Who will be Obama's Vice President?
 

Edwards? Richardson? Gore? Bill Clinton (yes, it'd be legal)?

Who is your choice and who do you think he will choose?

My hope would be for him to ask Al Gore or Dennis "Long Shot" Kucinich, but if he's smart he'll either go with Richardson or walk across the aisle.

uh...Kucinich?

I dunno, will, it's one thing to have wished Kucinich were a more viable candidate, but he's gone...why even bother mentioning him as VP to a president who is nothing like him politically, and who would gain absolutely nothing from having him on his ticket? It's almost as silly as a Republican hoping that Obama will pich Romney as his VP.

Anyway, the only way Clinton (both, but the only one that's worth considering is Hillary anyway) will get picked for VP is by forcing herself into it. I wouldn't put it past her.

Sibelius is, unfortunately, out, because apparently the Clinton campaign insists that if Obama picks a woman it must be Clinton. A shame, cause I think Sibelius could be a good pick.

I don't think Edwards is a realistic choice, both because he's already been an unsuccessful VP candidate once before and I don't think he really brings much (though I tend to agree with Kos that the VP choice doesn't change much in the first place). I think it's more likely that Edwards could get a cabinet position.

No way in hell Gore is going to be the VP choice, but cabinet position is a distant possibility.

Richardson and Webb are both possibilities. I think Biden is a strong consideration, but I also think the talk of him as Secretary of State is more likely. Schweitzer is another one that is being mentioned lately which I think is a reasonable possibility.

Richardson would get him the Southwest, where he's not strong, and Latinos where he's downright weak.

Webb would get him closer to getting Appalachia, where he's liable to be lynched.

Sibelius, a female working-state governor, would be a good all-round pick, and I don't see how Hillary gets to dictate any particular terms about it. Her legacy is on the line here. Surely she doesn't really think that she can leave the rift un-healed, put the Democratic White House at risk, and then swoop in in 2012?

Jimmy Carter said yesterday that an Obama/Clinton ticket would be a failure either way round, because of the 50% of America that are unfavorable on Clinton, plus the percent that would never vote Obama. He thinks it's a loser no matter who heads that ticket.

The first part of the question is "who is your choice?" My dream choice is still Kucinich or Gore. Kucinich isn't popular or mainstream enough, and Gore will probably turn it down, but a man can dream.

Biden would make a fantastic Sec State. I'm still wondering if Obama will take the high road and choose conservatives for his staff or the ViP.

Richardson is the one VP that I think could actually deliver votes, but in general I think the evidence is convincing that VPs don't create much of a vote swing one way or the other. That said, this race may be different because of McCain's age and the worries people have about Obama and assassination. So, perhaps the VPs in this race will be more important.

I think Webb would be a very interesting choice, but I'm not sure it would make a huge difference in Appalachia. At least not to the point where it would change the outcome of state votes. Still, he'd be a good choice from what I can tell.

She's entirely out of the race now and she is refusing to concede...yes, I do think that she's willing to risk leaving the rift unhealed if she doesn't get what she wants. I also think her fanatical supporters are crazy enough to also be upset if Obama were to choose another woman. Yet more evidence, on top of the threats to vote McCain, that Clinton's "feminist" supporters have no idea what "feminism" they're fighting for. A real feminist would be overjoyed if Obama picked Sibelius, even if they'd have preferred Clinton. Personally, from what I know about her, I'd love to see Sibelius picked.

Completely agree.

Richardson is my dream choice for pulling in the Latino voters but I think he will be better utilized as the Sec State.

Definitely not for VP, but perhaps for some cabinet positions.

My choice is now Ed Rendell, Gov of PA.

Or another old white guy/Hillary surrigate from a key state - Ted Strickland, Gov of OH.

Both can appeal to both the blue collar whites and the seniors who were a key part of Clinton's base.

Or..a defense/foreign policy guy... Gen Wes Clark.

Webb would be a nightmare for attracting the other part of Clinton's base...women....he has a past record of serious gender issues.` As good as he is for the Dem party in the Senate, he is also a terrible campaigner.

I like Richardson as well, but he is a gaffe machine waiting to happen.

Yeah, in that sense I think Richardson and Biden are interchangable, with the exception of Richardson's Latino appeal. If Richardson doesn't get picked for VP, I do think he'd be an excelled Sec of State, and I prefer him for that role over Biden. Which is a bit of a shame, since I do think Biden would make a good Sec of State.

BTW, is anyone else a bit excited about the possibility of a completely non-white ticket? The liberal in me is jumping up and down at the prospect of Obama/Richardson '08. It's about damn time.

The only real question will be: can Richardson make Obama look like a badass ticket? McCain will undoubtedly be touted for his military experience. Wouldn't it be wise for Obama to pick someone with an extensive military and foreign policy background?

I dont think Richardson brings anything to the ticket. Obama can win CO and NM without him and he brings little of value to other battleground states.

This is all assuming the VP choice makes any real difference in the campaign..which is a stretch...as opposed to in the value of the person in government as VP, when they win.

dc_dux: I think you're probably right, but I think Richardson brings more than anyone else would (which is not to say much) since there are Latinos all over the country who may be inspired by his presence on the ticket. I think Sibelius would bring a lot to the ticket, if not for the aforementioned crazy Clinton supporters who are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. If it weren't for the tone this race has taken, I think picking Sibelius would have been a great way to tap into the enthusiasm Clinton's candidacy already engendered among women.

Will: That's where Webb comes in. Again, I don't think it makes that big of a difference, but that's the biggest thing he brings to the ticket. Former Republican, military man.

Yup. And by that metric, I think Obama has a lot of very good options out there, and I'm eager to see which one he picks.

I think he will be guided by two fundamental principles of presidential campaign politics..

Winning tickets are generally an Inside/Outside combo - as an insider (US Senator), he will look first for someone outside the beltway...either a governor or a military man

Americans want change..but not that much at all once - that means the most acceptable balance is an old white man with experience

A third principle just occured to me:

Good Cop/Bad Cop - Obama wants to remain above the fray and needs a "pitbull" (no not ace) to take the lead on hitting "the other side"

SecNav and former GOP... whoa. He might be a very interesting choice.

I particularly liked:
Bush: "How's your son?"
Webb: "I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President."
Bush: "That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?"
Webb: "That's between me and my boy, Mr. President."

The man has balls.

The Clinton womens brigade is not gonna like rehearing when Webb wrote "Women Cant Fight" and called the Naval Academy "a horny woman's dream,"....granted it was years ago and didnt hurt him in his Senate campaign.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan..._b_103203.html

The other downside would be risking a Dem seat in the Senate.

To be fair, if the military were all women for thousands of years and I was the first man? I have to admit that my mind might not be on soldiering.

But in all seriousness, it was a dumb thing to say.

I don't think that he will choose a white man. I think he will have to pick someone that a racist assassin would hate becoming President if something did happen to Obama. It's probably the same philosophy that the current administration used. Bush isn't the best, but Cheney would have been much worse.

If I took a guess it would be Richardson. He would have to work on getting Hillary someplace in the administration to keep the older white women voting for him.

Wes Clark?

Imagine a West Point valedictorian and Rhodes Scholar against a damn-near-dropout plane-crashing albino chowderhead! Who's got military credibility now?? :thumbsup:

I think Sibelius would be a great choice. Hopefully some of Hillary's supporters would vote that way then.

I think Kathleen Sebelius would be the best overall choice. I do think Obama pretty much has to pick a woman to help smooth things over with some of the feminists. I don't know that she'll be able to deliver Kansas, but she does have a good bipartisan reputation which is really important for the whole change message Obama is about. And I don't think that it would be a good thing to have two Senators on the ticket, there should be some balance.

I certainly hope Wes Clark's name is on the table.

Bill Clinton cannot legally be vice president due to the 12th amendment.

i read the interview with jimmy carter and think he has a point--but i'm not clear about why that point is so definitive as to knock hillary clinton out of "consideration" even here. before the repetition machinery of 24/7 cable "news" got ahold of things, and before the campaign took a turn for the ugly, i thought both obama and clinton quite articulate, politically quite close and compatible and a potentially quite strong ticket.

what i am uneasy about in the possibility really is bill, whose performances have been often kinda squeam-inducing.

but i see that ticket as good in principle--certainly more appealing than a ticket involving rendell (too long living in pennsylvania, not a fan of his particularly).

so why would any of the alternatives being floated above be preferable? i mean apart from the point that carter made, which is pretty self-evident (clinton as the object of a sustained conservative group-hate is not news)

I'm afraid that's incorrect. The 12th Amendment says that anybody who is eligible for the presidency under Article II of the Constitution is eligible for the vice presidency. Bill Clinton is a natural born citizen over 35. The 22nd doesn't apply, of course.

So yes, he can't be elected to the presidency more than twice, but he can serve as vice president and can even assume the job if the president has to leave office. He just can't be elected at the end of his final term.

I'm happy with any of the following:

Webb
Richardson
Clark
Hagel (though I'd be shocked if he accepted)
Rendell

Probably in that order too. I think Webb and Clark bring military credibility to the ticket and Richardson has a ton of experience.

I don't know enough about Sibelius to really have an opinion.

I'd also like to second Will's thought of hoping, if elected, Obama reaches across to the conservatives for at least some of his staff. All this us against them BS is getting old.

I believe this is correct.

Too bad there's no way to bring back Lloyd Bentsen.

Biden, Gore, Edwards, Clinton, with Nancy Pelosi. What a dream admin that would be for Obama and for us.

A girl can dream.

Here is the relevant text for the 12th amendment

This would be a legal grey area.

As I said, that only refers to Article II:
Anyone who is 35 and natural born is eligible.

Loq, looking at you for back-up.

Hillary would be a good choice. I think she is savvy enough and definitely smart enough to adapt to wearing the hat of the VP for the rest of the campaign. Plus she could be very valuable in the White House

Lieberman would be interesting too unless McCain picks him up.

I am against the idea of Bill Richardson as VP just to create an all "color" ticket or to pick up Latino voters. Why not choose Norm Mineta to gain Asian American voters or Lieberman to get Jewish voters or Jesse Jackson to get black voters? The so-called Latino demographic is NOT monolithic and is very diverse. In fact quite a few of my Latino friends do not even view Bill Richardson as being a "real Latino" (whatever that means) nor would they vote for him solely on that criteria alone.

I think the dream ticket would be a nightmare for Obama. Too much press coverage of Hillary and Bill instead of his agenda.

jorgelito: if anyone has said Richardson would be good "just to create an all "color" ticket or to pick up Latino voters" then please point it out. What has been said is, simply, that one possible benefit of Richardson could be the Latino vote. There are a number of other reasons which are, obviously, much more valid that make Richardson a good option. Perhaps you should read a little bit about all of Richardson's experience.

And Lieberman? Are you kidding? He's a pariah - and with good reason. Giving any thought to Lieberman as Obama's VP is about as big of a waste as thinking about the possibility of Kucinich. Now, McCain/Lieberman...won't happen, but that's something that wouldn't surprise me. I look forward to the end of Lieberman's term when his constituents are almost certain to fix the mistake they made.

roachboy: Before the campaign turned ugly, I also thought both Obama and Clinton were interesting options, though there are a number of policy issues where I prefer Obama over Clinton and, from what I can tell, I prefer his style of leadership as well. But that's just the point: before the campaign turned ugly. The one good thing - the only good thing - that has come out of this ugly campaign has been that it showed a side of Clinton which has convinced me, unequivocally, that she does not have the character to be president of the United States. The repeated moving of goalposts, the misleading metrics by which she declared victory, the disingenuous and hypocritical appeals to count every vote (while not counting every vote in her own numbers)...she went far beyond what I can forgive as "politics" and landed squarely in the farcical realm of Baghdad Bob. And this is all not even to mention the other reasons she wouldn't be a good VP choice: Bill, the personality conflicts that would come up between Obama, Clinton, and Clinton, both Clinton's ability to steal the spotlight whenever they can, whether they consciously intend to or not...

I'd be happy to see her in a cabinet position and contributing her intelligense in that way. As for VP? No thank you.

Remember, Smeth, two questions were asked:
Who is your choice (or a personal dream ticket)?
Who do you think Obama will choose?

I'd like to see Sherrod Brown or Oho Gov. Strickland take the nod. Edwards, Webb. But in all honesty, the VP is just such a figurehead that it really doesn't mean that much in my voting determination. Tho any of those 4 may at least have me looking at Obama and considering him.

Realistically, I think just as with McCain the French Fry, the VP candidate has already been chosen by the power people in the party.

I really do not have see much to be hopeful for in either candidate nor do I have faith either will do much.

In fact, that maybe why the field was truly so weak on both sides. You have an unfavorable war, a dying economy, optimism is at a low and a country with its people so far indebted to the rest of the world that we may see a serious problem.

Now, blaming Bush will only work for so long, especially if for those voting for Obama believing he can save the country.

I see a severe reverse in 2 years in Congess and an extremely unpopular president who has lost all faith of the people.

I wish I could be optimistic again.... but I just don't see a positive change coming.

Seems irrelevant.... the competing candidate is so far gone that, barring aggressive election tampering or a declaration of martial law by the current administration, any democratic ticket should be sufficient...

We "get it", John mcCain:

Lieberman? Seriously Lieberman. Man, I don't see that happening.

I watched a couple shows yesterday afternoon. It became more and more apparent as the day went on that Hillary was being given the boot, so to speak. I was a little shocked when someone did a break down of the time line of the primaries. Five months ago? Really, probably because of the long time they spent campaigning prior to any actual voting, it seemed to me like at least a year. But I remember watching those returns from Iowa and still seeing Hillary as a positive option. However by the time Obama went on a multi state terror and then her reaction I just couldn't understand her anymore. Seriously she really finished hard and put up a lot of numbers in a lot of states but by the time she did that it was mathematically over. By that time she needed like 70% of all votes to get the needed delegates. Her staff, Bill and herself running around yelling about how there's no problem, we're going strong, she going to win was a little surreal. I kept think did all these people fail math? I was also struck by her campaigns seemingly lack of understanding of exactly how Democrats primaries worked. From the outside looking in it appeared they had no plan after super Tuesday. I read a quote from one of her top guys (Mark Penn?) who seemed to think they'd win California and get all of it's delegates. That's not how it works, this should not have been news to her campaign. By the time her campaign went into "kitchen sink" mode I no longer saw her in a positive light. Now watching her try to leverage her power and not concede when all the contests were over I really see her as a negative, no longer simply not positive- but completely negative. It now appears several members of her inner circle had to push her and force her to accept it's over. When was she thinking she might concede? Late Jan. 2009? Watching Terry McAuliffe introduce her Tuesday night as the "next President of the United Sates I immediately thought "you guys get CNN, right?"

So basically in five months I've gone from seeing Hillary as a positive force and decent leader to an undisciplined and possibly incompetent leader. At this point I do not see her on any short list as VP. But five months ago I could have seen her as the next President.

Tully, the whole thing is surreal, and it has looked that way to me since I watched Nixon board AF-1, babbling about his mother....on his way out of Washington, for that last time....then unelected Jerry Ford is suddenly president....followed by Carter's triumphant quest for the presidency, quickly turning to a decline that emboldened Teddy Kennedy to challenge him in '80, followed by the ridiculousness and incomprehensiveness of "Bedtime for Bonzo" star turned president Reagan, quickly shot, then recovered, then babbling about "Star Wars", followed by Fawn Hall's emergence as an Iran Conra hearings witness, followed by Dan Quayle, a heartbeat away from the presidency, followed by Clinton, by Monica, by impeachment, by Gore withdrawing his concession to Bush on the day after the 2000 election, followed by the Supremes giving Bush the presidency, followed by 9/11, and then by "Shock and Awe", in Iraq, then Abu Ghraib, the idea of 12 hours long lines at the polls in Ohio, voters wating in the rain, we were told, who were voting in a plurality for....Bush? Followed by a candidate with the middle name "Hussein", a last name so similar to "Osama", overtaking Hillary, even as two of his three "spiritual advisors" made him look like a man who was a poor judge....of spiritual advisors...... All of it nuts.....disconnected, implausible, all of my adult life.

McCain seems bonkers, as do all of the republicans.....ever since they saw nothing wrong with Reagan, or the Quayle pick by Bush, heavily behind as he was in the polls, and overtaking Dukakis, in spite of it.

Consider Nixon's 1972 near sweep, against George McGovern, after so much protest against Nixon, his war, and the draft, during the most liberal period in American society, before or since.

I don't understand it, but I suspect it comes about because most voters are uninformed, driven by fear, prejudices, greed, or by attraction to perceived charismatic candidates.

Well, that would pretty much summarize it. They're mostly average humans, after all.

What I don't get, though, is when some of the most intelligent people I know still chose to support Bush and even the war (back when it started). I was teaching US History to 11th graders in 2002-03, with another teacher in his 40s as my mentor. He was an INCREDIBLY smart man, knew FAR more about American history and how to teach it to hormonal teenagers than I will ever understand... I truly respect him at all levels. And yet, he was still 100% pro-war and pro-Bush, and felt it was the "right" thing to do. He is not evangelical (though he is a staunch Lutheran--Scandinavian roots), not really religious in that sense, one of the least prejudiced, fearful, gullible people I know... and he's chosen to make his career out of teaching, he lives a humble life, not greedy... so I don't get it. Eventually, he did come around and say that he thought the war was no longer a good idea (after some years), but I really never understood how a man like him could have thought it was a good idea in the first place.

Congressional Quarterly has made it a spectator sport.

Choose the best VP candidate in head-to-head matchups of 32-person field:

VP Madness

The people's choice to be revealed on July 1.

View the Republican results.

At the very least, the CQ attempt at gaming the selection process provides snapshot profiles of the potential running mates for both Obama and McCain.

I've known people like this. I know lots of people who still think the war was a good idea. Seemingly intelligent people who simply think it was a good idea. It boggles my mind. But the number of people I know who still support it has certainly waned lately. I'm beginning to wonder just how many of these folks simply can not and will not admit they were wrong.

End threadjack.