Democratic Convention Watch: Veepstakes

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Veepstakes

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

One of the things on everyone's mind seems to be who Obama will choose as his running mate.

Here are two lists of popular choices. Pick one person on each list, and next Friday, we'll post a second round with the top 10 culled from both lists.

Feel free to use the comment section to say why you picked who you did!

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Comments (18)

Logging you in...

Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout

Logged in as

Login or signup now to comment.

0 Vote up Vote down

Stephane MOT · 874 weeks ago

Nancy Pelosi, anyone ?

Reply

+1 Vote up Vote down

anthony watkins 0p · 874 weeks ago

Pelosi isnt going on the ticket, she is already num 3 and would have to give alot just to have a shot at num 2!!!

I am surprised neither of my ladies are on the list though.

landrieu of louisiana or McCaskill from mo.

Reply

+2 Vote up Vote down

DocJess 71p · 874 weeks ago

There are a multitude of possibilities that didn't make the list. And I take personal responsibility to the choices, and the decision to hold the number to 20.

Specifically, I didn't choose Pelosi because she has the 3rd most powerful position in the line of succession, and is finally starting to use the tactics she learned as daughter of a powerful Baltimore mayor to great advantage.

I didn't pick Landieu because I think she is going to pull out the Senate race in LA, despite the change in demographics since Katrina, and a strong right-wing governor. While we picked up a Congressional seat there recently, I don't know of a viable candidate to replace her on the ballot, nor would I want her seat filled, even temporarily by Jindal.

Finally, I love Claire. Her enthusiasm, what she's done in MO, her work as an Obama surrogate. And I believe she'd make a great VP. But I look at the larger picture -- MO is on the bubble of turning blue, not just in the POTUS election, but also in terms of down ticket races -- and Claire's work is there.

I hold the fundamental belief that while POTUS is critical, building the 50 state program, and bringing more Democrats up through the ranks is also critical, and I'd hate to see Claire taken away from the important work she is doing (and maybe only she can do) in MO.

Reply

0 Vote up Vote down

Will · 874 weeks ago

What about Al???

Reply

+1 Vote up Vote down

DocJess 71p · 874 weeks ago

He's had that job. He wouldn't take it again. Plus, he'd be much more effective as energy czar for America. Instead of the "old" Al Gore out doing ceremonial things, holding sway over a Democratic Senate, and needing to scatter his talents over many areas, put the "new" Al Gore where he needs to be.

Put that Nobel Prize winner into the Cabinet as Secretary of Energy - let him design and implement the policies that will work best to save our natural resources, derail our dependence on oil, make smart nuanced choices on nuclear, clean coal and biofuels, and stem (as much as possible) global warming.

When someone has excelled as Al has in a single field, why split his energies?

Reply

0 Vote up Vote down

Anon · 874 weeks ago

Test

Reply

0 Vote up Vote down

JayZed · 874 weeks ago

Is there any particular rationale behind the two groups being structured as they are? Or for having two groups in the first place? It means you can't necessarily pick your top two choices.

Reply

0 Vote up Vote down

JayZed · 874 weeks ago

Anyway, my first choice is Kathleen Sebelius. She's a woman, which should help to bring some Clintonites back to the fold; she's the popular governor of a red mid-Western state; her vice-governor resigned as chair of the state GOP to be her running-mate... what's not to like?

Beyond her I like Warner and Kaine - I think either could help swing Virginia to Obama - and I think Rendell has some merit as well. If Obama wants to improve the ticket's foreign-policy experience then Biden would be a good pick, though I'm not sure what else he brings.

Reply

0 Vote up Vote down

JayZed · 874 weeks ago

I think Webb is too much of a loose cannon, and although I like Richardson I don't think he's a good campaigner, though I think he would make a good Secretary of State (as would Biden). Edwards is too liberal to be on the same ticket as Obama. I don't understand what Daschle would bring to the ticket (I don't think he'd even bring SD with him). Picking Clinton would make Obama look weak, and I don't think she'd add much to the ticket.

Stephane, I trust you're joking about Pelosi. A San Francisco liberal is not exactly what the ticket needs to win votes in the heartland...

PS Sorry for the multiple posts, it seems this new system won't let you post more than a paragraph or two at a time. Probably to stop bores like me wittering on and on...

Reply

1 reply · active 873 weeks ago

0 Vote up Vote down

denverdanny · 873 weeks ago

I have to agree. Webb is a loose cannon and I expected Richardson to do better than he did. What about Blanche Lincoln? I picker Sebelius and Clinton, because I do feel a forced ticket is still possible and may be necessary if things look bad come August. Rendell could help patch things up in Penn and Mich and help in Ohio too.

Reply

0 Vote up Vote down

Peter Zenger · 874 weeks ago

If Tim Kaine were elected as VP, then the Governor of Virginia would be Republican Bill Bolling. Kaine would be a bad choice as VP for this reason.

I would rather have Mark Warner complete the Senate campaign to make both of the Virginia Senate seats blue.

The only Virginian that I see as feasible would be Jim Webb. Kaine would be able to appoint a Dem as the replacement, but this would then place the seat up for election in both 2010 and 2012. This is risky as in 2010, there may be a Virginia backlash against the democrats, which could make the seat hard to defend, especially for someone appointed not elected to the seat.

While it would be nice to place Virginia in play, all three of these scenarios are risky.

I would have considered Strickland, but his recent comments make it clear that he has less than zero interest in the position. Sebelius, Rendell, Richardson and Napolitano would all be good choices.

Reply

0 Vote up Vote down

Peter Zenger · 874 weeks ago

Good point about Rendell, I had not heard about those remarks. Obama can not have any more connections to folks that have a relationship with folks like Farrahkan. I would prefer that Obama choose a govenor, which is why Sebelius, Richardson and Napolitano appeal to me. Furthermore, I think Obama should announce a shadow cabinet at the same time that he announces his VP choice. Knowing that a Wes Clark, Colin Powell, Chuck Hagel, or Jim Webb would be SecDef might help address McCain's perceived strength on the military issue. Pre-selecting Biden or Richardson as SecState would also help polish the potential administration's foreign policy heft.

Reply

+2 Vote up Vote down

Godheval 60p · 874 weeks ago

My top choice is Kathleen Sebelius, even though I've only just recently learned anything about her. In fact, the first time I heard her name was in some article that said she would be a more likely first female president than Hillary Clinton. Aside from that, my reasons are all that's been said so far, regarding her appeal to midwesterners, to women, and to the republican moderates.

She seems pretty high profile, having been featured in TIME magazine as one of the best governors, she appeals to concerns about the economy with what she did in Kansas with the inherited debt, and there doesn't seem to be a bad comment anywhere about her. To be achieve a landslide victory over a republican in a "red state" is impressive. I think she'd be a powerhouse addition to the ticket. All of this talk about the possible big names in cabinet positions (like Gore as Sec of Energy) really has me excited about the possibilities.

Reply

+1 Vote up Vote down

RS · 874 weeks ago

I would choose Governor Napolitano or Governor Sibelius. As I wrote on my blog earlier:

"...if not Senator Clinton, then who? Any woman VP would be seen as a "not-Hillary" attempt at wooing women voters. So there has to be good reason to choose a woman VP. I thought Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius would be a good choice - but Kansas may be too red. On the other hand - two-term Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano? Of course, Senator McCain's from Arizona as well. But that's precisely the point - the sheer audacity of the pick would show that the Democrats are taking the fight to Senator McCain's homeground. With Arizonians on both major party tickets, there's less of a "favorite progeny" factor. Senator McCain would have to spend time and money defending a "given" state, further stretching his resources (considerably lower, for sure, than Senator Obama's). And IMHO, that's a good compelling reason to have a Democratic VP pick who happens to be a woman not named Clinton."

http://randomsubu.blogspot.com/2008/06/senator-ob...

Reply

+1 Vote up Vote down

Leah 85p · 873 weeks ago

Warner is OUT! Warner Accepts Dem Senate Nomination, Takes Himself Out of VP Running - http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/14/warner-ac...

Reply

0 Vote up Vote down

Gayle Tinsley · 873 weeks ago

I know that if there is another male on the ticket, I'll be writing Hillary in for Pres!

Reply

Comments by IntenseDebate

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)