueberry said...

Gen. Wesley Clark is my pick. Not only is he extremely qualified, he is from the Clinton camp and could bring over some firm Clinton supporters.

This the main reason I think Richardson is an extremely poor choice. The Clinton camp already hates him, giving them all the more reason to stay home on Election Day (or worse).

I hate to say it, but Obama/Clinton is probably a winning ticket, although I don't think it would be the best for running the country.

Rich said...

Keith Olbermann

Or make him Press Secretary.

smoothie said...

apisssedant,
tks, i play around with Vp scenarios every know and again. I also have a dark horse list ..These are the Cheney like surprises..Some are known, but all would be what I consider shockers.

Dark Horse List

1. Casey
(If he can mend fences with Rendell not only does he provide a slam dunk for PA, but the working class vote can be had again)

Neg--very fresh senator

2. Schweitzer
(another person whom would apeal to working class)
Neg--really doesnt help with carrying states

3. Kaine
(for all the reason mentioned on previous post)
Neg- Not known outside of the east coast

JoshX said...

The Montana GOvernor is intriguing, but I'm not sure what states he brings along. Same with Sebelius, though her Ohio connection has value I doubt KS is going to swing. What about the current governor of NC, Mike Easley. He's well liked in the Southeast swing coastal region and as a former hillary supporter would help with that vote. In truth I don't know much about him, But being from VA I'm not a fan of either Kaine or Webb on the ticket.

Webb has the charisma of a corpse that no one has bothered to bury.

smoothie said...

i really wish we had a grass roots woman fomr the midwest who could relate to that crowd, and hammer home the Clinton Defectees...

The more I think about it, Im going to do my Kathleen Sebelius homework to.
So far, what i know of her is that.
Her dad was Gov. of Ohio..If this could somehow deliver that state, Id really like to investigate it further.

Here's a name you dont hear often...
DNC CHAIRMAN Howard Dean..

Former Gov., created the epic 50 state strategy, and has the fight in him to take it all the way. Is his position to strong as the DNC Chair that this would be to much of a stretch? I mean, I dont know how many Democrats get the endorsement of the NRA...He did

TheShackPack said...

Sebelius would be a fine choice. So would Biden. I'm sad to say that in my observations, HRC really seems to carry a malignant charge. I once thought they'd make a great team, once thought she would be great as Commander. How disillusioned I was... it's so important for each and every voter to do their research.

3investors said...

anybody other than an LBJ type like HRC who one day leak out info suggesting the DESERVE the VP spot then the next talk openly about assassinations!
A female would be preferable if HRC's "sexism" claims don't die down.

Reed said...

I for one don't want Edwards. He polled well with working white voters, but he wasn't able to carry them for Kerry in 04, and I don't necessarily see why that'd be different now.

I love sebelius like many people here, but she is entirely unknown on the national scene and won't bring KS or any other state into play. Perhaps she helps with the women vote though, but I've seen some speculation she'd infuriate Clinton supporters because she would be a less qualified female than hillary.

I think Obama can't go wrong with Richardson. He would deliver the latino vote, which would singlehandedly guarantee CO, NV, and NM, not to mention help obama in a variety of other states. He is charismatic and has foreign policy experience. Another strong choice would be Strickland, though I don't know as much about him, it seems he might secure OH and he'd be a sign of good will to Clinton by taking one of her primary people.

One last candidate I don't like is Warner -- I don't think he'd deliver VA, and he's not well known.

JoshX said...

I too think a woman might be in order. But other than Sebelius, the choices are pretty poor.
Feinstein comes to mind, but her SanFran background will just further alienate the middle, same with Boxer and Pelosi. Granholm's approval rating is in the toilet and Napolitano is from McCain's home state, so does little electorally. There is McCulski from MD, who is probably too old, and too little known. And The Sen. from Louisiana, who actually makes an intriguing choice as a pro-life catholic, however, she's needed to hold the seat in LA. There's also Koblucher up in MN, but she has less experience than Obama. Am I missing any Gov. or Sen.?

JMK

Politics said...

Chuck Hagel ... May be Democrats could add one more Senate seat in addition to getting the Hagel/Paul Republican voters.

Arian said...

Personally, I think Edwards would be the best choice. Survey USA (the most accurate polling outfit during the primary season) has started polling key states (PA, OH, VA so far) asking preferences with VP choices, and Edwards as Obama's VP pretty handily beats any of McCain's potential nominees (Lieberman, Pawelenty of MN, Huckabee or Romney) and polls better than any of the other people (Sebelius, Hagel and Ed Rendell) they paired with Obama. It's worth noting that they didn't ask about an Obama-Clinton ticket, but I don't like that ticket for several reasons- don't want to have her on the ticket after some genuinely spiteful things she's said, doesn't reinforce Obama's overall message of changing the way the game is played, and she has the potential to overshadow Obama.

I think Edwards does well because he has good name recognition and people are comfortable with thinking of him and the VP spot now. He didn't perform well in the debate vs. Cheney in 2004 but hopefully he would be more well prepared this time around and he reinforces Obama's messages and policies while bringing other good issues to the table.

jethrock said...

Tim Roemer

ireneinmass said...

I still say Webb, because Obama will be contrasted with McCain.

Who also has no executive experience. Obama can site the way he ran the campaign as an indicator of his ability to pick and manage a winning team. Which would then, incidentally, point out how McCain's been hobbled with lobbyists and beltway insiders for years...

Obama does not need a woman against McCain because McCain's policies with regards to "womens' issues" are Neanderthal.

Webb doesn't need to dazzle, Obama does that. The idea of his being new to the Senate is a plus because Obama has been characterizing his opponents as too entrenched in the old style of politics to undertake the kind of fundamental changes needed in the way things get done.

HRC has overstated Obama's "problems" with white working class voters, and in one sense that's an advantage since it opens the door for Obama to search to find someone who, on face, can address what she has very successfully defined as Obama's weakness among Democrats.

But among Republicans and Independents, and in the context of a general election, most people see McCain and think "war hero" so Obama would do well to look among his options for someone who can balance the ticket in that way.

Having just read Webb's latest book, I have to say, it sounds like he and Obama are definitely working off the same script, intuitively.

Webb is also known for his pugnacity (literally, as a former boxer, and in terms of his temperment) and some people have harped on Obama's slow boil as a possible weakness (although that always seems strained to me...)
so again I think he brings a good balance to the ticket.

This idea that a former Marine can't work on a team seems the most thin of the objections to Webb. He wasn't a general, he was a company commander. Give him an area of responsibility and ROE and he's going to deliver.

And, because I think he really does know that Appalachain subset that hasn't warmed to a candidate they don't really know, along with the fact that I think HRC WAY overstated that problem implying it to be permanent and attributing it (in code) to racism, I think if Webb is on the ticket and has that as one of his targets, just the emphasis and the time before the skeptics will lead to gains in that voter block.

Let's face it--McCain is not offering that group much by way of his economic policies, and all he's got is reputation as a war hero and a maverick. Since he's had to sell out to the party on key issues, and against a team like Obama/Webb who are both free of extensive ties to the "old way" of doing things, I think McCain would lose the edge.

So, for me it's Webb. The close second would be Hagel, who's been around a long time and would not be able to bring that "new" aspect to the ticket. But as a republican, he's got something Webb has also--he is clearly someone who can work on both sides of the divide.

Independent voter said...

Smoothie - as far as Dean?!?! I say HELL NO!!!!! He has been one of the WEAKEST "leaders" throughout this entire campaign season. Not only that, he WON'T be able to help with ANY of Clinton's supporters.

Paul Bradford said...

I think Obama should choose a candidate who shores up his weaknesses but who shares his vision of government and has been a supporter of his for a long time.

The candidate should be able to win over the votes that HRC has alienated from him -- women, Latinos, Catholics, union members -- and should have an engaging personality.

The candidate should also be serving in Congress and be the member of important committees.

Once you've defined what is needed it's easy to figure out who fits the bill, and that's Rep. Linda Sanchez (CA-39). She's had a good record as congresswoman. She's from a safely Democratic district. She's been a supporter since the early primaries.

Sanchez is Latina, she's Catholic, she has a law degree from UCLA, she's a union member, she's funny and she's as liberal as Obama. (It's time for us liberals to have an administration we can be proud of! I'm not interested in watering down Obama's presidency by choosing a running mate who'll be "acceptable" to conservatives. After we've had four years to see how great Obama is the COUNTRY will move to the left.)

Her sister, Loretta Sanchez, is also a California Congresswoman and she supports Sen. Clinton. That might help win over some of HRC's constituency.

Ruskin said...

Surprised folks have not mentioned Sen. Claire McCaskill. She would give the ticket a real shot in Missouri and solidify Sen. Obama's regional strength in Iowa and Wisconsin.

Edwards is an interesting option. His political stock seems to have increased after he left the race. My sense is that voters respect him for graciously leaving the race, but I have not seen an polling data to support that. While he did not help Sen. Kerry in NC in 2000, I think he would do a better job with the core of Sen. Obama's NC supporters in 2008.

My dark horse pick is Janet Napolitano of AZ. She is well spoken, "folksy," and would force Sen. McCain to spend precious time and money in AZ. Plus, she would add a nice regional boost to the ticket to help swing NM, CO, and NV.

Fun discussion!

Patrick said...

Gov. Janet Napolitano is more popular in Arizona than John McCain. She could make him sweat getting embarrassed in his own home state.

Foxey in Florida said...

Good Saturday morning to you all, I have been reading, first time posting, but wish to commend all of you on your positive , insightful blogging. Rare to read so many intelligent comments without the ,pro-Clinton take-overs and chip on the shoulder responses . I hope by this time in the nomination process we have learned this much from Sen. Obama's example,"To disagree ,without being disagreeable" ! I am very proud of you. I wish to reach out to any Clinton supporter to express my hope for your continued interest in seeing this Country recover from years of Presidential and Congressional neglect and gridlock. We have allow our power to be usurped by a White House gone amuck. Now is the time to put your coutry ahead of your politics,your damaged egos, your feminism, your racism your any ism . Just patriotism, which will allow you to vote at every opportunity for the "person" who will no stack the Supreme Court with more conservatives,not prolong this ill conceived,ill fated destructive war and the candidate who can and will work with all people! I wish it were possible to view the tiem whsn we are all just people who share common goals of life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Thanks for this space to express my hopes for the future. Foxey in Florida

Independent voter said...

ireneinmass - you've read his latest book. I think you need to go back and read some of his earlier "fictional" work. Some of the things that came out during his Senate bid were quite disturbing which will definitely be used against BOTH candidates.

I'm not saying I don't like him, I'm just saying there are too many negatives.

Here is just a couple of lines from earlier books of Webb's:

"A shirtless man walked toward them along a mud pathway. His muscles were young and hard, but his face was devastated with wrinkles. His eyes were so red they appeared burned by fire. A naked boy ran happily toward him from the little plot of dirt. The man grabbed his young son in his arms, turned him upside down, and put the boy's penis in his mouth."

and

"... each figure became a caricature: the monkey-faced women in their flour-sack tops and dirty black pajama bottoms, hair pulled back into severe buns, lips and teeth stained by betel nut, who began whining the moment they came within earshot."

Don said...

Edwards is the ultimate no-imagination choice. Here are ten reasons why Ed Rendell would be a much better pick:

1. Executive experience
2. More experience, period
3. KEY REASON: Reaching out to a Clinton loyalist necessary to unify party
4. Obama needs an attack dog
5. Delivers a key state, PA, and helps a lot in OH and WV
6. Rendell is Jewish — a big help in FL
7. Being Jewish also destroys that whole Muslim canard
8. He’s smart and quick on his feet
9. No “elitist” vibe
10. Outdebated Richardson

Paul Bradford said...

independent voter,

You seem to be on top of the Jim Webb situation. Where did you learn of these quotes? (The ARE disturbing!)

13ben said...

Ed Markey

...from the house of reps....

coydecoy said...

Here is a prediction I made on Feb 22 of this year for Obama's VP. It is simply an exercise in demographics.

+++

So here is my guess for Obama’s VP. My logic is as follows:

1) The VP must be a governor. Governors are an executive office, which is more closely alligned with presidency than Senators or Congressmen. Since Obama is a senator, the ticket needs balanced out.
2) Governor can’t be first term and must be older. The VP needs experience to balance out Obama’s freshness.
3) Must be from a state that typically votes Republican. This will help the ticket gain extra red states.
4) Has not already endorsed Clinton. Clinton backers lose the game. Sorry. That’s how it works.
5) Must be a white man. Sorry, as great as it would be, the ticket can’t have another minority or a women.

Here is a list of all 28 Democratic Governors to choose from:

Arizona - Governor Janet Napolitano
Arkansas - Governor Mike Beebe
Colorado - Governor Bill Ritter
Delaware - Governor Ruth Ann Minner
Illinois - Governor Rod Blagojevich
Iowa - Governor Chet Culver
Kansas - Governor Kathleen Sebelius
Kentucky - Governor Steve Beshear
Maine - Governor John Baldacci
Maryland - Governor Martin O’Malley
Massachusetts - Governor Deval Patrick
Michigan - Governor Jennifer Granholm
Montana - Governor Brian Schweitzer
New Hampshire - Governor John Lynch
New Jersey - Governor Jon Corzine
New Mexico - Governor Bill Richardson
New York - Governor Eliot Spitzer
North Carolina - Governor Mike Easley
Ohio - Governor Ted Strickland
Oklahoma - Governor Brad Henry
Oregon - Governor Ted Kulongoski
Pennsylvania - Governor Edward G. Rendell
Tennessee - Governor Phil Bredesen
Virginia - Governor Tim Kaine
Washington - Governor Chris Gregoire
West Virginia - Governor Joe Manchin III
Wisconsin - Governor Jim Doyle
Wyoming - Governor Dave Freudenthal

After eliminating Governors who aren’t in South or Midwest typically red states from these, we are left with 15:
Arizona - Governor Janet Napolitano
Arkansas - Governor Mike Beebe
Colorado - Governor Bill Ritter
Iowa - Governor Chet Culver
Kansas - Governor Kathleen Sebelius
Kentucky - Governor Steve Beshear
Montana - Governor Brian Schweitzer
New Mexico - Governor Bill Richardson
North Carolina - Governor Mike Easley
Ohio - Governor Ted Strickland
Oklahoma - Governor Brad Henry
Oregon - Governor Ted Kulongoski
Tennessee - Governor Phil Bredesen
Virginia - Governor Tim Kaine
West Virginia - Governor Joe Manchin III

After eliminating women and non-whites from these, we are left with 12:
Arkansas - Governor Mike Beebe
Colorado - Governor Bill Ritter
Iowa - Governor Chet Culver
Kentucky - Governor Steve Beshear
Montana - Governor Brian Schweitzer
North Carolina - Governor Mike Easley
Ohio - Governor Ted Strickland
Oklahoma - Governor Brad Henry
Oregon - Governor Ted Kulongoski
Tennessee - Governor Phil Bredesen
Virginia - Governor Tim Kaine
West Virginia - Governor Joe Manchin III

After eliminating Clinton backers (as of 2-22-08) from these, we are left with 9:
Colorado - Governor Bill Ritter
Iowa - Governor Chet Culver
Kentucky - Governor Steve Beshear
Montana - Governor Brian Schweitzer
North Carolina - Governor Mike Easley
Oklahoma - Governor Brad Henry
Tennessee - Governor Phil Bredesen
Virginia - Governor Tim Kaine
West Virginia - Governor Joe Manchin III

After eliminating first terms Governors from these, we are left with 3:
North Carolina - Governor Mike Easley
Oklahoma - Governor Brad Henry
Tennessee - Governor Phil Bredesen

Of these,
North Carolina - Governor Mike Easley - Born 1950 - Elected Gov 2000 - History as a lawyer beforehand.
Oklahoma - Governor Brad Henry - Born 1963 - Younger than Obama. Disqualified.
Tennessee - Governor Phil Bredesen - Born 1943 - Gov since 2003, Mayor since 1991, Started own Health Care company. Health Care, folks! And he looks so nice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Bredesen

Yes–Phil Bredesen… next VP!

Independent voter said...

Patrick,

From my understanding, the reason she is more popular is because McCain does NOT use earmarks (I lived in AZ until 2000 - no I NEVER voted for him). The residents there feel left behind because all the other states get their earmarks, therefore they are "bringing home the bacon", where he doesn't.

Paul Bradford said...

don,

I'm not so sure that your reason #7 holds. Unlike Obama, Rendell has actually praised and supported Farrakan and the Nation of Islam. Watch this video and tell me if you agree.

Stephen said...

Is it even possible that Obama could pick a VP who is not a politician, but rather someone who is inspiring for other reasons? And, if so, who could that be?

Independent voter said...

Paul, I know it is a "conservative" website, but you can view a "conservative" article HERE

From my understanding this was "young boy" thing is something done by parents over in Cambodia, but for the US, WE obviously don't understand these cultural differences.

Here are some of Webb's responses to the charges former Senator Allen leveled at Webb.

Although he was able to explain these things, it just doesn't make sense to take such a risk.

Barry Scott said...

Rendell, Bayh, Strickland are disqualified as former supporters of HRC and representatives of the "old guard". They would diminish the sense of change in direction that distinguishes Barack Obama.
I doubt that he'll use the old "we picked this person to ensure this needed state" strategy.
He will get the states he needs without such BS.
What's more, should the VP be called upon to become P, we want the closest thing we have to Obama.

Riah said...

Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas

If you don't know about her, google her and look at the news. She's recently been standing up to Republicans in her state on voters' rights and coal plants. She is a popular governor of a very red state that has been trending blue, due in no small part to her. She has a history of working in healthcare (she was the insurance commissioner before governor) and standing up to insurance companies. And her history as governor gives her some serious executive leadership that Obama is lacking. She does not have official foreign policy experience, but I do not believe Obama is lacking that anyway.

Most importantly, she and Obama see politics and government exactly the same way. That much was evident in her response to the SotUA. They have a synergy that Obama shares with only a few other people. And she would be the natural heir to his Presidency after he leaves office (not all VP candidates are like this). She is a staunchly progressive Democrat who has persuaded many Republicans and Independents to follow her. I have no doubt that she would help win by a landslide when the majority of Americans got to know her.

She is also a woman. She would be a natural fill-in for HRC supporters since HRC's ambition to become VP is pretty much dead in the water (I think it's safe to say after yesterday's charade). However, she is not the best choice nor a top choice because she is a woman--she was on the short list in 2004 as well. She ascends to the top due to her experience and temperament.

Amot said...

coydecoy,
Gov. Easley is the top choice according to my own criteria. Unfortunately it looks like he is not interested in the job (just like Gore). Bredesen should make top10, but I personally don't like the visual outlook of Obama/Bredesen ticket!

Independent voter said...

Stephen - please don't tell me you're thinking Tony Robbins....LOL

Abigail Francis said...

Anyone but Hillary

jethrock said...

Tim Roemer

This is why: Although he is pro-life (which I and many dems strongly disagree with) He won't be making that policy. Obama won't appoint anyone to the Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade. So that is a non issue. However, his being Catholic and his stance may attract some more conservative voters.

He is incredibly strong in the areas of foreign policy, national security, and particularly the Middle East, and terrorism. He was one of the "founders" of the 9/11 commission and is the current President of the Center for National Policy.

He has a strong record on the ecomomy, taxes for the middle class during his time in congress. As well as for education and other social issues that we dems care about.

He's from Indiana and would help solidify the vote in that state as well as the so-called "white working class vote"

I think having two current senators on the ticket would be a mistake. Although I like Selebius... I think National Securty and the war will trump any gender factor. I that is what the GOP is going to use against us in the genral. Barack will solidify the female vote when compared to McCain.

Rendell would bring out the wingnuts against Farakan. Bayh was way too critical of Barack. Webb??? Love Biden... but his personality would bring as many problems as benefits. Clinton --Ha!!

No one is going to have that "celebrity" factor except in there own states and will have to be introduced to the national stage period.

I don't know? Those are just my thoughts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Roemer

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-roemer/the-real-divide-we-should_b_93387.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-roemer/what-bin-ladens-audio-tap_b_102698.html

apissedant said...

coydecoy,
eliminating Kaine for being first term is silly. Virginia has a one term limit, so you could never go to the national stage from Virginia. Considering how many Virginian governors HAVE gone on to the national stage, this theory obviously doesn't work.

Smoothie,
DEAN!?!?! You were appearing so great! Dean is a party insider, a divisive liberal, and a little crazy. He does well in his current job, despite the current delegate fiasco. Leave him there, where he can do little or no harm.

whoever commented on Warner,
WARNER can deliver Virginia, Warner can deliver nearly anything. He still is not on my list for VP, because I want him in Senate. Warner enjoyed over 70% approval ratings in a Republican state WHILE raising taxes. He ushered in Kaine, and then helped us get Webb elected. He has delivered Virginia enough times to completely gain our trust.

to all those who like Webb,
HONESTLY! PLEASE! Do some homework! He was lambasted for his treatment and beliefs about women throughout the 80's and 90's. He took a handgun not just into D.C., but INTO A FEDERAL BUILDING! He refused to answer if it was the first time that gun had been illegally brought into the city. With the divide HRC is currently creating in this party, we cannot afford to have a lightning rod.

TO ANYONE WHO HAS MYSTICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT A VP DELIVERING A WHOLE BUNCH OF STATES,
It doesn't happen. Read a history book. VPs are much more likely to damage your candidacy than to help your candidacy. A hispanic will not magically give all the hispanic votes. A white will not magically give all the white votes, and a woman will not magically give all the female votes. HOWEVER, you can nominate someone to extend and olive branch, and repair a broken relationship. This would be the idea of electing a woman. Not because a woman would magically deliver the female votes, which typically go D anyways, but because there is a lot of talk about sexism. This would extend an olive branch to the women and tell them that the problem was that HRC was a woman, the problem is that WE DON'T LIKE HRC.

Avinash Robert said...

The definite top choice should be....
OPRAH! But as Obama said earlier in the campaign, "that would be a step down for her..."

How about Caroline Kennedy? She's a Harvard & Columbia trained lawyer, a director of both the Commission on Presidential Debates and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She is also an adviser to the Harvard Institute of Politics.

I think Rendell is a good pick because of the demographics of the electoral college.

I've also always thought Richardson would be very good. Domestic (Gov.) and Int'l (UN Rep) experience + Latino.

I was also believing HRC would be pretty good (as a unifying pick) until that unspeakable Bobby Kennedy line - shame on her.

Edwards had his chance - he'd be a better AG. I thought Edwards would beat up on Cheney in the '04 debates, but he was too nice... That's one thing Clinton's got going for her - she's a great attack dog.

I'm trying to think of a tough Democratic female who could be commander-in-chief. I think it would be a step down for Ruth Bader Ginsberg as well.

Bottom line: Richardson or Rendell (Hagel is very intriguing)

Gray Kane said...

Reed,

You mentioned that Clinton supporters might feel put-off if Sebelius were selected because Clinton has more experience, but that's not true. It could get spun that way, but it's not true.

Sebelius entered the Kansas House of Reps in 1986, State Insurance Commissioner in 1994 (first Dem in 100yrs), and governor of Kansas since 2002 (named one of Time's top Govs in 2005).

I realize that Clinton's stint as First Lady is its own kind of experience, but governor trumps Senate as an executive position.

The only problems I see with Sebelius are more or less unavoidable in the Dem party. As a Catholic, Sebelius got into a little tiff with her state's Archbishop over her support of abortion rights. Also, she lost a heated battle over concealed carrying permits.

Her response to the 2008 State of the Union was incredible. I realize there's more that goes into the selection of a VP, but in my mind, I selected her for Obama's VP that night, and showed the Youtube of it to friends the very next day.

Janis said...

NO HRC. She lied. End of story. (goal post mover--ends justifies the means, etc., etc.)

I think the idea that Obama needs help with military and/or foreign affairs is incorrect. I don't think a general is going to do much good--especially not W. Clark.

Sabelius's voice alone is a plus. She has gravity and a calmness that is refreshing. Too bad though that people need to get to know both O'Bama and Sabelius.... might need someone better known.

Like Hagel, but what about women's issues?

I like Webb but he needs to stay in Virginia (or the cabinet). Hate to watch him laugh...

Governor of Montana as described above, sounds like good choice.

Is McCaskill too new?

Richardson too nice? Not articulate enough.

Kaine sounds interesting. Does he help with the "God" vote? Help with the people who are "afraid" of Obama?

Rendell seems too "machine politics" to me. Prefer Casey---not dynamic enough, though.

any of above okay for "next in line"?

apissedant said...

to my fellow Virginian,
I'm not in love with Tim Kaine. He is, at best, another Al Gore, but that worked for the VP spot. He will not make a good presidential candidate, but we can just not make the same mistake of automatically nominating the VP to be the presidential candidate next time.

jane.doe said...

I second Abigail Francis: Anybody but Hillary. All in favor? All opposed? The ayes have it. ;-)

Independent voter said...

Jessie Ventura?!? LOL!!

Lighten up I was just kidding.

Independent voter said...

I have a question:

Are there ANY Democratic Senators who would normally be up for reelection this year that have decided not to run for reelection?

The reason I ask is because if there is not, we should NOT be looking at Senators. With the Republican Senators and Representatives abandoning their posts this election year, we have the opportunity to deliver a HUGE advantage to the Democrats. And we really cannot afford at this point to give up even one seat.

sabatia7 said...

Should he look for the best candidate? Not necessarily.

Anybody but Hillary, who gracious person that she is, would no doubt show any assassins to Obama's door--"What ever it takes for me to be President." I am particularly discouraged by her unwillingness to reject and denounce all the people who vote for her for racist reasons. She should be educating them, not encouraging their baser tendencies.

I think if Obama could find a woman for VP it would be helpful with all the angry women who are Clinton supporters. The smarter Clinton supporters will overcome their angry as the see the Supreme Court at stake. But the less educated women--this is Hillary's flock--will be less than enthused about any ticket without a woman an just may not vote or vote for McCain.

bluedogdem said...

"A" list. Gov. Rendell. Class act, will be a big help in securing Ohio, PA and NY for the Democrats in November, not a Washington insider, and selection will appease the Clinton zealots.

"B" list. Biden, Richardson, Edwards.

As to Webb, even though I am a Marine Corps veteran and pro-military, I regrettably must agree with apissedant's 8:20AM post.

David said...

As an NC Dem, I would say Gov. Mike Easley is not so popular (anymore). He was booed at the Jackson/Jefferson dinner for supporting Clinton before the primary. He is aloof most of the time, though personable when he chooses to be. He fought hard for the state "education" lottery which was passed by a tie-breaking vote in a surprise special session while two opponents were out of town. Then several of the Governor's people were caught in lottery scandals. The latest was recently convicted. He appointed and supported for too long Nifong, the discredited Duke LAX prosecutor. He ruined out state's mental health system leading to many deaths. He supports the death penalty despite many exonerations and clear problems, which occurred during his 8 yrs as AG and 8 years as Gov. Both Democrats running for Governor to replace him didn't mention him at all. They essentially ran against him.

Edwards is much more popular here. I think Kaine, Vilsack, or Bayh would be better. How about Dianne Feinstein CA?

Independent voter said...

janis - don't forget, we don't need an Annie Oakley chameleon.

Brian .. The Old Wizzard said...

Apissedant,
I never praised Kerry as a good candidate. He was not. I said that Edwards did absolutely nothing to help him. Nothing. Not win his own state, not defend him against the Swift Boat people, etc. In addition, he lost miserably in his VP debate against Cheney, despite being a flaunted trial lawyer.

Secondly, you seem much too negative against Webb, your best argument really amounting to the fact that you feel he is too dry personality-wise. I disagree, seeing Webb as a plain-speaking type of politician that people actually like - a truth teller.

Obama will need a bold-type of VP candidate who will get noticed and carry credentials when defending his Pres. Webb is the default here, but there are possibly others. But certainly not Edwards.

Independent voter said...

david - NO TO DIANNE FEINSTEIN! She and her husband are war profiteers and I for one am VERY disappointed in myself for voting for her.

I have a feeling that her 2012 reelection bid will be a difficult one for her. Over the past few years she has been an embarrassment to CA.

Logan said...

To all the comments that we need to pick someone "better known" nationally, I don't agree. When a pick is announced, the media will make sure every American paying attention knows everything.

How many VP picks have been made in the past where I hadn't a clue who they were before?

Kulongoski was mentioned above. LMFAO. I think not. He'd do better to pick Kitzhaber who is already dedicated to improving healthcare and much more well liked (and was more effective). The problem is Obama doesn't need help on the west coast and Kitzhaber won't help much else.

I am starting to change my mind about Hagel. IDK. Some of his policies are very opposed. I think he could be a good cabinet member or a strong ally of the WH, but I don't see him in the VP role.

I like Edwards policies, but there is something about *him* that gives me an off feeling.

I do not like Clinton for VP. She would try to overshadow Obama and that's not a good thing.

I like Jim Webb, but he has some negatives and it also makes the ticket two new Senators. Besides the obvious taking away from the Senate, you lack governing experience.

My money is on Richardson. I like him best, he has governing experience, and he's going to put the southwest in play...

jethrock said...

To anyone thinking about Rendell... forget about Chris Matthews praise of him.

Although I actually agree with Rendell's stance.. The right would kill an Obama/Rendell ticket with this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DXum_-8I1TA

Please watch

Joe said...

Stephen Colbert! He could help with the pseudo-conservative vote.

Dink said...

Sebelius

The VP candidate MUST be a woman. It will bring most of the Hillary supporters, like my 89 year-old mother, back into the fold. She is a Roman Catholic. Her father, Jack Gilligan, is a popular former Governor of Ohio. And her in-laws are Republican, so it's almost a bipartisan choice.

Independent voter said...

LOL joe - actually I prefer Jon Stewart myself.

calipinoy said...

Hillary has had more people who would never vote for her (in polls) all along than any other Democrat. With the nastiness of her campaign alienating so many of us who have worked for Obama, choosing her would be a betrayal and load the ticket with some very onerous baggage.

I would suggest Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards.

The Numantine said...

Geraldine Ferraro--appeals to the uber-feminist and racist white votes.

:)

Mac Zilber said...

From every poll that has been done, Hagel, Sibelius, and Rendell would be bad choices. Webb would be a great choice on paper, but he seems like he doesn't want to do it. He can't pick Warner because he's up for senate election this year. I was skeptical about the idea first, but John Edwards is probably the best choice for Obama. He's a southerner (helps in Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia) with low negatives who seems to help significantly in every poll that they include him on the ticket, from everywhere from the rocky mountain west to the south to Appalachia. Obama/Edwards wins Ohio by an average of 14 points, Virginia by an average of 13 points, Pennsylvania by an average of 13.5, and New Mexico by an average of 6 points.

Independent voter said...

LOL numantine - she may not vote for Obama so she would be voting against herself - LMAO

Felicia said...

Obama needs a veep to address the whole national security deficit people seem to think he has. I believe Chuck Hagel would be a good choice.

Arun Swamy said...

well i'm for richardson which no one seems to mention. In terms of offsetting Obama's inexperience no one else comes close: 14 years in Congress AND a successful two term governor; successful international negotiations and a stint as UN ambassador (foreign policy) AND secy of energy, the key issue of the 21st century. People who would be put off by having too many minorities will already be put off. And of the various groups who have been voting for HC more than BO, Hispanics are the swing group (the rest either will vote for him or wont vote for him regardless).

My second choice is Sebelius and my third is a tie: Chuck Hagel and .... George Voinovich, if he would take it! (Moderate Republican -- prochoice unlike Hagel -- opposed the war, successful big city Mayor, Governor and sitting Senator -- reducing Republicans one -- from Ohio, key swing state.)

I agree with all those who say he should pick a no one from the Senate, unless there is a safe Demo replacement which, tho it makes me gag, Hillary Clinton does have; Webb might too at least until the next election and preferably someone who might also.

Bruce Young said...

Some of you may find my list useful even if you don't agree with my rankings. I've tried to gather all the names mentioned so far here (with maybe a couple I've missed) and other names I've heard mentioned. I've put them in my own ranking, which is pretty subjective, based on a combination of ability, personality, helpfulness with the general election campaign, and other factors. Those I'm most interested in are in my first and second tiers; those under "NOT SURE" could easily rise higher if I knew more about them. (Sorry about the inconsistency in labeling--I don't have time to look up all the details.)

FIRST TIER

Ex-Sen. John Edwards, (D-NC)
Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM)
(Al Gore, but maybe too strong, independent; wouldn't take it)


SECOND TIER (some might rise to the first tier if I knew more about them)

Gov. Ted Strickland (D-OH)

Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA),
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA)

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) (I might put her higher if I knew more about her)

Nancy Pelosi


THIRD TIER

Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA)
Gen. Wesley Clark (I think he has some baggage that might be a problem; I'm not sure his personality would be the most appealing either)
Gen. Anthony Zinni (I know very little about him but am not very comfortable from what I've heard)

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE),
Howard Dean
Diane Feinstein
former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA)
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
NYC Mayor Bloomberg


NOT SURE OR DON’T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT

Caroline Kennedy (my wife's suggestion)

?Gov. Tim Kaine (D-VA),
?ex-Rep. Tim Roemer (D-IN)
?Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ)
?Ex-Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD)
?Mark Warner

?Mike Easley
?Rep. LInda Sanchez
?Phil Bredesen
?Brian Schweitzer
?Evan Bayh (though his name is well known, I don't feel like I know him)
?Sherrod Brown
?Feingold
?Boxer
?McCulski
?Koblucher
?Sen. from Louisiana

joshua said...

Samantha Power

Eman said...

Anyone but Clinton.

johncz said...

Here are my top 3 in order of preference..

1. Chuck Hagel
Pros: Veteran, Business experience, foreign relations experience, banking & housing experience (which could be helpful with foreclosure crisis), critical of iraq war and supports pathway to citizenship legislation which are consistent with Obama's views, can help deliver Nebraska and finally...he's a republican which would demonstrate Obama's commitment to changing politics as usual.
Cons: not many

2. Kathleen Sebelius -
Pros: Two term governorship experience, demographic appeal with older women and catholics and can help deliver Ohio.
Cons: No national, foreign policy, security experience that I believe is needed to balance the Obama-Whomever ticket

3. Bill Richardson -
Pros: foreign relations experience, governor (management, budget) experience and likely to help draw the hispanic american vote.
Cons: may be too progressive to see a black & hispanic american on the ticket.

jethrock said...

What I am going to say will sound very controversial on this board. So here is my disclaimer before I begin. These are not my beliefs... but we are in the middle of a truly historic election year. Where either a Woman or an African American has a real shot of being President for the first time.

To everyone that thinks we MUST have a woman on the ticket to keep the few Clinton supporters, to vote for the Democratic nominee as opposed to to voting for McCain is ludicrous. As is the "Dream Ticket"

It is going to be hard enough to get either one elected... And I know we can. But a large chunk of the population will accept one of them on the ticket... But electing both a Black Man and a Woman (no matter how strong they are) for a lot of people in this country it will simply be a little too much change for them to accept.

Again I wish this wasn't true... But not willing to recognize the struggle ahead is foolish.

Independent voter said...

bruce - I see you listed Pelosi in your second tier - I say NO. The ONLY reason I say this is because she is seen as a divisive like HRC and she is seen as a pretty ineffective speaker at this point (especially when it come to the war in Iraq).

Carlos said...

Obama should pick a teammate that re-enforces his overarching approach not someone that "fills" s void, Stephanie Herseth would be a good fit.

Independent voter said...

jethrock,

I don't think your assessment is too far off the mark (I don't think it is too much change though).

Clinton has more than a "few" supporters, she has a lot of supporters. However when people FINALLY go through the 5 stages of acceptance/mourning, the majority will come around and vote for Obama. When they finally realize that two SC justices are probably going to be up for appointment, John McCain will become their WORST nightmare. Say goodbye to the Roe decision for decades to come. And if HRC cannot deliver their vote without being on the ticket, then SHE is NOT the leader she claims to be.

apissedant said...

Brian,
although polls don't mean too much now, they do mean something. Edwards is doing just fine. Secondly, I would have you go back again, and read news articles about the debate. He did not do excellent, but he held his own, it was definitely not miserable.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/05/debate.main/index.html
Please check your facts before blogging. The second google link (the first is just a transcript) says that Edwards won among independents and Democrats, while Cheney only won among a Republican audience. This is CNN, it isn't MSNBC, or Fox news, it is the news source that resides in the middle.
Gore didn't deliver Tennessee for Clinton, if he had, he might of won it in 2000 too. Clinton was from next door, and they liked him.
In 1996, Clinton won by over 200 electoral votes, and he STILL lost North Carolina. Having a democratic VP candidate from Alaska or Indiana would just as easily result in a loss in those states.

I said way more issues with Webb than just being dry, although he is that. Again, I was here, in Virginia, campaigning during that election. I remember all the negatives, and I realize that they will most definitely work against Obama because of the current male/female divide. PLEASE GO DO RESEARCH. Watching a man debate an idiot with a girly voice on "Meet the Press" for 30 minutes does not mean you know a candidate.
I was there at the very beginning, I have personally asked him questions and spoken with him. I remember at "Marker 20s" he was asked about gun control. He responded that the second amendment guarantees people the right to bear arms in order to protect themselves.
I raised my hand and asked how AK-47s and automatic weapons could be used for self protection. He stumbled, evaded the question, and gave a non answer. This was a room full of 20 people, who all supported and volunteered for his campaign. If he can't handle questions by friendlies, if he can't give honest, straight forward answers to the people volunteering for him, how will he stand up to the Republicans?
I have also have had numerous Veterans Assistant issues that I have attempted to resolve him. This is the point of the local offices that they set up throughout their states. I have emailed his office on several issues, and attended town hall meetings that he had on the issues. He, and his staff were evasive and unhelpful. HE IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE MAN THEIR FOR THE VETERANS. I ended up going to my Republican representatives to fix my issues. They fixed the errors in less than two hours, and gave me straight forward honest answers, whether I liked them or not. As a life long democrat, a volunteer for his campaign, and a fellow veteran, I was more than a little put off by this.
He can give a good thirty second answer, but he can't stand up under scrutiny. It saddens me that John Warner is retiring, because I would much rather have a Warner/Warner representation in the Senate than a Warner/Webb. People aren't good just because they are Ds, and people aren't bad just because they are Rs.
I would still volunteer for his campaign again. He is much better than Allen was, but he has in no way earned my vote if a good candidate from either party comes along again.
I am not alone in this. I have many democratic friends in this state who are not in any way impressed by him, but they voted against Allen, not for Webb. If he can't even win over Ds, how will he help pick up others?

Independent voter said...

carlos, although I don't know much about her, just reading a little about her, I would have to say that for today's political climate, people say that Obama at 46 is too young to be president. She is 37 years old, ya I can see that going over REAL well with the "older" voting bloc.

Amot said...

Jethrock,
what you said make sense! A made the same statement 8 days ago! when we were discussing VP at Open Thread. My rule numner one was "No woman on the ticket"!

Lorenzo Sadun said...

Not Hagel, please. I have nothing against the man, but putting a Republican on the ticket is just inviting a right-wing crazy to try to knock off Obama and hand the White House to the GOP. The last time we had that sort of "unity ticket" was in 1864.

I like Richardson, Strickland, or Clark, all of whom have experience that Obama lacks, all of whom appeal to important constituencies, and (most important!) all of whom would be credible presidents if something awful happened.

jethrock said...

Independent voter,

I agree with you. When I said "few" I meant her supporters that would switch to McCain... which I think are few-- for the very reasons that you stated.

best--j

FredNietzsche said...

Does anyone really vote for Vice-President? Did Dan Quayle, Geraldine Ferraro, Spiro Agnew, Lloyd Bentsen, or John Edwards swing any votes? Having said that, I think Hillary as VP candidate would alienate a lot of Obama supporters and hand McCain a host of "issues" to distract the electorate from what really matters. It certainly make me question the wisdom of Obama and his team. I think what's important this year is a VP candidate who, like Obama, represents a break with politics as usual.

Independent voter said...

Jethrock - oops my bad! Sorry about that, I completely read it differently than your intent. Sorry again.

James said...

Hillary Clinton has received about half the votes. About .05% of the total delegates separate them. I'd be greatly offended if Barack Obama didn't go through some act of reconciliation. Not that he hasn't been overtly unfair to Clinton, but his supporter have. I believe Clinton should be added to the ticket... and to the Obama supporters who say that will cost their support so be it... you must not have believed in him a great deal anyway.

The Numantine said...

A Republican would be nice, but not Chuck Hagel. Sure he's got the right position on Iraq, but Obama already has that, and Chuck has a 100% anti-choice rating from the NRLC--not something I could ever support.

How about Ron Paul? He has a hardcore group of supporters in the Republican Party who would support him as an Independent candidate for President--Why not as VP for Obama? He has a mixed slightly anti-choice record with a 56% NRLC rating, but I think I could live with that. He is also an agent for change and would fit the campaign philosophy nicely.

As for Democrats, I would list Sebelius, McCaskill, Richardson and Biden among my favorites.

jethrock said...

Amot,

My point was not "No woman on the ticket"!

I would personally love it depending on who it was.

My point was to the people saying we "MUST" have a woman on the ticket to attract Clinton's supporters. And to point out that we still have a fight ahead of us in November.

Independent voter said...

james - Obama has MUCH better judgment than adding HRC on the ticket.

Sorry to disappoint.

johncz said...

Lorenzo Sadun, Hagel is a moderate...and the middle is the direction Obama needs to head. No catering to far left or far right. A unity ticket would shake things up...and get people to start thinking differently.

As far as your other picks. Clark to me is too whimpy. I like Richardson, though it might be too progressive. Strictland, after his head shakin support of HRC...my impression of him is that he would be the equivalent of a Dan Quayle..then again, that would guarantee that we don't have a Dick Chenney type who uses the VP post to run things.

von said...

James you may want to check your math. Obama leads by substantially more than .5% of delegates

Independent voter said...

Someone suggested a non-politician earlier and I kind of made fun of it by saying "Tony Robbins" - AS A JOKE ONLY!

However what he said made some sense. Why not someone like Joel Osteen?

I for one am an Atheist, but I really like Osteen. I know he likes to remain A-Political in his messages and doesn't advise his congregation politically, but WOW! Who couldn't vote for him?

I know it would be a VERY LONG SHOT, but I think it would be really interesting, unprecedented (which is what this campaign is all about) and Osteen is inclusive of everyone. I also don't think he would use the position to indoctrinate.

Anyway, yes one CAN dream, can't they? LOL

apissedant said...

carlos,
I totally agree, but if you can have a candidate that helps heal wounds AND fits in with the "change" message, wouldn't that be even better?
As far as the military experience, Bush won in 2000 claiming he had military experience through his dad. Gore had more experience, though his was quite limited as well. Clinton won in 1992 and 1996 with no experience at all, both times against decorated veterans.
In 2004 we had a highly decorated veteran, who was praised by all that worked under him. Those that worked above him had written records of praise, whether they were willing to admit it in 2004 or not. Despite this, they lost to people who not only didn't have war experience, but had already proven incompetent to manage a military. In 1976, we elected Carter. He was a nuke, which isn't really the military at all. All nukes do is stare at gauges, they don't carry guns, or march, or do any of that military stuff. Besides this, he spent a grand total of 7 years in, much of it furthering his education after completing the academy. He advanced to a grand total of Lieutenant. This is an 0-3, and he started as an 0-1. He got a grand total of two lousy promotions.
In 1960 and 1964, we again won without war experience. Go back to 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. Only in 1948 did we win with a truly military candidate, and his experience was still quite limited.
So basically, only once in the past 100 years has a Democrat actually won that had any significant military experience. Let's not focus too much on military experience, it hasn't done us any good in the past.

apissedant said...

the nunamtine or something like that,
The idea is "change," not "regression." Ron Paul is completely out there and disagrees with almost all important Democratic initiatives. He disagrees with almost all important Republican initiatives. He just wants to get rid of government. You don't elect someone to disband the government. He is an isolationist, and he is against any type of social programs. He is against the National Bank, and every time we disband that, we have horrid economic ramifications. Check the panic of 1837. He isn't a legislator, he's that crazy uncle that tells the silly stories.

smoothie said...

I just real all 100 comments.
Let me first start by saying that I apologize for the Dean thing. That was me looking at his current work, and not his past.
I think the names that are coming up the most are coming up for one reason and one reason only. Executive experience. Lets look at the choices..

1. Kathleen Sebelius

2. Bill Richardson

3. John Edwards..

4th. Rendell/Strickland

This to me means a couple of things.

1st. We HAVE TO UNIFY THE PARTY. CLINTONISTAS ASIDE, WE ARE SERIOUSLY GONNA NEED SOMEONE TO BRING THE LEGITIMATE BASE SHE HAS, BACK..

2nd. The list above has 5 governors.

3rd. independent voter not withstanding, I have maintained that Webb is better served in the senate..Though, to be honest, those book lines scare the life outta me, and im a democrat.

4th. Any pick of someone who was a war hero is basically saying that we dont really exect BARACK to be a player in his foriegn policy. Barack has made it clear that he can lead and delegate with a cabinet. Hence the reas[on i dont have clark, zinni(who has made some controversal comments in the past about jews) Hagel or webb up there.

To me, I think Obama is gonna duke it out between Sebelius and Strickland. Both are popular and have Ohio Roots. I stand firm in my belief that this state as it did in 04 will decide the election


With that said, I say Sebelius.

The Clintonistas get there gal, (or atleast someone they can try to relate with)

We get someone who shares Baracks Message, and most importantly, we tell the party that 2 of its strongest bases are being fully represented.


If he picks strickland I wont be mad, but Sebelius is probably gonna be rthe safer choice.

AxmxZ said...

Webb seems to be an optimal choice to enhance credentials and electability, but of course, it all depends on how well they click.

Leah said...

To all the people that have mentioned Rendell and Hagel:

Rendell and Hagel would be a BAD choice because:

RENDELL was a at dinner in 'honor' of FARRAKHAN. There is a video of it on YouTube.com on the video Rendell is 'praising' Farrahkan. The Republicans would bash Obama with the video.

HAGEL is Republican. If anything happened to Obama then Hagel would be president and the Republicans would have control of the White House. The Dems aren't going to let Hagel be VP.

My choice for VP -
Governor Kathleen Sebelius. Governor, right age group, woman, has family roots in Ohio.

.

jethrock said...

National Security, Foreign Policy and the Economy are going to be the main issues in general election.

McCain and crew have already started to attack Obama on that front, and they've only just begun.

Obama needs to pick someone that can reinforce his strengths in foreign policy and it doesn't have to be someone from the military... but with sound thoughtful foreign policy experience and knowledge that can debunk all of McCain's claims.

That's why I think that Tim Roemer is the best name I've heard being thrown around so far.

khassani said...

I'm very excited about this thread, b/c the veepstakes is all I really want to talk about. Plus, there's the added bonus of excluding the HRC trollers.

For those of you advocating Kaine: keep in mind that Virginia votes independently for governor and lt. gov., and sometimes, including right now, you have them from different parties. If Kaine is the VP, VA will have a GOP governor for a year.

Independent voter said...

khassni....LOL.....that affects the rest of us how???????? LOL

Ron said...

Jim Webb seems by far the best choice. Bright guy, independent, ex-secretary of the navy (under Reagan!), southerner and served in the military himself

Independent voter said...

Ok, the person I'm going to state makes some sense. She is a RABID Hillary supporter, she is a two term representative from Florida, she is on the appropriations committee, as well as on the judiciary committee and serves as the Chief Deputy Whip.

She has been especially rabid in getting Florida's delegation seated.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. If she were to just face John McCain, she would give him a heart attack (beings how he is one breath away from having one.)

Travis said...

Putting Clinton aside, John Edwards would help most getting votes, and according to the VP matchups SurveyUSA has been polling, Sebeulus (sp) would help the least in those matchups.

He needs to choose someone who will as much as possible guarantee a win in Ohio or Florida, Obama can love the 50 state strategy, he can play it til election day if he wants, but winning Kansas isnt going to happen, winning Utah wont happen, winning Mississippi wont happen.

Give the 50 state love, but focus on 271 electoral votes, Ohio or Florida locks that in.

apissedant said...

khassani,
1, We have a one term limit here, so we have to get a new candidate for Governor anyways. Creigh Deeds is a moderate that lost AG by 200 votes, and he might be able to step it up within a year. 2, Virginia keeps loving legislation through Constitutional amendments, and that takes two years anyways. We have a slight majority in the state senate, so basically we would be gridlocked for one year. We effectively are now anyways, so nothing really changes. All Virginia has been doing since Kaine took office is banning gay marriage, giving wealthy dead people tax breaks, and of course writing, and then promptly repealing laws. We wouldn't be losing much.
Sebelius or Kaine. Neither will hurt the ticket. Both should be able to give a slight bump, and at least in a few swing states.

Webb was SECNAV for 9 months, I WOULD NOT EVEN LIST A 9 MONTH JOB ON MY RESUME.
INTERVIEWER: Oh SECNAV, impressive!
Webb: Thanks, I worked hard for that position.
INTERVIEWER: Oh, only 9 months, why so short?
Webb: My boss thought I was an idiot, and I didn't really like him either.
INTERVIEWER: Well thanks for coming in.

Paul said...

Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano or Bill Richardson Governor of New Mexico.

When Janet ran for re-election as Governor back in 2006, she got 67% of the vote in this VERY Red state.
This shows that she appeals to both Democrats and Republicans.
She could also satisfy a lot who want to see a white woman added to the ticket. Janet is LOVED by more Arizonans than John McShame!

After Hillary's RFK comment she doesn't even deserve her Senate seat from NY.

jethrock said...

Independent Voter--

That is truly funny. I think Debbie would give the majority of America a heart-attack, and a gas-tax holiday, not to mention free Coppertone for everyone.

smoothie said...

Just read the entire of Sebelius' wilki

She's pro-military, about to hit her campaign Limit (cant run for gov. after 2010) and was one of the 8 in 08 (list of females who could make a SERIOUS run for the whitehouse.)

Moderate reoublicans in her homestate LOVE HER.
She won re-election by 17 points in a state were 50% of the voters are registered republicans.

Once again, the Clintonistas get there gal, and I'll take it a stpe further, There's no doub in my mind that she would probably have made a decent go at in this yrs elections.

Did I mention she was once a magistrate judge?

Oh, and if it matters, she a hunter..

If we dont get her now, more then likely she'll end up in the senate going after Brownback chair fomr a term and a and a half and running again in 2016 anyway. (this of course is under the assumption that Barack serves 2 terms)

I am now on this bus. Lets ride Obama/Sebelius to the whitehouse..

ps. VP's do have a debate, the moment she's on the national stage projecting a STRONG FEMALE VOICE echoes BARACKS veiws, I think this will clinch the Female vote Dems plan to carry anyway, but will squelch the few out ther planning there HRC write in campaign.
I believe strongly that this election will be close. We dont need them adding to Naders thievery..

read her wilki and prove me wrong.

apissedant said...

No one knows Sebelius yet, so of course she doesn't give him much of a bump. That is why you examine her record and character, and determine whether people will like her once they get to know her. Remember, no one knew Clinton in 1992 either.
Edwards is great, I like him too. I'm sticking with Sebelius, Kaine, or Edwards for now.

Independent voter said...

LOL - jethrock! She probably could give us all a heart attack - even me and I'm only 36!

True on the coppertone! Speaking of, I need to get some more - I'm looking a little pale these days (and I live in San Diego) :(

Robyn said...

Zinni.

Obama does not seem interested in a 50 plus one strategy that choosing a Strickland or a Rendell would be consistent with. He wants a 50 state appeal. He wants to pull in disaffected Republicans. He wants a mandate. To do that he needs to reach to the Dem core and Hillary supporters less than he needs to shore up his credibility in reaching across the aisle and in military expertise. Zinni called the mistake of Iraq from day one. He sees how global climate change is a security risk. He attracks the Lugar/Hegel/Powell Republican crowd and the swings. He is from PA I believe and will help there but most of all he compliments Obama's storyline with action. By choosing him Obama shows he means business as a post-partisan without the conservative baggage of say a Hegel.

smoothie said...

Independent Voter,

If he would even think about Wiesermann Shultz aka Lil Hillary, Im sending Nader my check the very next day!

She's very reactionary, to stereotypical and currently isnt even supporting some dems in her own state who are challenging chairs near hers.

To quote Cartman: Kyles moms a ------ well you get the picture..I feel strongly that DWS is a BAAD Choice..Part of me wanders if she'll even go out there and campaign for Obama..
Guys I keep seeing John Edwards, he's a c abinet guy. Look for him to be the AG, or possbily Same for HHS chair.

For those who continue to argue the white male vote, keep in mind DEMOCRATS have not won this vote in quite some time. Dating back to Kennedy. We just have to be competitve with that vote.

There are conservatives out there ripe for the picking. If we can get them into the fold, I say take it.

Independent voter said...

LMAO smoothie......I was just throwing it out there......moreso to see what type of reaction I would get.

You have to admit though, she just as rabid if not more of than the person she is supporting.

taralexamin said...

I am an ardent follower of this election from Scotland. For what its worth the election will not be won or lost on foreign policy. it will be won or lost on the economy and that is a stick on for Bloomberg. Old news but effective.

apissedant said...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10594_Page2.html
Possibly already posted, but a great link on Kaine, Webb, and Warner. It comes to the same basic conclusion that I have: Webb didn't win, Allen lost. Warner is best suited to deliver Virginia, but he has an almost guaranteed spot in Senate that would go to a Republican if he went for VP. Kaine isn't bad, but he doesn't have the draw of Warner, and may not be enough to pull the state.
It also states a point brought up by another, that it will doom myself and my fellow Virginians to Republican leadership.
Lastly, it concludes with saying placing Jesus on the VP spot will not deliver the election. A good VP candidate is a nice bonus on a ticket, but this would at best be a tiny bump. A VP does not make a ticket, though a VP does have the ability to destroy a ticket.

apissedant said...

robyn!!
You're silly! All he has to do to get a mandate is lose by less than 500,000 votes! So if he wants his mandate, the equation should be 50%-50,000. If we then apply HRC math to GWB math, we should be good with roughly.... 3 votes. He needs 3 votes. He has Edwards, Richardson, and himself, right off the bat. As far as I can tell, he already is POTUS, and he has his mandate.

revdave said...

great conversation

I'd like to hear more on non-politician ideas.

Also how about a mod/Republican/woman/older 3x- Senator: Olympia Snowe

Amot said...

Jethrock,
I would like to see a woman on the ticket too, but in 2012 when Obama gets reelected! I mean there are basically two approaches for the VP slot and the general message of the ticket - either 'Great change' or 'Change balanced with experience and traditions'. Obama's own message of change is so strong that I think he doesn't need VP to strengthen it (I actually don't see any way to strengthen it). The problem is the voters want change but are afraid of changes. So I vote for the balance. I hope you have read the whole post I linked in my message. I believe a woman can actually damage the ticket more than helping it. Sad, but fact. Most Clinton supporters will vote Obama and the bitter ones will note vote for him if another woman is on the ticket. Plus many bigots will not vote for AA/woman ticket. Women must get elected at top ranks and when in 2012 Obama is the established candidate he should pick a woman for VP. This comes with his own message of change and with the believes of Dems. In 2016 we can see the 2012 ticket with changed positions :)

Blame said...

There might be lots of good reasons for electing Richards but poll results are not one of them. The polls only show that Richards has name recognition. Every other candidate increases the “Don’t Knows”, but has little impact on McCain’s share. May I point out that Hillary had name recognition, but Obama didn’t when this started. Whoever is appointed as running mate will become well known fast enough.
The polls show one thing though. There are an awful lot of states that go blue with a little push. I think general popularity will be more important than carrying a particular state. Lack of negatives might be more important than positives, given that this election is the Democrats to loose.
There is a lot of talk about this being a “Change” election. I disagree. I think the key word is going to be “Competency”. America is not just doing badly, it is risking terminal decline. Much of that will be blamed on Bush’s incompetence.
Add to that we have two Senators running whose competency can be easily challenged, if only because they are Senators and not Governors. Obama’s policies lack detail, and McCain doesn’t even pretend to understand economics. Obama lacks experience and McCain has lots, but how much of it is up to date?
So what Obama needs above all things is a VP who has proven management experience, and who we can expect to pass that experience to Obama without damaging his authority. Think older Governors, but avoid egotists.
Kathleen Sebelius is my choice, but I am sure there are others.

apissedant said...

Changing VPs between the first and second term is not really an accepted practice anymore. That would be met with great skepticism. What's more, the idea isn't to bring in a "change" VP candidate to strengthen his "change" message, but instead to validate it and show that he's not, "just some pretty speeches." Everyone here is requiring experience, integrity, and intelligence. We are just going one step further, and expecting more of the VP. We want a VP with all these typical items, AND one that is without a doubt not spoiled and corrupted by Washington and our current political system. A candidate who is willing to make intelligent changes instead of giving positions away to lobbyists and large contributors. A candidate that will, and has followed through with lofty goals and ambitions, instead of campaigning on being a uniter, and then running one of the most divisive and partisan presidencies in recent history.

Dave said...

Colin Powell. Think about it...

apissedant said...

People need to post more so we can start on 201. I am tired of seeing Jim Webb right on top whenever I come to this post.

Independent voter said...

LOL pissed ant

Robyn said...

As has been pointed out, people do not vote for the VP, they vote for the President. The VP choice works best by complementing the narrative that the Presidential nominee wants to tell.

Know the narrative and the VP choice follows.

So what is Obama's preferred narrative? Then who best fits that narrative without excessive baggage and with somewhat of the same as Obama's worldview?

khassani said...

Amot,

Changing VPs after one term hasn't been done in over a generation. It would make a lot of news if it were to happen, and maybe not in a good way.

I disagree w/ the argument that a AA/woman ticket would be a bad thing. I think the primary has shown that people are excited from not only policy change but also change in what candidates look like. Voter turnout among AAs and women has been exceptionally high. Add together AA and woman, and you get like 57% of the population. Obviously, not all will vote for the ticket, but it's not like white men will against the ticket just b/c they're not represented... at least not many who would vote for Dems otherwise.

Independent voter said...

Dave,

I agree. The only problem with Powell is that he assisted in getting us into the mess we are in today with Iraq.

However, he did publicly state that he was against going in and did his job as he was ordered to do. The only down side to this is that this could show him to be simply a "yes man" - which wouldn't look good with the message of opposing view points.

smoothie said...

jim webb was high on my list at first...but i think he's right where he belongs...

and that line about little boys is scary...i like that he would instantly debunk mccain in mil cred.., but bare in mind webb or mccain wii never debate , hence they will neer share a stage..


if i were mccain, id point to webb as a sign that you are inexpiereced and saught this guy to bosot your cred on national sec.

Rest assure, Johnny's pickin a gov. Most likely flippin Mitt..
we need spmepne who can debunk his sure to be economic claims...

Catherine said...

"ireneinmass" has made the excellent case for the excellent Webb, esp. re campaigning. Also, anybody looked at intrade on this lately? Or noticed the exact message-coordination between Webb and Obama in the last week? Or gone back and watched his response to the State of the Union in 07?

The big no-no-no (after the obvious one) is Rendell. Rendell is an old-guard machine democrat (he's run Philly, PA, and the old DNC) who is really disliked outside Philly. People who think he will deliver any portion of PA not already going to Obama are seriously mistaken. Also, there's got to be at least *some* chemistry on a team like this, and there is none at all in this ticket.

For this last reason Bayh, Strickland, & Vilsack are also non-starters.

Obama-Webb!

Independent voter said...

smoothie,

I think McCain is picking either Mitt or Crist (FL)

revdave said...

Come on Obama/Olympia 08 has a certain ring to it!

Allyn said...

Kathleen Sebelius for VP. A governor generally has good organizational skills. A woman on the ticket would probably appeal to women voter's. ("it not now, when, if not Hillary, who"). It would get rid of the Hillary stink.
Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Webb, Gore, etc. all good per various Cabinet posts. Clintons' out..... no governorship, Supreme Court, etc. Time for new leadership. "The King is dead, long live the King".

Leah said...

Three reasons it will NOT be Powell:

1) He said he does not want to be VP and his wife does NOT want him to be VP.

2) His involvement in the Iraq war.

3) America is not ready for two AAs to be on the same ticket.

H
Obama/Sebelius '08
P
E

chazzg said...

Richardson is the only choice in bringing unity to the country. Unfortunately Hispanics and African-Americans have not gotten along together very well. Selecting Richardson would go a long way to healing the division between them. Also, as VP - Richardson would have a higher position than Sect of State and - I believe the right person to work on building the relationship for "Latin America" that Obama discussed in the Obama Latin America speech in Miami.

smoothie said...

indy voter,
im bettin Mitt.. appeals to those who claim to be REAGAN NEO-CONS..

Outside of Flippin Mitts gov. exp.
he'cc carry possibly nev. and maybe put col. in play..It doesnt help that the FLDS is getting alot of attention now, but as an ex mormon, there's no doubt in my mind they'll play that down...

I think if there's one thing we can all agree on is that Obama has always picked wisely no matter the choice. If not Sebelius, surely, his campaign will have someone who is compliments him perfectly.

apissedant said...

There is no one better than Warner to go up against Mitt Romney, but again, the loss of a great Senator is not worth it. Edwards can hold is own against anyone. He can do battle on a financial basis, though it won't be his strong suit. When the topic switches over to his populist issues, he will easily beat Mitt. At worst a draw, and Obama can beat McCain straight up, so no problem. Mitt can't keep his lies straight, so as long as we get an honest guy without too much dirt, we'll be good.
I don't see that strength in Kaine, so with him I would want to keep the spotlight on Obama as much as possible.
Bloomberg is unbeatable with any Republican VP. He will talk economic circles around any of them.
I do not know Sebelius well enough to make any claims at all on this, but in the end, it doesn't matter. There is typically only one VP debate, and people don't really vote for a VP anyways. All any of them have to do is not look stupid and have a good record. All 4 can cover that.

hopper said...

Ed Rendell? NO!! If he is put on the ticket the rest of the General will be spent on
THIS......

Letters from Ralph said...

The most important attribute of a vice presidential candidate is to enlarge the presidential candidate’s coalition which is how we will win this election. The importance of broadening the coalition cannot be over stated. We base Democrats are not a majority. We need to broaden our appeal to decline to state and moderate Republican voters in order to put together a large enough coalition to win.

There are a number of good possible vice presidential candidates that can do this and they have been well documented above in this blog

hopper said...

apissedant said... @ 1:55pm

"A VP does not make a ticket, though a VP does have the ability to destroy a ticket."

Well said. I couldn't agree more.

Amot said...

Well I would like to see a woman running for President after Obama's terms. But if Sebelius is chosen for VP she will be 68 years old in 2016 and will be the second oldest President. BTW there are reasons why VP can be changed for the second terms; the most obvious one - if Obama gets someone much older on the ticket, he can simply retire in 2012. Also I believe AA/woman ticket will get both sexists and racists to vote McCain and the bitter truth is there are a lot.

Finally, 9 VPs became Presidents due to death or resignation of the President. This is not a small percentage, especially of the light of Sen. Clinton's wishful thinking about summer problems with the nominee. An ex-Republican, Republican or centrist will not be a wise choice!

khassani said...

chazzg,

Unless he's another Cheney, Richardson would have a greater role in foreign relations as Sec. of State than as VP, but I do agree that having a AA/latino ticket would do wonders for the future of the party.

Me said...

James, I would agree with you, if not for the fact that Hillary has been burning all of the bridges herself. Everything has been telling her that the race is over for several weeks now. Some of her own supporters have publicly spoken out asking her to exit the race gracefully. And in spite of that she continues on, with her dubious efforts to change the rules of the contest in the middle of the game. With her pandering to racist voters and trying to spin it as "I'm the person who white people want". With her complaining about sexism in the media, and trying to play herself as a victim. She is causing damage to the party and to Obama through her childish actions, and she needs to willingly stop for there to be any sort of reconciliation.

There's no reason for Obama to reconcile anything with Clinton so long as she continues to refuse to meet him halfway like this. If she does the mature thing, and bows out gracefully, then sure, they should reconcile in some public way. But if she persists with her "I lead the popular vote if you count things exactly the way I want you to count things" and her "maybe Obama will be assassinated" crap, then she doesn't deserve anything from Obama.

Independent voter said...

To me - No not ME, me! LOL

you wrote, "with her dubious efforts to change the rules of the contest in the middle of the game.......There's no reason for Obama to reconcile anything with Clinton so long as she continues to refuse to meet him halfway like this"

Her dubious efforts to change the rules in the middle of the game? It is now the last minute of the game and she's still trying to change the rules.

I see no need to reconcile anything either, especially since she has gone on a spending spree like none other in our nations history, well beyond Bush Jr.

tmess2 said...

At this point, I don't have specific person in mind because a lot depends upon how this campaign winds down.

In my dream scenario, after the RBC meets next week, Clinton does a press release accepting the RBC decision as giving a proper voice to the voters in Michigan and Florida and expressing relief that the issue has been resolved.

Following that Obama goes over the new number (preferably on June 3rd but if not by the end of the week) and Clinton concedes.

The next week (the week of June 9th), Obama meets one on one with all of the former candidates but Mike Gravel. At the end of each meeting, there is a little press conference at which it is announced that they all discussed their roles in helping Obama win in the fall and potential vice-presidential candidate. At these press conferences, each of the former candidates declares that they told Obama that they thought someone else other than themselves should be the vice-presidential candidate.

Obama then gets to spend the remainder of June sorting through and vetting potential candidates and draws up a short list. In early July, he meets with four or five potential and names one of them around July 21st.

At that point, the general options are: 1) a former Clinton supporter to unify the party;

2) someone with military or foreign policy experience to say that McCain is wrong; or

3) someone with experience as a governor.

apissedant said...

Washington Post has floated giving HRC a SC nomination, and it may have been floated here. At first it made sense to me, but the more I think of it, the more I dislike it. I honestly don't want a SC that will twist rules, laws, and the constitution to fit what they like best. I want an SC that will interpret the constitution in the way that's best for the country. I don't want a liberal version of Thomas or Scalia. What do others think?

Tamara said...

Jim Webb

jethrock said...

Here's one reason why Timothy J. Roemer would be a good VP pick:

http://www.cnponline.org/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/1310

apissedant said...

WHEN HAS MILITARY EXPERIENCE EVER WORKED OUT FOR THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE!?!?!
Someone defend their belief that military experience is needed. Please give me some historical figures that show democrats fairing better because of military experience. I can only think of 2 democratic presidents in the past 100 years who had ANY experience. One of them lost reelection. Going back further, it doesn't get much better. Monroe and Jackson are the only two I can think of. So in the entire history of this party, I can only name 4 presidents with military experience.
Here is someone else's opinion:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3329591&mesg_id=3329591

apissedant said...

Ok, I missed JFK. Another Navy boy, which means no combat. He was a hero though, I'll give him that. Doesn't matter, he was a Kennedy.

James said...

If there isn't a great deal of reconciliation then in November when Obama is the nominee he will wish he had not slammed the door on Clinton supporters.

There are over 4,000 delegates and he has a lead of about 200... so my math was not wrong when I said he is leading by .05% of delegates.

If Obama's Judgment is ignoring half his party lets see if he wins.

Independent voter said...

pissed ant,

I have to somewhat agree with you. Democrats have the tendency to use logic and reasoning, Republicans have the tendency to use their guts to make decisions (cowboy tactics). So ya, I would have to agree with you that military experience is not going to be the biggest issue.

The only reason Iraq is going to be a big issue come Nov. is because of the drain it has had on the economy. McCain is going to try to make it a "national security" issue while Obama will keep joining the economy and Iraq - hence sewing Johnny to Bush together every time McCain tries to make it a national security issue.

Remember, Obama got in a good dig earlier this week. Saying that McCain isn't interested in helping veterans by assisting them to get an education after they return home. It was a GOOD dig at that.

Independent voter said...

james, he is "slamming the door" as you are saying. She slammed the door on herself weeks ago when saying that McCain would be a better president, couple that with her remarks yesterday, WOW!

jethrock said...

Here is another article by Tim Roemer

It would be awesome to have someone as thoughtful as this in the VP slot:

How to Fix Intelligence Oversight

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121901853.html

James said...

She never said McCain would be a better president. She raised an issue of Obama's experience vs. McCain to point out a potential weakness of Obama. This was done in a competitive primary.

On the topic of RFK... his own son said this:

“It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June. I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband's 1992 race, both of which were hard fought through June. I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense.”

How does this disqualify her for the spot?

Adding Clinton can heal the division.

RS said...

@james:
Your decimal is off - Senator Obama leads by 5%, not 0.05%.
Anyway, unity is a two-way street. Senator Clinton's statements are not helping any.

To the post at hand: Governor Sibelius, or Governor Bredesen look good. [Thanks, coydecoy, for pointing him out.]

jethrock said...

The more I read by this guy the better I think he would be... Imagine having a VP that so strongly believed in oversight.

Wow what a thought.

read the following:

Too Much Executive Power
by Tim Roemer

http://www.cnponline.org/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/1295

Me said...

James, your position is one-sided to a fault. You seem to feel the Obama is to be held accountable for everything, and Clinton for nothing. For example:

"If there isn't a great deal of reconciliation then in November when Obama is the nominee he will wish he had not slammed the door on Clinton supporters."

What about Clinton slamming the door on Obama (or more accurately, Clinton repeatedly trying to crush Obama's head in the door)? Reconciliation requires the cooperation of both parties, and there's not much Obama can do to reconcile things if Clinton does not want to cooperate. And with her current behavior, Clinton is showing that she is still not ready to cooperate with respect to reconciling and unifying the party.

And then:

"If Obama's Judgment is ignoring half his party lets see if he wins."

I don't think for an instant that that's what Obama intends to do. However there's not much Obama can do to reconcile the party while Hillary is out there trying to keep her supporters all riled up by playing the victim at trying to get people to think that the nomination is being stolen from her by sexist people in the media and a flawed primary process. If the party isn't unified by November, then it's as much Hillary's fault as it is Obama's.

It's Obama's responsibility to be modest in victory, but at the same time it's Hillary's responsibility to be gracious in defeat. If she can't do that, then Obama cannot be faulted for fracturing the party. It is entirely Hillary's fault in that case. She needs to grow up, and the both of them need to act like adults.

Also:

"There are over 4,000 delegates and he has a lead of about 200... so my math was not wrong when I said he is leading by .05% of delegates."

Your math is wrong, it's 5%, not .05%.

mn said...

Why not pick someone from other side, that will be different.. Shows he can reach and work with the other side. Someone like Bobby Jindal will be a great pick. He is energetic, had lot going for him. Can add lot to the ticket.

MN

jethrock said...

mn,

That is a terrible idea... let John McCain have him!!!

mn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jethrock said...

mn,

Well one reason might be that he is having the time of his life at a BBQ at McMansion as you right this.

He is definitely TOO Republican, TOO Inexperienced, and far TOO young.

And furthermore, even though he is Catholic, and a former Hindu, the wingnuts would think he was Muslim.

I guarantee you he is in no way on Obamas list.

Drop it... it is terrible idea

st paul sage said...

foreign policy really looks like the screaming issue that needs to be addressed. polling shows that this is the one area that mccain is winning handily in head-to-heads and i don't think independents will be convinced by senator obama simply saying that he's a smart guy and look how badly the "pros" in washington have done.

clark, webb, and richardson all have very impressive foreign policy and exec resumes and all put meat on the bones of obama's antiwar rhetoric. they can all help win a swing state or two and none will dominate or outshine obama.

i think it will be clark because he is the least likely to say something stupid.

st paul sage said...

also though i like things about sebelius, kaine, edwards i don't think they do enough.

sebelius record in ks is not well known and i think most americans think that being gov of KS doesn't relate much to being pres of the u.s. cheney was a great choice for GWB because he was seen as a foreign policy mentor and respected widely. i don't think anyone thinks that sebelius has the anywhere near the same kind of exec/domestic policy prestige.

kaine's only been guv for 3 years and has no foreign policy and would be replaced by a republican (webb would be replaced by a solid dem - deeds or a moderate congressman). edwards's resume is no longer than obamas and he has zero foreign policy cred.

J said...

Sebelius for three reasons:

1. Bridge th gap with the female voter
2. Bridge the gap with the Southern vote
3. Increase our Ohio chances with her Ohio connection (born there and being former Ohio governor John J. Gilligan's daughter)

Even though I like cultural implicaitons of the Richardson choice, I agree with some other posters that this would be further divisive with the Clinton supporters.

Sidheich said...

I read often, but have not posted before.

What about Russ Feingold (WI)for VP?

http://feingold.senate.gov/news/factsheets.html

jethrock said...

Sidheich,

Fiengold is a great Senator. But that is also his problem... He is considered one of the most liberal of the liberals by the right.

I don't think he adds to the ticket... probably would actually weaken.

I seriously doubt that Obama's VP pick will be another sitting Senator.

Leah said...

Kathleen Sebelius is perfect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius


Obama/Sebelius '08

Jester1137 said...

Everyone seems to be looking at "strengths" and ignoring weaknesses.

I like Richardson, heck of a nice guy and experienced. Unfortunately, he's tied to more than a bit of corruption in New Mexico through association - not that he's personally corrupt - and he pissed off a LOT of Chinese-Americans falsely accusing a guy of spying based on ethinc profiling.

I like Webb, but he can't take back an article titled "Why Women Can't Fight".

Hagel is a staunch Republican on every issue but the War.

Rendell snuggled with Farrakahn.

Clinton has the highest Negative ratings in polls of any of the three remaining canidates.

A VP can't win it, but a VP can lose it. Sebelius gives some help, and has NO down side. She's squeaky clean proffesionaly, politically, and personally. Two runs for Governor, and not one wiff of scandal has ever attached to her in any way.

Others may have greater strengths, but Sebelius has *NO* negatives.

To those who say that an African-American and a Woman on the same ticket are "too much" - Sexism is a dead letter. The only times Clinton ever lost men who said gender influenced their vote was when she got blown out HUGE - and even then she did better with those men than she did overall.

Go to CNN and review the exit polls.

People haven't exactly been shy this cycle in saying what they think, and I frequent a lot of blogs and read a lot of comments on news articles...and never once have I seen someone imply in any way that they would vote for an African-American man, but he would lose their vote if he picked a unamed woman.

In picking a VP, start with the Hypocratic Oath - First, Do No Harm.

Sal Costello Sal@TexasTollParty.com said...

Chuck Hagel!

jethrock said...

Jester1137--

I agree with you on almost every point... I truly dig Sebelius.

But, and it is a big "but" in this election, is the fact she lacks foreign policy experience... and that is already being used as an attack by McCain against Obama.

So although it is not direct negative... but it is a weakness.

best--j

Miller said...

As near as I can tell, the top ten for the group posting here seems to break down something like this:
Kathleen Sebelius
Bill Richardson
John Edwards
Jim Webb
Chuck Hagel
Tim Kaine
Brian Schweitzer
Rod Strickland
Wesley Clark
Ed Rendell

Chuck Hagel is the absolute wrong direction for the Democratic Party to go in. I will eat my hat if this happens.

Jim Webb is out. I'm pro-life, but I think if you're trying to win back women who supported Hilldog, a pro-life, anti-women candidate is a terrible idea. Not to mention that he's fresher than Obama and we need him where he is.

I think that Strickland and Rendell have been too vocal in their opposition to Obama in the primary to be considered.

Wesley Clark is a Clinton supporter who, aside from his initial endorsement, has flown under the radar. His military service is a great foil against McCain, and his limited involvement in politics in the past makes him appear experienced without casting him as an insider. I like Sebelius, Edwards, Schweitzer, and Richardson, but I really like Wes. He's my pick.

taralexamin said...

i am absolutely shocked to see a hillary supporter who got the math wrong..........god help the budget if shes the veep

jethrock said...

Miller--

Kathleen Sebelius -- No foreign policy experince
Bill Richardson -- A gaffe almost everytime he speaks
John Edwards -- No interest in VP, but possible cabinet position
Jim Webb -- Barely won VA due to Macaca + other negatives
Chuck Hagel --Only sides with Dems on the war
Tim Kaine -- First term Gov not big plus
Brian Schweitzer -- Currently running campaign for re-election in MT
Rod Strickland -- An NBA player... I think you meant Ted (I don't know a lot about Ted)
Wesley Clark -- Wes Clark was his own problem before... But maybe
Ed Rendell -- Machine politician. Farakan major problem.

Look at Tim Roemer... I'm the only person that has mentioned him on this board and I'm curious about other peoples thoughts.

The only negative I find is that he his Pro-Life... but that might be plus in the general.

13ben said...

Hopefully Obama will continue to surprise us and actually do the smart thing....

Pick a VP that would do a good job. Not pick a VP that will help him get elected.

I repeat:

Do NOT pick a VP to assist electablity, pick a VP who will do a good job.

mike said...

TO all you HRC supporters, it is now clear that she is not fighting for you by staying on. FL/MI voters' right is the least of her concern. She let the cat out of the bag yesterday. Her selfish aim is to claim what is her birth right at all cost. Susan Rice called her a monster, and many months later she confirms. The best role for her is to serve as McCain's VP. She may achieve her goal within 8 years without having to employ the assasin to do her bidding for her.

She's a disgrace to women, to the democratic party and to fair-minded americans

apissedant said...

james,
I remember her saying that only her and McCain had enough experience to be president. That's what I remember, correct me on the exact details of that comment please.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 439   Newer› Newest»