Who will Obama choose as a running mate?

[August1991]

Gore?

I see Obama going with a white southern good, rural, gun-owning, Baptist Christian boy. Gore (and Edwards) are probably too left wing.

Any ideas?

[bush_cheney2004]

Looks like Senator Obama's campaign is working on it very carefully. He really can't get too far until the Clintons are dealt with, and the DNC still has a major problem with Florida and Michigan.

Who will he pick?.....first he needs a well vetted short list:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1

[August1991]

From link above:

Obama's campaign refused to talk about who was being considered, but some in the party are calling for him to pick Clinton. Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said Thursday, "There have been no discussions with the Obama campaign about Senator Clinton being the V.P."

Other possible options are governors such as Arizona's Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Tim Kaine of Virginia; foreign policy experts like former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd or Delaware Sen. Joe Biden; or other senators such as Missouri's Claire McCaskill and Virginia's Jim Webb.

He could look outside the party to people such as war critic and Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel or independent New York mayor Mike Bloomberg. Or he could look to one of his early prominent supporters such as former Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota or 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards. Or he could try to bring on a Clinton supporter like Indiana's Evan Bayh.

Evan Bayh. I've heard this one mentioned. He's solid, dependable and should be no Eagleton. He'd also help in a critical state: Indiana.

Sam Nunn? Makes sense except he's 70 and removes a key Obama point in the fall: McCain's too old. (BTW, the French right, Chirac, had a great campaign ad against 62 year old Mitterand in 1988. The billboard simply showed a picture of slippers. The Dems will just have to shuffle or hunch over and everyone will know what is meant.)

Chris Dodd and (plagiarist) Biden are the white brahman equivalent of Obama. Kathleen Sebelius? Maybe. But in the identity-politics obsessed Democratic Party, this would be a finger in the face of Hillary and her supporters.

If I were Obama, I'd go with a dark house, Joe Who unknown with the correct identity, cookie cutter demographics - and pray that he's not another Eagleton with any closet skeletons.

[bush_cheney2004]

....If I were Obama, I'd go with a dark house, Joe Who unknown with the correct identity, cookie cutter demographics - and pray that he's not another Eagleton with any closet skeletons.

I don't think Obama has a lot of options with respect to a "dark horse".....he needs to balance out the ticket and land a whale state. He may have to go woman for the estranged Hillary supporters and he also needs some semblance of sorely lacking foreign policy experience.

Accordingly, I do think Obama will have to justify not picking Senator Clinton to party insiders, who are already reeling from the Howard Dean primary debacle. Obama's peeps are trying to push the old guard DNC to the perimeter, just like the Clintons did.

There is still much scratching and flying hair to come.

[Topaz]

Why not John Kerry? He got the popular vote against Bush and if the votes had been recounted He would have won the election!

[Guest American Woman]

Why not John Kerry? He got the popular vote against Bush and if the votes had been recounted He would have won the election!

You must mean Al Gore. Kerry didn't get the popular vote against Bush and there was no recount involved in the Kerry/Bush election.

[WIP]

You're all wrong! It's going to be Senator Jim Webb of Virginia.

He's the best choice to balance the ticket, since he's a military man who served in Defense Dept. under the Reagan Administration, has strong support among those so called "Reagan Democrats" that are needed by John McCain, if he actually has a hope in hades of winning the election. And even better, the Senate Bill to improve veterans benefits that he's sponsored and has just passed in the Senate, shines a little light on how the Bush Administration and Republicans in general, care nothing for the military other than how to use them for political advantage!

Here's John McCain, following Bush's example of posing in front of tanks and soldiers every chance he gets AND HE REJECTS A BILL TO ALLOW VETERANS THE SAME OPPORTUNITY THAT WWII VETERANS HAD WITH THE G.I. BILL! McCain says he's afraid that they won't re-enlist and go off and die in Iraq, if they have the opportunity to go to college! McCain is no different than Bush and most of the other Republicans who see soldiers as pawns to play in the global chess game and nothing more. If Webb is on the ticket, John McCain's bogus concern for the troops is exposed for all to see!

[Guest American Woman]

How about Richardson?

[oreodontist]

How about Richardson?

Richardson may be Secretary of State.

Obama needs a non-ideological strong white male from one of the big states...I say it'll be a big 'Clinton' supporter to appease some of that crowd. I'll guess it'll be the Governor of Pennsylvania: Ed Rendell.

Obama's VP choice is more politically important to him than John McCain's (probably Romney as VP)...whereas the irony is that McCain is more likely to drop dead or be incapacitated.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Obama's VP choice is more politically important to him than John McCain's (probably Romney as VP)...whereas the irony is that McCain is more likely to drop dead or be incapacitated.

Really? I don't think Senator Obama would agree with this, or would his Secret Service detail.

[Shady]

American Woman's right, Bill Richardson would be a great choice. And as unpleasant for Obama as it might be, Hillary Clinton. Everyone else is chopped liver.

[Michael Bluth]

American Woman's right, Bill Richardson would be a great choice. And as unpleasant for Obama as it might be, Hillary Clinton. Everyone else is chopped liver.

Bill Richardson will definitely make the short list.

The potential reluctance of Hispanics to vote for a black candidate would be turned to an advantage for the Democrats with Richardson on the ticket.

Red states like Colorado, Florida, New Mexico (should be a guaranteed win with Richardson on the ticket), and Nevada would probably move into the lean Democratic column at least. Texas might even be in play.

There is absolutely NO WAY Hillary Clinton gets on the ticket. Could you imagine that after Hillary's RFK assassination comments earlier today?

[Topaz]

You must mean Al Gore. Kerry didn't get the popular vote against Bush and there was no recount involved in the Kerry/Bush election.

Gore ran first and the second time around it was Kerry. There's a movie coming /showing on HBO, topic is what really happened in the Bush elections and the recount that should have taken place.

[Topaz]

American Woman's right, Bill Richardson would be a great choice. And as unpleasant for Obama as it might be, Hillary Clinton. Everyone else is chopped liver.

Richardson I agree but Clinton no way. Today she was talking about staying around because RFK was killed in June when he was running for office and so she thinks she should too because of the death threat Obama has gotten!!! IF she was VP, in less than a year, she'd be president! Too many people who knew the Clintons are dead today, just "goggle" Clintons and read.

[BC_chick]

And as unpleasant for Obama as it might be, Hillary Clinton.

Unpleasant indeed. Except for the jabs at Obama's stance about talking to America's enemies, Clinton spent the majority of the time criticising Obama himself and didn't have much to say about his policies - he's too inexperienced, he's just a dreamer, he's an extremist, his associates are America-haters, he's only got the support of the black community etc etc. All character-assassinations and virtually nothing about policy. On the other hand, Obama spent most of his campaign criticising Clinton's policies with the odd shot here and there about her character.

IMO, it seems that Clinton will go against what she believes if it makes for good politics (ie playing the race card or voting for the Iraq war), whereas Obama will defend his beliefs even when they are unpopular (ie, he didn't disown Reverend Wright until way later when the latter really did push too far).

If this tenacity to one's principles carries on in his choice of VP, he'd be better off bringing on someone who did not spend 10 mil of her own money to drag his name through the mud. If it's not Clinton - when the polls show a bitterness factor of 30% amonst Clinton supporters who would vote McCain before they would Obama - it would show that he will be principled to the end.

If he chooses her, he'll win November hands-down, but it would mean that he's already starting to do what's convenient more so than what is right.

Edited May 26, 2008 by BC_chick

[Remiel]

As long as whoever he chooses has Favoured Enemy: Humanoid (Republican), it is all good.

( If you get that joke, you win a kewpie doll. )

Edited May 26, 2008 by Remiel

[Riverwind]

As long as whoever he chooses has Favoured Enemy: Humanoid (Republican), it is all good.

Don't know if that would be enough if the person choosen practices Githyanki style politics...

[Shady]

Unpleasant indeed. Except for the jabs at Obama's stance about talking to America's enemies, Clinton spent the majority of the time criticising Obama himself and didn't have much to say about his policies - he's too inexperienced, he's just a dreamer, he's an extremist, his associates are America-haters, he's only got the support of the black community etc etc. All character-assassinations and virtually nothing about policy. On the other hand, Obama spent most of his campaign criticising Clinton's policies with the odd shot here and there about her character.

IMO, it seems that Clinton will go against what she believes if it makes for good politics (ie playing the race card or voting for the Iraq war), whereas Obama will defend his beliefs even when they are unpopular (ie, he didn't disown Reverend Wright until way later when the latter really did push too far).

If this tenacity to one's principles carries on in his choice of VP, he'd be better off bringing on someone who did not spend 10 mil of her own money to drag his name through the mud. If it's not Clinton - when the polls show a bitterness factor of 30% amonst Clinton supporters who would vote McCain before they would Obama - it would show that he will be principled to the end.

If he chooses her, he'll win November hands-down, but it would mean that he's already starting to do what's convenient more so than what is right.

Most of what you say is true. However, I don't believe Sen. Clinton ever referred to Obama as an extremist.

And despite what others may say since Hillary's ridiculous RFK comments, she'd still be the best VP choice for Obama. If he doesn't choose Clinton, he loses in November.

[Guest American Woman]

Unpleasant indeed. Except for the jabs at Obama's stance about talking to America's enemies, Clinton spent the majority of the time criticising Obama himself and didn't have much to say about his policies - he's too inexperienced, he's just a dreamer, he's an extremist, his associates are America-haters, he's only got the support of the black community etc etc. All character-assassinations and virtually nothing about policy. On the other hand, Obama spent most of his campaign criticising Clinton's policies with the odd shot here and there about her character.

Perhaps that's because Obama doesn't have "policies" to criticize. Seems to me he's mostly pushing ideas, without any real policies to back them up. So Clinton is right in saying he's inexperienced. On the other hand, Clinton does have plenty of policies, so if Obama is criticizing her policies, it's because there's something there to criticize.

IMO, it seems that Clinton will go against what she believes if it makes for good politics (ie playing the race card or voting for the Iraq war), whereas Obama will defend his beliefs even when they are unpopular (ie, he didn't disown Reverend Wright until way later when the latter really did push too far).

Clinton didn't vote for the Iraq war as it was. Her mistake was taking Bush at his word. Excerpts:

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial.

Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. link

As for Obama, he "disowned" Wright after he saw how much damage he was doing to him and his campaign. I hardly see that as "defending his beliefs."

[Guest American Woman]

And despite what others may say since Hillary's ridiculous RFK comments, she'd still be the best VP choice for Obama. If he doesn't choose Clinton, he loses in November.

What was ridiculous about her comments? What she said was true, and it was clear that her point was that past primaries have gone until June, without people telling candidates to give up. I admire Clinton's tenacity and think it's a trait the POTUS should have. Why people feel they have the right to tell her to 'give it up' before the primary is over is difficult to understand. If the primaries are going to go until June, then that's how long the candidates should campaign. What's the use in continuing with the primaries otherwise? Seems to me the criticism should be for the way the primaries go on and on, not for a candidate who has the fortitude to stick it out.

But regarding her comment: "It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance 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." Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

[bush_cheney2004]

What was ridiculous about her comments? What she said was true, and it was clear that her point was that past primaries have gone until June, without people telling candidates to give up....

Ridiculous no...very stupid...yes!

Members of the Kennedy family are incensed over Hillary Rodham Clinton’s invoking the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy to explain why she’s staying in the race - and they think it could be the death knell of an increasingly desperate and sloppy campaign.

“That comment may be the last nail in her campaign’s coffin,” a Kennedy relative told The Post. “How can Hillary even use the experience argument when she repeatedly pushes the wrong buttons in her comments?”

An insider added, “I think people really felt that a line was crossed and that her campaign - and even her legitimacy as a politician - ended today.”

Said a second relative, “She no longer has only her husband to blame for the ill-chosen comments coming from her camp.”

http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/prima...kennedy-family/

One of the reasons that the campaign season often went until June was the California primary date, not as an opportunity for assassination of one's rival.

[Guest American Woman]

Robert F. Kennedy Jr's opinion carries a lot more weight than "unnamed Kennedy family sources."

[bush_cheney2004]

Robert F. Kennedy Jr's opinion carries a lot more weight than "unnamed Kennedy family sources."

Wait...it gets better!

Clinton's LBJ Comments Infuriated Ted Kennedy

There's more to Sen. Edward Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama than meets the eye. Apparently, part of the reason why the liberal lion from Massachusetts embraced Obama was because of a perceived slight at the Kennedy family's civil rights legacy by the other Democratic presidential primary frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Sources say Kennedy was privately furious at Clinton for her praise of President Lyndon Baines Johnson for getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act accomplished. Jealously guarding the legacy of the Kennedy family dynasty, Senator Kennedy felt Clinton's LBJ comments were an implicit slight of his brother, President John F. Kennedy, who first proposed the landmark civil rights initiative in a famous televised civil rights address in June 1963.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/01/post_11.html

The Clintons...so busy trying to imitate the Kennedy's....have only managed to insult them.

Edited May 26, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

Wait...it gets better!

*yawn*

If you say so.

[Wild Bill]

Most of what you say is true. However, I don't believe Sen. Clinton ever referred to Obama as an extremist.

And despite what others may say since Hillary's ridiculous RFK comments, she'd still be the best VP choice for Obama. If he doesn't choose Clinton, he loses in November.

He'd be a total fool! Given Hillary's personality, she'd likely constantly try to exceed her station and attempt to run the country!

Every day would be a fight.