[Al_U_Card]

Count'em......the number of years that a Bush or a Clinton has been either Prez or Veep since Prescott's idiot son first ascended to the throne....

And here comes a few more should Hil(Billie) get the nod for veep. Sheesh.

[kenberg]

I will go out on what I believe to be a very solid limb and predict that Hillary will not be chosen as Obama's running mate. Firstly, I don't think she would take it. She has done her time in the close to the throne business. Further, it would be political idiocy. I have a hard time imagining the person who says "I was going to vote for McCain but now that Hillary is on as Veep I will vote for Obama" but I can well imagine the large block of Hillary haters saying "No way am I voting for a ticket that includes her". If I were advising Obama I would suggest that he pick someone with longtime solid credentials and without a lot of baggage. I think much of the Hillary hatred is irrational and irresponsible but the fact that it exists is undeniable. On this subject I recall some republican friends deploring the hatred of George Bush. There is some of that, and I deplore that as well, but the hatred of the Clintons is way over the top.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on May 11 2008, 04:46 PM, said:

I will go out on what I believe to be a very solid limb and predict that Hillary will not be chosen as Obama's running mate. Firstly, I don't think she would take it. She has done her time in the close to the throne business. Further, it would be political idiocy. I have a hard time imagining the person who says "I was going to vote for McCain but now that Hillary is on as Veep I will vote for Obama" but I can well imagine the large block of Hillary haters saying "No way am I voting for a ticket that includes her". If I were advising Obama I would suggest that he pick someone with longtime solid credentials and without a lot of baggage. I think much of the Hillary hatred is irrational and irresponsible but the fact that it exists is undeniable. On this subject I recall some republican friends deploring the hatred of George Bush. There is some of that, and I deplore that as well, but the hatred of the Clintons is way over the top.

I agree with your assessment. Hillary would bring a lot of negatives to the ticket and little or no corresponding positives.

If I were Obama, I'd be seriously considering Jim Webb as VP

Folks might find the following amusing

http://www.youtube.c...tLFJTc3oExE

[Al_U_Card]

Al_U_Card, on May 11 2008, 08:12 AM, said:

Count'em......the number of years that a Bush or a Clinton has been either Prez or Veep since Prescott's idiot son first ascended to the throne....

And here comes a few more should Hil(Billie) get the nod for veep. Sheesh.

Did I mention for which party????? rofl

[PassedOut]

hrothgar, on May 11 2008, 08:53 AM, said:

If I were Obama, I'd be seriously considering Jim Webb as VP.

Yes, Webb would be just right. Don't know if he'd be interested, but I guess it would hard to turn it down.

[Winstonm]

Anyone but Lieberman.

[awm]

28 years with a Bush or a Clinton in the white house.

I'm 32 years old and can barely remember before the first Bush became VP.

Seems unlikely Obama will choose Clinton for VP though. I think Bill Richardson might be a good choice, since he would help with two of Obama's weaknesses (perceived lack of experience, and difficulty appealing to latino voters).

[kenberg]

Bill Richardson would be a good choice. But talking about hatreds (well, I was anyway) that would no doubt be seen by the Clintons as rubbing salt in a wound. I doubt Obama will want to go there. Webb would certainly be an interesting choice. I am betting on someone more conventional. So I am also ruling out Jesse Ventura. I don't know that Joe Biden would be interested, but maybe.

All this talk about getting away from the Washington way of doing things makes me, and maybe others, nervous. The last guy to run on that mantra was Jimmy Carter and it didn't work out so well. I don't remember the details but the story, maybe not true, was that at one of the early meetings with congressional leaders one of them introduced himself to Carter and said "You may have heard of me, I'm the Speaker of the House". Washington could use some shaking up, no doubt about that, but it never hurts to have someone around who knows how to get things done.

[jtfanclub]

PassedOut, on May 11 2008, 10:48 AM, said:

hrothgar, on May 11 2008, 08:53 AM, said:

If I were Obama, I'd be seriously considering Jim Webb as VP.

Yes, Webb would be just right. Don't know if he'd be interested, but I guess it would hard to turn it down.

Awk.

He beat Macaca-boy by .5%
He wrote an article in 1979 titled "Women can't fight".
He's written several books which were soft porn and may or may not have included pedophilia.

I think if you wanted to completely turn off women from Obama, Webb would be your man. If you really want a generic general for Veep, try Wesley Clark. Not that I like him either.

Probably the best choice is Kathleen Sebelius.

-She won in a landslide in a Red state.
-She's worked with Republicans, and in fact her vice-governor was a Republican until the day before she nominated him.
-She's female, and 62. Hillary Clinton is female, and 60. Both are from the heartland.
-She's Catholic, which doesn't hurt for getting the Catholic vote.
-The worst I've heard about her? She's pro-choice and pro-gun control, at least for concealed weapons. If anything, that'll help her as a veep.
-She was born and raised in Ohio, and her dad was Governor there.

I'm betting that she would bring Ohio, Kansas, and Missouri over to Obama, while she wouldn't hurt anywhere. A lot of Hillary supporters who claim they'll stay home now that Obama has won the nomination would have a hard time not voting for Sebelius.

Personally, I like Bill Richardson better, but I wasn't real impressed by his campaign. Sebelius would be a very solid VP.

[mike777]

It is a pretty good discussion if a VP can bring even one state that would be lost otherwise the last 40 years but I think hoping they could bring two states over is a pipedream. I think Gore lost Tenn when he ran for president.

But if we assume a vp can help in even one state, a big but common assumption I think Rendall (Penn) would be the biggest help here.

My best guess is a lousy VP choice can hurt but a even a good VP choice the last 40 years cannot help carry a losing or tossup state.

I have my doubts Webb could carry Virginia if Obama is losing it or Kansas let alone the region or Richardson help carry even one toss up state.

Bottom line a bad VP choice can hurt, a great one will not carry even one tossup state, today. Today is not 1960.

[hrothgar]

This might seem naive, but I don't that Obama should pick a VP based on their ability to put a single state into play or lock down an individual swing state. My impression is that Obama like Dean favors a "50 State strategy". The Democrats will be contesting elections on a very broad front. Correspondingly, the GOP is going to be forced to play defense on a broad front.

It's critical for Obama to select a VP candidate that will address a perceived weakness across a broad swath of the electorate. Webb brings a very strong background with the military. His own background and back story is more than a match for McCain. Moreover, until recently Webb was a Republican. He's a great choice to demonstrate a willingness to work across the aisles. I don't dispute that Webb brings some baggage, but any with any kind of a record brings baggage.

Personally, I'm not particularly worried about Obama's ability to capture votes from women or Latinos. Yes, Clinton ran better with these voters during the primaries, however, I think that they will continue to be reliable Democratic voters. Angry white men, thats another story...

My main concern with Webb is very different. If Webb takes over as Vice President, the Democratic party will lose an incumbent Senator in a State thatr doesn't vote Democratic all that often. I very much hope that this will be irrelevant in after 2008. I think that the Democrats have a real chance to pick up a large number of seats (and we'll finally get to ditch Lieberman). Even so, the thought of losing a Senate seat is daunting.

[blackshoe]

As usual, all the political machinations in a presidential election are designed to get (or keep) one's favorite party in power. Whatever happened to doing what's best for the country?

[mycroft]

But, but, but Ed - the country clearly does best when the letter after my name is in the majority/White House. After all, our policies are better for the country than those guys's, therefore, if we can enact them, the country will be better? How could you say otherwise?

(yeah, I know, how about "your policies suck less than the other team's, yeah, but that's still comparing a mangled arm to a sucking chest wound. How about trying to actually help for a change?")

[luke warm]

well this verges on too flippant, but the joke making the rounds is that if obamba chose hillary as VP he'd have to hire a food taster

[blackshoe]

@Mike: Exactly!
@Luke: Oooh, that's cold! I like it!

I tend to want to write "none of the above is acceptable" on my ballot.

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on May 12 2008, 05:29 PM, said:

well this verges on too flippant, but the joke making the rounds is that if obamba chose hillary as VP he'd have to hire a food taster

Or avoid motorcades and the Bush family "cadres creating candidates"

[jtfanclub]

blackshoe, on May 12 2008, 05:32 PM, said:

I tend to want to write "none of the above is acceptable" on my ballot.

If they're not acceptable because they aren't doing enough about the environment, vote for Nader.
If they're not acceptable because they spend to much, vote for Bob Barr.
If they're not acceptable because they keep out third parties, vote for the Reform candidate.

You've got more than two choices here.

[blackshoe]

You miss my point entirely.

Quote

If they're not acceptable because they aren't doing enough about the environment, vote for Nader.

Not a chance in Hell.

Quote

If they're not acceptable because they spend to much, vote for Bob Barr.

Not all that familiar with this guy, but I doubt he'd be acceptable either.

Quote

If they're not acceptable because they keep out third parties, vote for the Reform candidate.

What does the rest of the Reform party (is there a Reform party in the US?) platform say?

Voting on the basis of a single issue is lazy, and will rarely have a good result.

[luke warm]

i think his point was, there are choices other than the reps and dems... if you're waiting for the perfect candidate (ie, one whose views on all issues mirror yours) you might have a long wait

[helene_t]

If I were ever to vote in a country with a two-party system (I might one day become a British citizen, who knows) I am not sure whether I would vote for the lesser evil of the two parties, or whether I would express my contempt for the system by voting for some no-chance small party or independent candiate. I think in the current US climate I would vote for a democrat and in the current British climate I would vote for the LibDems.

What I would not do would be not to vote. Unless all candidates (including the small parties and independents) were appr. equally disgusting. But that is not very likely to happen, at least not in a system remotely resembling democracy.