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.

Cool link DC, thanks for sharing. There are some wild choices there. I was going to mention Colin Powell earlier but was afraid of getting a verbal lashing from the board here. But I think he's a real long shot if not downright impossibility. Wesley Clark is an interesting choice too.

For anyone who thinks the VP is an unimportant role, 2 words: Dick Cheney.

That's for a weak minded president that had no idea what he was doing.... are you saying that Obama will be as easily led by his VP. If so then there are problems.

I don't see Obama giving his VP "Dick Cheney" type power. Fr him the VP will be a figurehead in name only.

With McCain, his VP will probably be president. So, his selection will be of more importance to me than Obama's.

Obama isn't a weak man, but sometimes it's difficult to tell who will and who won't be a "weak president". Had Gore been more assertive, Bill Clinton may have been a weaker president.

Gee, I can't imagine why you weren't able to change their minds. Must've been some flaw with them.

And you assume I'm making an effort to change their minds why?

Well, given your move to state a matter of value judgment as a unquestionably decided fact... I don't know why I assume that. Sorry, my mistake.

But hey, if you ever feel the need to strengthen their pro-war resolve, increase their hidden and/or unhidden stubbornness, and give them the warranted impression that dogmatism is not solely a feature of the pro-war side... you need only repeat what you said here verbatim. Good work! :thumbsup:

I always thought Gore had more power then was widely reported. I feel like Cheney is almost an end result of a long line of ever increasing VP power within the E. branch.

Fact: those supporting the war were in err. Of that there is no doubt.

Sounds like JFK all over again. If he'd not been shot, he was headign for being a very unpopular guy indeed, as I understand it.

Ah, I love CQ :p

Because on every issue you can only be 100% right and 100% wrong, and if you aren't on a certain side you can have your very intellegence called into question.

Good way of thinking about things.

I don't think that's true. There are a lot of gray issues in the world and in everyday life. The current war in Iraq simply isn't one of them. It was a dumb idea to begin with and it's handling has been, at times, criminal.

That's a mind-numbingly silly thing to say.

Reality may seem silly at times, but that makes it no more real.

You're not accounting for how closely the information was controlled leading up to the war. People who supported the war because "Iraq was behind 9/11"...they were wrong from the beginning, because it was very clear that that wasn't the case. The question of WMD's, though, was less clear, at least in the US media. Because of the way the issue was framed, both sides sounded reasonable and people had to decide which they believed more. I'd agree with you if the media had done its job better and made it more clear that the evidence was weak, but they didn't. Not everyone has the time or inclination to assume that they must go to non-US media sources to get a more accurate picture. Now... that has changed due to experience, but in 2003 that wasn't the case.

Continuing to support the war is a more clear cut issue...

only it isn't.

No question, it's going terribly, and "staying the course" is not an option. That said, the Powell Doctrine is very compelling. We broke it. There's a very healthy debate to be had regarding whether it's better for the Iraqi's for us to stay (though considerably alter our strategy), or for us to just leave. But I do think that that's where the discussion needs to be centered: what's best for the Iraqi's, and what do they want, not what's best for us. It sucks that the Bush administration got us into this mess, but that doesn't mean we can just pretend like we're not the country that is, in a large part, responsible for where Iraq is right now.

Personally, I think a responsible withdrawal is best, but that's largely because we're incapable of committing the time and resources necessary to fix the mess we've created. Because, at this point, we need to treat this like a whole new war if we're going to stick around, and we don't have the forces or the money for that.

I'm not sure it was necessarily the media's fault per se, but rather, more of a misleading information campaign by the administration.

For me, at first I supported action, that is until Hans Blix came back empty handed and I thought, "Whew, that's great, now we don't need to invade." Then, the whole thing just went to crap.

In the end, people will believe what they want to believe.

Well then, by all means, provide a citation that shows we should never intervene militarily for purposes of removing a dictator, and/or for nation-building, and/or for preventing Iraq-sized injustices in other countries.

While you're at it, could you find me a citation on why green is a much better color than pink?

Before you go and waste time on google, here's a hint: facts can do much to describe the quality of execution, but they're nigh useless with the quality of intention.

You're right that it started with the administration, but 1) they used the media for that purpose and 2) the media allowed themselves to be used. Donohue is a great example of this: one of MSNBC's top rated shows at the time, cancelled because he was critical of the upcoming war. That's just one of many such stories. And now we get reports that the military analysts for the networks were being fed info by the Pentagon. I don't think the administration or the media is without blame.

Incidentally, I had about the same experience as you.

Oh sure, I definitely agree with you - the media (not without blame, just not sole blame), the administration are not mutually exclusive in responsibility.

Here is a sample of what I am referring too.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080605/...ntelligence_dc

Folks, it's starting to look like Hillary may not be in consideration nor is she looking to be the Veep.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080605/ap_on_el_pr/clinton

You know, I think there are plenty of other areas in which Hillary can serve and do very well actually. A cabinet position certainly but I kind of like her in the Senate. Maybe even as Senate Majority Leader. I think that would suit her well. Attorney General is another possible position. I don't think Supreme Court Justice would be good for her at all.

The Dems really need to secure their positions in Congress if Obama is to have success in the White House. To me, the Congressional placements will be the most interesting thing to watch this November. I would like to see more independents, 3rd party members get elected too.

That's good news. Both about the Veep situation and a post in this thread about it.

I don't see Hillary over taking Reid in the majority position, but it could happen. I certainly don't see her doing worse then Reid. And I could see her being AG.

If she is indeed out of contention who do you think is at the top of his short list?

Why does every thread devolve into this "justification for war" talk, recently?

Tully, I think that's kind of the fun isn't it? No one really knows. If I worked in an office I would make an office betting pool. It may sound funny, but the way this race has been shaping up really makes me feel like part of the process. People are talking, deliberating, discussing - it's good for us really.

I think the Veep job is wide open. Looking at the CQ site made me dizzy, so many people I never even thought of.

Intuitively, I would think a person of experience, a familiar face that the people really like, maybe someone from the south, a bit more moderate, and notable/respected. Good gosh, could it be...Ted Kennedy? He sort of fits the bill. A solid Democrat, experienced, a Kennedy name, white, older, could be a good choice. Not very moderate though, but hey, this is the Democratic party. Wesley Clark is intriguing but he's been out of the spotlight for a while now, and I really don't know much about him other than he's a military man.

There definitely is a good opportunity here for the Democrats to make some strategic moves throughout the government at all levels, if they can unite and get organized enough. Then maybe our g'ovt can move forward agaon (just please oh please don't raise taxes).

The writing is on the wall.

It's got to get worse before it gets better. I'm all for efficient government, but we've got lots of debts to make up for first.

"don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that guy behind the tree.........."

abaya and Tully started it. Nyah.

We didn't invade because there was a dictator or because Iraq once was dangerous. We invaded for two main reasons: WMDs and 9/11 links. Then that didn't pan out, so it was democracy. All three of those are massive and complete failures. Any reasons (excuses) made after that are moot. Those who supported the war did so based on incorrect information, therefore they were in err. It's no more or less complicated than that.
I used to think I was smarter than everyone, too.
/threadjack

...so because the two main reasons were WMDs and 9/11, we're not allowed to have any other reasons? Or we're not allowed to consider any other reasons sufficient in and of themselves?

I don't think I need your permission.

Double threadjack with a nonsequitur on top? Neat.

Let's take this to another thread, please.

I do think it's fun.

Ted Kennedy? Hmm, not sure what to make of that statement?

I like both Clark and Webb. Webb could add that southern military blue collar accent to the ticket, IMO.

It's odd, thinking back on it, how quickly Hillary fell out of favor with me. It really wasn't that long ago I would have been very happy with Clinton/Obama or vise versa. Watching her campaign was like watching a train wreck. How could she not have a plan past Feb 5th? Why would her staff think she could simply win all the California delegates? The numbers really became impossible for her weeks ago. Even then I could have seen her as a viable option for his VP, though I was having serious doubts his campaign would agree. But I figured she could parlay her political capital into a spot if she wanted it. I went back and forth on this thinking why is she still running? It's hurting the party as a whole. But I suppose maybe at this point she needs to keep going to unite the party once the last primary is completed. After all the contests were over Tuesday and she announced she had decided not to decide what to do I thought, WTF? Umm, excuse me lady the voters decided. It's like she's completely disconnected from reality... and she wants to be the VP?

I think I'll be happy with who ever he ends up picking. But I do think it's time to choose somebody who won't, seemingly, make it their life's work to tell the other side of the aisle to go fuck themselves. Cheney, Rumsfield et el come to mind. All this "all or nothing, we want it our way and we'll stuff it down your throat to get" is getting us no where fast. Time to start listening to each other and actually solving some of the issues. The war continues on borrowed money, the economy is dropping like a rock-wasn't a rising econ. suppose to pay for all those tax cuts? I looked and I can't even find what is the current energy policy. While I have friends and family e-mailing me they can't afford to buy gas to get to work.

It's not too late, IMO. The US has a long history of stepping up to the plate and solving problems. But I don't see how we do that with more "us v. them." Bottom line is it's fast becoming one big fat shit sandwich and EVERYBODY going to have to take their bite. If Obama chooses a decent VP and gets to work it can be done. Hell I'm not so certain McCain might not be able to gets things going in the right direction, though obviously I prefer Obama. But it's going to take working together, not fighting against each other. If it is then the next Admin. is going to make Carter's look like a huge success.

I think you hit the theme right there: Unity and compromise. I am actually looking forward to the next administration whomever it may be.

You're right. It is time to get people on the same page and work together instead of sabotaging things for the sake of sabotaging things.

From what I understand, Kennedy wasn't the highest though of president before the assassination.

He had Johnson picked for him because Johnson was an extremely powerful senator and well liked man among his colleagues. Kennedy was not. Johnson was able to carry the South for Kennedy. Johnson and Kennedy hated each other immensely. Kennedy was unable to get anything done , then he was shot and Johnson was petty much handcuffed to follow through on the Kennedy visions.

That's what I have read and learned about that presidency.

Re: the comments on taxes...

Living in Iceland, paying 40% income tax and 24% sales tax, I am a BIG supporter of Americans needing to pay more taxes. We are allowed to be far too selfish, as a nation. I hope they DO raise taxes, as long as it goes to take care of our fellow citizens. I'm willing to pay it.

Yeah, I think his illness would probably rule him out. His prognosis is uncertain after his recent surgery, but a very optimistic best-case puts his lifespan at less than five years. If I were him, being Vice President is the LAST damn thing I'd want to do with my last years of life.

I'm ok in paying more for a balance budget, or for an improved infrastructure. And maybe even an emergency healthcare plan for all. But I don't think we need to be subsiding people's lifestyles unless they are going to work hard an improve themselves.



What about Caroline Kennedy? She is on his VP search team, but I think she would be a different choice and be interesting.

Excellent idea Will!

I don't see Obama winning if he doesn't do this!

Wes Clark provides those things, and would go a ways toward mending fence with the angry Hillary droids.

Upsides: VERY smart man, well thought-of, rich military experience. Certainly stronger on military, veteran, and foreign-policy than McCain.
Downsides: Not great on the stump, prone to intellectual rather than soundbyte-ready speech (which is, IMO, what killed Kerry)

I like Clark a lot, but sadly I agree with you. In a world where everything is judged on how well you deliver a sound bite he might not be the best choice. He's freaking SMART and has a ton of experience, not solely military either.

Seems anymore the VP pick has to be the pit bull of the campaign. I think someone like Webb might not be a bad choice. His face as been out there, he used to be a GOP, has military experience up the wazoo (that's gotta hurt) and he's some what famous for telling Bush to politely, or not depending on your point of view, to go fuck himself. But I could also see him working with all sides to find real solutions to the mess we're in.

rotflmao :thumbsup:

Not sure just how reliable this is, but here's a short list of names Obama's vetters are considering for VP (according to First Read).

Gen. James Jones, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Evan Bayh, Kathleen Sebelius, Ted Strickland, Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Jim Webb, Bill Nelson, Jack Reed, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Tom Daschle, and Sam Nunn.

I'm alright with most on the list. Don't know enough on a couple to have much of an option. But...

John Kerry? Seriously? John Kerry? I would have serious misgivings about even putting him on the list, any list.

It looks like Obama is giving a serious look at military folk including Clark and Webb. It's a smart move I think. Too bad Hillary wasn't a retired General or something; he could get a 2 for 1 there.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/....vp/index.html

General Hillary Clinton? Don't get me wrong, she's a brilliant woman, but I get the feeling she is less qualified than a lot of other people (including many, many women) to be a career military officer.

I really like both Clark and Webb. Personally I think Clark might be more qualified, but think Webb is more electable.

I don't know about that. Clark with REALLY good coaching could be a KILLER VP candidate.

Well, I'm not willing to put any money on it. Actually think he'd do a hell of a job if elected. Just seems any more you need an attack dog in VP spot on the ticket. I think Edwards came up short on this, but again could be wrong. I just don't see Clark filling that slot, sadly his ability to deliver a sound bite might be more important then his actual ability. Life in the 24hr news cycle.

I think we'd be lucky with Clark or Webb, though honestly when Webb stood up to Bush after he remarked on Webb's son (who was deployed)... I think that clinched it for me. I'll back Webb, but I'll be happy either way.

In doing some reading I keep getting references to some sexist comments by Webb. Sound years old, I'm not sure what they are or what they were. Alway these vague comments about them.

Any one know anything about these?

Some list. It seems too slanted to the right wing of the party. I suspect that's because it's a list of people that the writer or writers would like to see on the ballot. OK, so maybe you want to consider people from Ohio, Virginia, and Florida more than others even if they may be otherwise uninspiring. But why Biden, Dodd, Daschle, Bayh, or Reed? Nunn? Kerry??!! What are you people smoking?

From these, i'd go with Sebelius. Aside from everything else, she was born in Cincinnati.

p.s. Strickland says no way. Which is fine with me. He shouldn't be on that list anyway.

Jim Webb on the Meet the Press during his Senate campaign in 2006 discussing an article he wrote, "Women Cant Fight" and responding to Tim Russert's question about Webb's comment that the Naval Academy "is a horny woman's dream":

Jim Webb's Baggage (at 2:27 ..... see the embarrassing smile when asked to explain the "horny woman's dream" comment

The comments go back 20 years and I dont think the baggage is that serious, but it would be a temporary distraction on the campaign trail that Obama doesnt need.

I think the far greater reason that he will not be the VP choice is that it would risk losing a Democratic seat in the Senate -- the only other highly rated state-wide Democrat in "red" Virginia is Mark Warner, who is currently running for the other Senate seat held by the retiring Repub John Warner (no relation)

"Constitutionally ineligible" refers to the whole constitution. It referred only to Article II until the 22nd amendment was passed, rendering two-term presidents constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of president, and therefore Vice President

Clark is clearly chomping at the bit to be VP.

WesPac is alive and well.

Update

Obama's Veep could be a Republican which would definitely make things very interesting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080620/...pr/obama_hagel

If McCain picks up Lieberman, then I guess we would have two mixed tickets and two minority tickets too.

I like the way this race is shaping up, definitely more interesting.

Thanks for the info Dux, interesting.

Re: Hagel- I don't see it happening. Not completely opposed to it just don't see it ever being anymore then a talking point. Seems every election there's talk of a cross party ticket, far as I know it's always been just that- talk.

Ron Paul and Obama! w00t!!!

I want to preface by saying that I am politically ignorant, for the most part - at least for US politics. You wanna talk about provincial and local politics in al Anbar? Give me a call! :thumbsup:

That being said, I think Obama would be hanging himself to pick either a female or minority VP. To do so would automatically write him off for a good portion of conservative or fence-riding voters.

I don't know much about the potential VPs he's looking at, save one or two.

I'm not too sure how much Wes Clark would help the ticket. Yes, he's a good leader with a tone of military cred. He was, however, Chmn. of the JCS during the war (and when it kicked off, IIRC?). For all the shit-slinging people do at Petraeus, Clark was in an even better position to affect the prosecution of the War on Terror or in Iraq. That's probably just me, though.

General Jones? Well, he was a so-so Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the first ever to take another post (Supreme Commander, Europe) after his four years in the Corps' top spot. Good guy, but not a *great* guy - although he's been pretty well-groomed for foreign policy, particularly in Europe.

I like Jim Webb, for many, many, many reasons. He resigned as SecNav under Reagan - the iconic GOP President - over issues of principle. After Jimmy Webb came back from his first Iraq tour (as an enlisted Marine 0311 Rifleman), Jim wore his son's boots every day while campaigning for Senate. And while he was a Marine, Jim Webb won the Navy Cross, Silver Star, and Bronze Star (x 2) in Viet Nam - yet was NOT a career military man.

Dude has shitloads of military cred, as well as DoD and foreign policy insight, but he's not someone who just hung up his stars a year or two ago. He wouldn't have to wash his hands of Iraq because he had nothing to do with shaping policy that drew us there. He's definitely got some skin in that game, though.

Okay, McCain's kid has done a tour in Iraq as well, to be fair. For me, though, the bottom line is that if Obama picks Webb, he gets my vote automatically.




(Although if we vote based strictly on hotness of wives, McCain and the blonde with tits up to her chin win by a landslide!)

Webb, would be a great VP choice IMO, but can the Dems afford to risk Webb's Senate seat in a 49-49 Senate (2 Independents Lieberman and Sanders caucus with the Democrats)? VA would be a tough open seat for a Dem candidate to defend in a special election (though that wouldn't occur immediately I don't think). Maybe if the Dems make some net gains in Senatoral elections elsewhere in the 2008 elections but that is a bit of a gamble. (for those non-US TFP members 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election)

I think the Dems are widely expected to gain ~ 5 seats in November. Of course, that's predictions, and they mean nothing until the election. So, they'd be risking losing a seat in a climate where they are predicted to get a firm majority but are unlikely to get the magic number of 60%. Not to mention, winning the presidential election will likely be an indicator of picking up a number in the upper range of the Senate seats up for grabs.

In other news, politico.com tells me that Wesley Clark is criticizing McCain's credentials again:

Out of Clarke and Webb, who do you guys perceive as bringing more "tough guy" legitimacy to the ticket?

They're both tough as nails. I'll admit I'm a bit torn between them right now.