Lynn Sweet of The Chicago Sun Times is reporting that the Obama campaign sees some urgency in the timing of picking a VP.

Speaking to reporters on his campaign plane flying from San Juan, PR to Chicago on Saturday, likely Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said he will have to pick a running mate "quickly" once the primary and caucus votes are over.

One suspects the reasoning has something to do with the whole party unity thing, or perhaps they want to fuel the narrative that the nomination will be decided "when primary and caucus votes are over" but it should be noted that in 2004, John Kerry didn't announce his choice of John Edwards for VP until early July, a mere two weeks before the convention. A little amusing sidenote, the dailykos frontpage repeatedlyheralded the Edwards pick as "the people's choice." Wonder if they'll be calling on Obama to pick the people's choice this year. No?

Despite the near consensus view among the punditry class that Obama won't pick Clinton for VP, she is on all speculative shortlists I've seen. Marc Ambinder has her as last with Kathleen Sebelius at #1. Lynn Sweet (Ambinder says: "I trust her more than I trust myself!"), has the opposite view. The following is her first tier:

HILLARY CLINTON brings in supporters who delivered victories for her in key swing states; a female vote and instant Democratic "dream ticket" unity. Yet it will be hard for Obama to have a campaign for change with her as a partner. They have no chemistry. Obama would have to figure Bill Clinton would be part of the picture.

VIRGINIA GOV. TIM KAINE may bring in a Southern state, was one of Obama's earliest backers and Obama seems to enjoy being with him.

Obama, who has no military background, is looking for Republicans and independent votes. SEN. JIM WEBB, a freshman senator from Virginia, is a former Navy secretary under President Ronald Reagan, a former Marine, speaks Vietnamese and comes from the South.

Several figures who backed Clinton from key swing states could fill the governing hole in Obama's resume and build a bridge to the Clinton supporters. They are Iowa Gov. TOM VILSACK, Ohio Gov. TED STRICKLAND and Indiana Sen. EVAN BAYH, a former governor.

As part of the hunt for those GOP and independent voters, Obama could look at Sen. CHUCK HAGEL (R-Neb.) and New York Mayor MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, now an independent.

Bringing up the rear:

Pro-Obama governors from swing states: Kansas Gov. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS and Arizona Gov. JANET NAPOLITANO. But if Obama passes over Clinton, it would backfire to put these lesser qualified women on the ticket.

I'm not sure in what world Kansas is a swing state, but this is not the first time I've heard this point made that Obama's picking a woman for VP who's not Hillary would be a really dumb move: if you're going to go with a woman, why not Hillary? It could piss more women off than it mollifies.

For me, the best non-Hillary choice is Jim Webb. Not only does he put Virginia even more in play than Obama himself puts it, but he shores up the whole foreign policy experience thing and, as a former Republican, Webb brings some thematic consistency to the ticket.

I'm intrigued by constant reference to Sam Nunn as a potential VP pick. Sweet mentions him among her choices. Nunn would be the equivalent of Bush's picking Cheney: someone from the old guard, chosen to mitigate fears about the candidate's lack of experience, but also someone who, presumably, would not run for president in 8 years (he turns 70 in September.) In a way, wouldn't the choice of Sam Nunn also be sort of a concession to Hillary Clinton, saying "I'm not picking you for VP, but you'll be the presumptive nominee in 8 years if you want it?"

Tags: 2008 Presidential election, Barack Obama, Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, VP (all tags)



It will be a Virginian
or Warner
by parahammer 2008-05-25 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: It will be a Virginian

Warner has stated that he is  being considered.  Of course, this hurts us in the senate, big time, unless they have a senate candidate replacement in mind (Republican Gilmore is a very weak candidate).

If Obama picks Warner, the state of Virginia, and the election, is his.

by LordMike 2008-05-25 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: It will be a Virginian

Warner could conceivably run for both ala Joementum.

by parahammer 2008-05-25 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: It will be a Virginian

McCain is going to have to put a hard-core Conservative on his ticket.  He is already viewed as a waffler on conservative issues, so he will have to shore up support with the radical part of his party's base...

Besides, McCain circa 2000 might have meshed with Warner... McCain circa 2008 does not.

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-25 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: It will be a Virginian

If you do the electoral math, McCain is really in bad shape.  Even using conservative metrics, you'd have to consider Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado almost locked up, given the demo changes, the polls, and the fact that all of the states now have a Democratic Governors.  

That leaves McCain all but on the outside looking in, unless he can turn some of the traditional blue states red -- the one's that even Kerry managed to win in his landslide loss.  

That's why I think it McCain has to select Tim Pawlenty.  It's not that Pawlety is necessarily popular, or has such a good record, or even balances the ticket all that well.  It's just that, McCain has to win a blue state, and Pawlenty is the only Republican Governor from any state with a chance of going red.  

by such sweet thunder 2008-05-25 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: It will be a Virginian

Warner is very strong and a strong contender for 2016.

by MissVA 2008-05-25 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: It will be a Virginian

I think Strickland would be an interesting choice personally... although, the foreign policy cred with Webb is worth considering... and Warner, well, especially given his involvement with Wilder's campaign in 1989, e can certainly help...

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-25 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: It will be a Virginian

Strickland might be a very good choice as well since he was against the war and has also served in Congress before.  I think Obama has a good shot at Ohio without him on the ticket but an even better shot with him on the ticket. We will see.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-25 08:45AM | 0 recs
Shameless Self Promotion

I wrote a long diary today about who the VP nods for both parties will be using cues from where the Obama campaign is putting it's resources: 1/2517#readmore

by such sweet thunder 2008-05-25 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: It will be a Virginian

Strickland would help with Ohio, but I don't see what else he brings. Is he a good campaigner/ surrogate? Doesn't seem like it.

by animated 2008-05-25 09:58AM | 0 recs

Is he the kind of person that could carry Ohio?  Ohio is a complicated state, and winning there involves pulling up Democratic turnout in heart of the otherwise GOP-controlled Cincinnati area (a heavily segregated part of the state) plus driving huge turnouts in the progressive Cleveland area and its surrounding Rust Belt communities.  Strickland is from Southeast Ohio, which is a sparsely-populated region across the river from WVa, so I'm not sure that he brings too much of Ohio with him

It helps that Coleman is Mayor of Columbus - he's a well-liked and competent mayor (I've met him, he's a great guy) and can help bring along Columbus's African-American and student communities (largely OSU).

Strickland is a good governor, but he's no rockstar, and Ohio politics have a high level of corruption, so I sure hope that he's heavily vetted.  I'll assume from the start that Strickland himself is clean, but you don't get to the top in Ohio without unsavory friends.

by auronrenouille 2008-05-25 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: It will be a Virginian

I think Obama should just make the entire state of Virginia his veep.

Obama/Virginia: Yeah, we put a friggin' STATE on the ticket. Deal with it.

by really not a troll 2008-05-25 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: It will be a Virginian

and wrong.

please see my comment at the bottom of this post for why

by 2501 2008-05-25 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

She was until Friday. No way she is VP now. Sorry it ain't going to happen.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-25 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

"if you're going to go with a woman, why not Hillary"

Just because Sen. Clinton would be a great president, doesn't mean she would be a great vice-president.  I love her, but I think she is best at setting her own agenda.  I don't know how well she would be able to be a team player for Obama.  And Bill has been pretty bad at this as well.

by deepee 2008-05-25 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

And speaking of "if you're going to go with a woman, why not Hillary," would women really only see the bad in Obama selecting a woman other than Clinton?

I understand the possibility of backlash from women who strongly identify as Hillary supporters. But from women in general? Would it still be considered sexist or degrading to select the second-ever female VP just because it's not Hillary?

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-05-25 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Yes, many would see it as a pander, and a not particularly well calculated one.  Many Clinton voters are people who value experience, so yes is the short answer. Unless he picks a woman of similar stature to Clinton, such as say, Barbara Boxer (who he will think is too liberal) or Diane Feinstein (who some of his supporters may see as too conservative, yes some female Clinton supporters will be annoyed.  In fact, choosing a person even more inexperienced than himself would be a killer.

Otherwise, the choice would say, "You women are such idiots you see each other as interchangeable."  

If he does not pick Clinton, and he wishes to attract Clinton supporters to vote for him, I think the prospective VP candidate should:

1.  Have absolutely no history of sexist behavior (may let out Webb)

  1.  Have been neutral or a Clinton supporter in the primary
  2.  Have substantial executive, economic, military or foreign policy experience. (lets out McCaskill, and probably also Sibelius)
  3.  Would not hurt to be from a 'Clinton' state that usually goes Democratic, say PA, or that sometimes goes Democratic, say Arkansas, Ohio, FL, or WV.

If not going for a senior Democratic woman, some good choices might be Gov. Ed Rendell of PA or Gen. Wes Clark ( who is from Arkansas) might be a good choice.

by LIsoundview 2008-05-25 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

So, what if McCain were to pick a woman as his VP, say Condi Rice?

Would that mean Obama still couldn't pick a woman unless it was Hillary?

Historically, the best running mates have been people who actually like each other. Kerry/Edwards should have been the Dems' dream ticket, but they didn't like each other.

I would say, at this point, that there's no way an Obama/Clinton ticket would work. She would refuse to follow his lead, and would probably wind up scuttling his entire message of change.

by 2501 2008-05-25 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Thanks for the response.

I wouldn't have listed McCaskill as a serious contender, only because her lack of experience is pretty glaring (2 years less in the Senate than Obama).

But if not Hillary, then that pretty much leaves it to a female governor (the oft-mentioned Sebelius or Napolitano) or a Senator like Feinstein or Boxer (as you suggested).

To be honest, it's a pretty thin bench, and might well make it impossible to select a woman if not Hillary--and he's most likely not picking Hillary.

I like Clark myself and think he'd be a fine choice, though he wouldn't deliver any particular state (possibly his home state of Arkansas, but I doubt it). Rendell's not a bad choice. Bayh would also be a competent if not exciting choice, but we'd lose his Senate seat.

I don't envy Obama at all having to balance all these considerations.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-05-25 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

The thinness of the bench is a function of the misogyny in the country for sure.  It's even more glaring when you consider how many women in Congress took over slots from their husbands.

If McCain chose CT Gov. M. Jodi Rell as a Veep, I think he could siphon off some Hillary voters.  She's pro choice, an executive, and pretty savvy, if largely unknown.  But McCain doesn't need to add 'experience' to his ticket.  It's his strong poing.

Picking Condi would dilute McCain's, "I'm not George W Bush," central message.  I very much doubt that choosing Condi would buy him any votes anywhere.  He's not getting CA unless it's a landslide for him.  He's claiming he already has military & foreign policy experience, and those are his strengths, so she adds nothing there.  And the likelihood of a significant number of African Americans voting for Condi is very low, IMO.  My sense is that choosing Condi wouldn't attract Hillary voters very much.  There is absolutely no evidence that she has any interests in the rural areas of the US

by LIsoundview 2008-05-25 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Sebelius has substantial executive experience and has managed to be a very popular fairly progressive governor in a state as red as Kansas. If she'd run for President I'd have been 100% behind her, and I think she'd make a fantastic VP. My only concern about that is that she's a shoo-in to take Brownback's seat in two years.

Of course, taking a highly qualified woman as the VP is apparently a slap in the face to Hillary, so I think my next choice would be either Chris Dodd or Gen. Clark. I'd say John Edwards, but he's my dream AG candidate.

by Geiiga 2008-05-25 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Sibelius is, like Rell, largely unknown outside the blogosphere, or the wilds of political wonks.  Her name has never appeared on my local TV or newspaper.  Whether she has experience or not, she will not be perceived as experienced.

You need someone like Boxer or Feinstein or Mikulski that people have actually heard of, if you're going to have a non-Hillary woman.

by LIsoundview 2008-05-25 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

BTW, I like Clark or Dodd, too.

by LIsoundview 2008-05-27 01:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

<iOtherwise, the choice would say, "You women are such idiots you see each other as interchangeable."  </i>

Jeralyn on TalkLeft made this point a while ago. My response: is it better to argue that there is simply no woman capable of being VP other than Clinton? Is there no room for the idea that a woman can be chosen for her own strengths?

Hillary is not even the most experienced woman in the Senate, let alone the most experienced woman who might be seriously considered. If there's a group of women so in the tank for her that they aren't even willing to judge other women on their own merits...well, how likely is it that Obama's going to win them over no matter what he does? Write them off (there can't be that many, however loudly they're proclaiming their insanity in blog comments), and let him pick someone who he works well with, who suits the message of the ticket, who brings additional states into play, or any combination of the above. It ain't her.

by epenthesis 2008-05-25 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

One more time.  

I know Obama supporters don't respect Hillary's experience, but Hillary's supporters do.  

And Mikulski, Feinstein or Boxer would be OK with most of the Hillary supporters I know.  A woman with less experience than Obama, no.

Another thing.  The experience Obama needs in a VP is not executive experience.  The president is the executive, not the VP.

 The experience I'd like to see is with foreign policy or national/global economic policy.  Sebelius, Napolitano, & McCaskill don't have any more experience in those areas than Obama.  Or experience in dealing with the Senate.  Sebelius, Napolitano & McCaskill don't have any more experience in the Senate than Obama, either.

by LIsoundview 2008-05-27 01:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

think of it this way - If Hillary is our nominee, how would you feel if she picked D. Patrick as veep over Obama?

by colebiancardi 2008-05-25 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

it'd be a terrible choice because no one likes D. Patrick. Hell, it might put MA in play.

by really not a troll 2008-05-25 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

I don't know, has D. Patrick even made any insinuations he might get to be president if Hillary were assassinated?

by 2501 2008-05-25 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

missing the point.  

by colebiancardi 2008-05-25 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

It's a good point, but for me personally, I'd be voting Democratic regardless. It's a question best answered by African-Americans. I've seen female Clinton supporters discuss the issue of a non-Hillary female VP, but not African-Americans discussing a non-Obama AA VP.

But from the perspective of a white male, I think snubbing Obama would've been worse.

From Obama's perspective, picking Clinton undermines the entire rationale of his campaign: "no more politics as usual"; change D.C. by changing the players; and so on.

We've known for months--and long before the race got overheated--that he'd have a difficult time picking her for that reason.

On the other hand, there'd be no real electoral reason for Hillary not to pick Obama other than a poor relationship between the two. In fact, Obama is just the kind of VP she needs, just as Edwards was what Kerry needed--a young, exciting person to be the "up-and-comer" benefiting from her tutelage.

Therefore, snubbing Obama would seem more egregious.

My suspicion is that if Obama doesn't pick a female VP, McCain will

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-05-25 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

It's a good point, but I'd be voting Democratic regardless. It's a question best answered by African-Americans. I've seen a lot of pro-Hillary women discuss the issue of a non-Hillary female VP, but no African-Americans discussing a non-Obama AA VP.

But it would seem to me that there's less justification for passing over Obama. From his perspective, picking Clinton undermines the entire rationale of his campaign: "no more politics as usual"; change D.C. by changing the players; and so on.

We've known for months--and long before the race got overheated--that he'd have a difficult time picking her for that reason.

On the other hand, there'd be no real electoral reason not to pick Obama other than a poor relationship between the two. In fact, Obama is just the kind of VP she needs, just as Edwards was what Kerry needed--a young, exciting person to be the "up-and-comer" benefiting from her tutelage.

So snubbing Obama would seem more egregious.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-05-25 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

It's also telling that the only name ever mentioned in this devil's-advocate argument is Patrick's. If the pool of women who might be viable running mates is small, the pool of African Americans is downright puny: Obama himself, Patrick himself, and David Paterson are the only sitting senator and governors, and Carol Moseley Braun and Doug Wilder are (as far as I know) the only former ones living. None but Obama would be all that promising. And it's rare that a nominee goes so deep into the bench as to seriously consider a House member; people with a statewide profile are generally preferable.

Hillary choosing an African-American running mate other than Obama would, under those circumstances, be rather an obvious snub. But again, it's a devil's-advocate scenario--she would need to be in such trouble with the black community that even an unpopular or obscure black running mate would be an asset.

by epenthesis 2008-05-25 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

VP Clinton is not the right thing for Obama and not the right thing for Clinton.  She knows it and he knows it.  

by smoker1 2008-05-25 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Also, I think that Jim Webb will be the VP choice. I am very impressed with his talk about Affirmative Action and Appalachia and I think that the two of them doing some round table discussions in rural areas with working class voters of all races would really help Obama.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-25 08:37AM | 0 recs

Webb is the best candidate. The problem is that he is not particularly charismatic. But charisma is not the lacking agent for Obama; Kerry picked Edwards for his charisma. Webb adds gravitas to the ticket more than anything else.

Clinton was a viable pick until Friday. Despite Clinton's protestations to the contrary, a lot of Obama supporters genuinely interpreted her RFK comments nefariously and would be outraged at a Clinton VP slot.

by elrod 2008-05-25 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Webb
I just picked up Webb's new book.
He seems to be an economic populist.
If he can deliver VA it will be very worthwhile having him on the ticket.
by parahammer 2008-05-25 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Webb

I like Webb as a general rule of thumb, but there are a couple major issues with him. Unless I'm brainfarting this early in the morning, he's quite conservative on social issues.

Possibly more important, he is going to add fuel to the sexism fire die harder Clinton supporters are trying to get going. He wrote some extremely inflammatory articles against women in the military and not only are the words pretty damning in and of themselves, there are lots of women who served in military academies at the time who hold him personally responsible and are willing to go on camera and say they faced abuse explicitly justified because of his words. It's a no-go.

by werehippy 2008-05-25 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Webb

He's pro-choice.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-25 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Webb

true, but the original commenter is also correct... Prior to the "macaca" moment, the state GOP was exploiting Webb's writings regarding women and they are pretty inflammatory... not what Obama needs...

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-25 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Webb

Yeah, I read he actually switched parties more because of economic issues than because of Iraq.

by Bush Bites 2008-05-25 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Webb

He was originally a Democrat .. but switched when Carter pardoned all those who fled to Canada rather than go to Vietnam

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-05-25 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Webb

Ah, well, I guess I could see both sides of that argument.

But I do remember him saying that he particularly abhorred the Republicans' economic policies and that his anti-Iraq War position was sometimes overshadowing his (populist) economic message.

Couldn't find the statement I'm remembering, but I did find this column on Webb's populist message: tent/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062701824. html

by Bush Bites 2008-05-25 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Webb

I don't know how you say he isn't charismatic.

Did you see his reponse to Bush's SOTU?

It was the best one in years. sen-webbs-democratic-response-to-the-so tu-the-wars-costs-to-our-nation-have-bee n-staggering

I mean, yeah, he comes off as serious and sober, but that can be charismatic if it lends authority to what he's saying.

(Unlike McCain, who stumbles and bumbles as he's reading the teleprompter.)

by Bush Bites 2008-05-25 09:50AM | 0 recs
Great post Todd

Maybe you could spice it up with a totally dishonest graph or by taking a gratuitous potshot at Obama.

Seriously though, I agree, Webb would make a fantastic pick.  Unfortunately we'd lose his seat in the Senate, however, but there should be a reasonable margin there after this election, and the large margin isn't as important if there's a Democrat in the Whitehouse.

by SpanishFly 2008-05-25 08:38AM | 0 recs
The webb Seat
The Webb seat is safe for the next four years. He was elected in 06 and Gov Kaine would appoint his replacement.
The seat would be in play when President Obama and VP Webb are running for reelection in 2012.
by parahammer 2008-05-25 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: The webb Seat

I don't know Virginia election law, but I highly doubt the governor could appoint someone to fill out that long of a term. I would assume their special election procedures either require one to be scheduled a certain number of days after the vacancy opens, or that it be held during the next regular elections.

Either way, we'd probably be looking at an election for that seat no later than November '09 if Webb is selected VP and wins. And supposedly, the VA bench is pretty thin.

Webb would be great but for questions about his Senate seat and his past writings about women's leadership abilities. Given the dynamics of this particular race, past accusations of sexism might be a disqualifier for a possible VP.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-05-25 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: The webb Seat

If Webb is elected Vice President. Governor Tim Kaine appoints a replacement plus a Special Election will occur in November 2009- Tim Kaine can appoint a care taker like Doug Wilder who will be a caretaker appointee and Kaine runs for a full US Senate term himself.

by nkpolitics 2008-05-25 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Great post Todd

DKos didn't say that Edwards was the "People's choice" .. they were just reporting what the AP and networks were saying .. Todd needs to re-read it

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-05-25 10:00AM | 0 recs
Hagel, Sebelius, fuhgedaboutit
They won't help the ticket, check the polls at OpenLeft: ryId=5976
by Gray 2008-05-25 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Hagel, Sebelius, fuhgedaboutit

Ah, those surveys are all based on name recognition at this point.

They're worse than meaningless.

by Bush Bites 2008-05-25 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Hagel, Sebelius, fuhgedaboutit

Name reconginition is an importatant factor. And, regarding that there's not so much time til the general election, certainly not meaningless. It's better to chose a running mate who is already well known and will contribute to the ticket from day one.

by Gray 2008-05-27 04:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Hagel, Sebelius, fuhgedaboutit

Maybe it's just me, but I find the idea of picking  a Republican to be on our ticket to be infuriating. There are plenty (and I do mean plenty) of excellent Dems to choose from, although I don't think Sebelius is one of them.  And exactly when did Kansas become a swing state?  That's like saying Georgia is a swing state.

by Denny Crane 2008-05-25 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Hagel, Sebelius, fuhgedaboutit

"Maybe it's just me, but I find the idea of picking  a Republican to be on our ticket to be infuriating."

Me, too. Horrible idea. But I didn't come up with it.

by Gray 2008-05-27 04:48AM | 0 recs
&quot;Lesser qualified women.&quot;

They say that as though it's a fact.

Sebelius and Napolitano both have more executive experience than Hillary.

by Shem 2008-05-25 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: &quot;Lesser qualified women.&quot;

I can't speak regarding Napolitano- I don't know much about her but I do think that Hillary is light years ahead of Kathleen Sebelius.

by JDF 2008-05-25 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: &quot;Lesser qualified women.&quot;

Senator Clinton is obviously qualified, but Sebelius has almost singlehandedly rejuvinated her state Democratic party and won election in a ruby red state twice.  She has been named one of the top five governor's in the nation as well, and would bring valuable executive experience to the ticket.  I'm not going to argue she's more qualified than Senator Clinton, but to label her "lesser qualified" strikes me as an objectively unsupportable statement and an insult to a very qualified politician.  When I read that statement in the article cited, I was seriously shocked.  

by HSTruman 2008-05-25 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: &quot;Lesser qualified women.&quot;

Light years?  When did Clinton ever makes decisions where the buck stopped with her?  Sebelius has, since she is the Governor of a state .. and a popular one(in a red state) at that

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-05-25 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: &quot;Lesser qualified women.&quot;

Look, I am not saying I dislike Sebelius- but based on what I have seen of her and what I have seen of Clinton I would feel more comfortable with Clinton on the ticket.

As to who would be the better President that is a whole other issue and it is one that I think largely depends on your preferences regarding the character of the Presidency.

by JDF 2008-05-25 01:36PM | 0 recs

she wasn't IN the WH, that is where the experience thing comes in.

Oh wait, she wasn't the President then just the first lady like Laura Bush.

Such nonsense on this site about Hillary's alleged experience.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-25 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: But

only people who are haters of Hillary diss her experience.  

there is nothing "alleged" about Hillary's experience.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-25 08:51AM | 0 recs
Yes, there is.

Exaggeration upon exaggeration of her role during her husband's presidency (Ireland, for example).

by Shem 2008-05-25 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, there is.

nope, sorry,  the actual people who worked with Hillary in Ireland disagree with you.  the Brits, no friends of the Irish, diss'd Hillary.  But the Irish?  Nope

"I am quite surprised that anyone would suggest that Hillary Clinton did not perform important foreign policy work as first lady. I can state from firsthand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland," said former SDLP leader and Nobel laureate John Hume is a statement responding to critical press reports.

"She visited Northern Ireland, met with very many people and gave very decisive support to the peace process. In private she made countless calls and contacts, speaking to leaders and opinion makers on all sides, urging them to keep moving forward," said Hume.

This would appear to be an important point. Press-based criticism of Senator Clinton has been based on the public record, and what has been recorded by both Clintons in their respective autobiographies.

Hillary, some would certainly argue, knows more than what has been made public thus far about what went on behind the scenes as the peace process gathered steam.

"Anyone criticizing her foreign policy involvement should look at her very active and positive approach to Northern Ireland and speak with the people of Northern Ireland who have the highest regard for her and are very grateful for her very active support for our peace process," Hume concluded in his defense of Hillary's Irish legacy.

Not surprisingly, some of the senator's most vocal defenders have been women activists from Northern Ireland.

In a series of statements compiled by labor and fair employment advocate Inez McCormack, Clinton was lauded for her "decade-long support" of the peace process.

"We believe it is important for others to know the pivotal role Mrs. Clinton played in helping us in Northern Ireland at critical junctures in the peace process. She supported us over many years and we will always be grateful to her," said McCormack

"Hillary Clinton took risks for peace in asking me and others to bring women and communities from both traditions to affirm their capacity to work for common purpose," McCormack said.

"She used her immense influence to give women like me space to develop this work and validated it every step of the way. This approach is now taken for granted but it wasn't then. She told us that if we take risks for peace, she would stay with us on that journey. In my experience, it took hard work, attention to detail and a commitment of time and energy which she delivered steadily and where needed over the last decade," McCormack added.

Similar testimonies have been forthcoming from other women, Protestant and Catholic. They include prominent community worker Elaine Crozier, Baroness May Blood, a member of the British House of Lords, Geraldine McAteer, chief executive of the West Belfast Partnership Board, Avila Kilmurray, head of the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland, Patricia Lewsley, former member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and currently Commissioner for Children and Young People, and Joanna McVey, former CEO of the Fermanagh-published Impartial Reporter newspaper and chair of the Fermanagh Trust. ory.cfm?id=18626&issueid=563

by colebiancardi 2008-05-25 08:57AM | 0 recs
by Shem 2008-05-25 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: A source other than Hillary backers:

Hillary backers?  Oh you mean the people that actually WORKED with her.

like John Hume, who "is regarded as one of the most important figures in the modern political history of Northern Ireland and one of the architects of the Northern Ireland peace process there. He is also a recipient of the Gandhi Peace Prize and the Martin Luther King Award, the only recipient of the three major peace awards."

yep.  You know, I will take HIS word and the Irish people who actually did work with Hillary

by colebiancardi 2008-05-25 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: But

Please cite Hillary's legislative accomplishments and then we can talk about her experience.

Funny, whenever I ask this question of her supporters I get crickets or the, "how dare you question her experience since she was in the White House." That's all nice that she was there, I have visited the White House so does that mean that I have experience to be President?

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-25 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: But

you know, there is a thing called wiki, which has a nice outline - which shows her experience throughout the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's and 2000

here, I'll link it for you for here: ham_Clinton


by colebiancardi 2008-05-25 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: But

She asked for Clinton's legislative accomplishments, not her bio.

Going by the wiki, it appears that she was "instrumental" in passing $21 billion in aid for New York after 9/11, and that she "co-introduced" [co-sponsored] legislation of the military by 80,000. It doesn't say whether or not it passed.

If that is her legislative accomplishments from 8 years in the Senate, it seems pretty thin. Admittedly, very junior senators are not power players, and she has been running for president for the last year or two, but it is a shorter list of legislative accomplishments than Obama's.

by letterc 2008-05-25 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

I completely agree with you, Todd on your assessment of Obama picking ANOTHER woman (not Hillary) WILL piss off the entire group of women-Hillary supporters.  

It will back-fire on Obama in what he hopes to achieve and is a very bad idea.

by nikkid 2008-05-25 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Agree it would be a major error. The first requirement for a VP should be loyalty.

by parahammer 2008-05-25 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Does it even matter than Sebelius and Napolitano are both tremendously accomplished politicians, from red to purple states, who have rejuvinated their home-states parties?  Because it should.  We're not talking about a token VP selection.  Choosing Senator Clinton, or Sebelius or Napolitano makes complete sense because all three are formidible politicians who would bring real assets to the ticket.  I understand being upset if Obama doesn't choose Clinton, but the idea that choosing another qualified woman is somehow insulting really strikes me as offensive to the women mentioned as possibilities.  Senator Clinton is not the only woman qualified to be VP or POTUS.  Which, I would add, is encouraging not discouraging.

by HSTruman 2008-05-25 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

no, it doesn't matter.  first of all NEITHER state they come from KS, AZ will be in play; 2nd it is a direct slap in the fact to Hillary and her supporters will see it as such.

by nikkid 2008-05-25 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Don't be so sure about Kansas.  There are the elements for the so-called "perfect storm" here.  I wouldn't think that there's a good chance, but there's a chance.

by Shocker Jim 2008-05-25 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Kansas is, indeed, very weird this year. It could get weirder.

Don't forget, half of Obama's family is from Kansas. That makes it interesting. Plus the Republican Party here is in shambles. The moderates and the religious zealots are, for all intents and purposes, no longer on speaking terms. Looks like for the second district, ultra-right wing religious nutball Jim Ryun is going to try to recapture his seat from Nancy Boyda, where he'll get smacked down pretty hard. The senatorial race is going to be interesting, with Jim Slattery and right wing dead-ender Pat Roberts well within the undecided + margin of error before Slattery spent a single dime campaigning.

Not saying Kansas is going blue this year, but I wouldn't rule it out.

by Geiiga 2008-05-25 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Add to that the fact that the tanker deal could blow up in McCain's face.

The Kansas 4th could also help increase AA turnout for the Democrats, given that Donald Betts is trying to replace Todd Tiahrt.

by Shocker Jim 2008-05-26 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

the perception of passing over Hillary, who has 1/2 the democratic voters in her pocket, would be damning and a slap in the face of those people who have supported her.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-25 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Sadly, it doesn't for the dead-enders.  Only Our Girl represents the True Feminism.

by neeborMolgula 2008-05-25 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Warner or Strickland are the only smart choices based on his weak electoral trajectory.

I like Webb, but to me the ticket will be an awkward fit and based on VA state approval ratings -- Webb is not soaring in popularity. Webb is also pretty vocal about his disdain for Affirmative Action for groups other than AAs and even there he sounds less than convincing.

If he picks Sebelius it will just confirm to me how tone deaf his campaign is because you know there will be stories written all over the place how he wanted a female, just not Hillary, and piss of a ton of people.

And the fact that his surrogates have been using the line "too much change" as one of their lame reasons for not picking Hillary would just show what is obvious to everyone -- they just don't like Hillary.

by GregNYC 2008-05-25 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

There is no way he is going to pull Warner out of a Senate race he is going to win...especially when he does almost as much to help Obama in VA from where he is now.

by JDF 2008-05-25 08:46AM | 0 recs
Um, no

Unplug your ears. Webb doesn't have a disdain for Affirmative Action. The way that he explains it makes so much sense to me as an African-American and many others. He's right, the poor have suffered because of Affirmative Action. The only true benefactors of Affirmative Action have been white women and they are usually upper to middle class white women.  

I as a supporter of Affirmative Action, completely agree with what he is saying.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-25 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Um, no

Webb has tempered his comments on Affirmative Action since he ran for Senate, but you can tell he has major issues with it form his interview in the past. Personally, it's not my issue because I believe it served a purpose but has been overextended and should and will be eventually phased out.

But it doesn't take away from the fact that I see Webb as an awkward fit based on his overall views - namely Affirmative Action, Guns, etc. - and as someone who will not bring him Virginia.

Plus I watched Webb on his Senate campaign trail and he is not a fan of it. It pained him.

by GregNYC 2008-05-25 09:17AM | 0 recs
Oh and you are right

The OBama campaign despises Hillary with good reason.  When you say that a fellow democrat has not passed a CIC threshold,you lose the respect of a lot of folks.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-25 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh and you are right

he is a weak candidate, imho.  Sorry, but that is the truth.  However, we have put up weaker ones, so he is not the weakest candidate the dems have put up over the years.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-25 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh and you are right

I think you meant to say "Sorry, but that is the truthiness."

by recusancy 2008-05-25 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh and you are right

mojo'd for the Colbert ref!!

by colebiancardi 2008-05-25 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh and you are right

You are right.. it is your opinion that he's a weak canidate.

Fortunately your opinion does not match reality

by CaptainMorgan 2008-05-25 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Stickland has had some horrible racial incidents while campaigning: he's used it as a tool to divide and conquer during his primary battles multiple times.  Really ugly stuff.

Obama isn't going to lose the black vote, but it's the type of story that would dominate news cycles for weeks.  Strickland has never been a good match for Obama, really.  I hate it that he is one of the candidates that have been adopted by the Hillary wing as their VP hopeful.  

The real star out of Ohio is Senator Sharrod Brown.  He compliments Obama perfectly: he's young, a bull dog in debates, pro-choice, broke with President Clinton on NAFTA, voted against the war.

by such sweet thunder 2008-05-25 09:25AM | 0 recs
I want to hook every one up with Brown
Here he is, Ohio's Junior Senator, and future VP:
by such sweet thunder 2008-05-25 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: I want to hook every one up with Brown

He does have a great populist message.

That seems to be working this year.

by Bush Bites 2008-05-25 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: I want to hook every one up with Brown

More than that, he comes off as the type of guy who would shank you if you made fun of his mother -- it's the type of gruff image that Obama, as a black man, has to keep away from personally to be successful, but goes over really well in the rust belt.  It's a perfect balance.

by such sweet thunder 2008-05-25 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

I don't kwow much about those guys. But I don't like Strickland at all. I'm sure he would be a bad choice.

by french imp 2008-05-25 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

I would rank the potentials as follows

1.) Hillary (party unity and insuring her full throated support...but it comes with baggage)
2.) Ted Strickland (I would say puts Ohio into Likely Dem territory.)
3.) Evan Bayh (another Hillary supporter but I don't know if it would put Indiana in play or not.)
4.) Jim Webb (thematic consistency but I am not sure we need him to win Virginia.)
5.) Ed Rendell (probably doesn't want it and well it would help in PA I am not sure where else it would help.
6.) Michael Bloomberg (also thematic consistency...not sure what else he brings to the table- perhaps money?)
7.) Chuck Hagel (I can see the arguments but I think it would be a pretty dumb move.)

All in all I think it has to be Hillary or Ted Strickland... they are both so far above the rest in terms of what they bring to the ticket.

by JDF 2008-05-25 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Agree with the order of your top 4 completely.  It won't be Hillary, though adding her would create the strongest ticket.  Strickland or Bayh are the picks that make the most sense, and Webb would be good too.  I'd be promoting Bayh as the clear-cut choice except that we'd be essentially giving up a Senate seat.

by therealdeal 2008-05-25 09:06AM | 0 recs
Strickland yes, Bayh and Webb no

Bayh would not put Indiana in play, and we would lose a Senate seat if Obama wins.

Webb hates campaigning.

Strickland would be a good choice, not just because he is from Ohio, but because he was a Clinton supporter.

by desmoinesdem 2008-05-25 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Strickland yes, Bayh and Webb no

Bayh is also pro-life.  It's a non-starter.  You can't be on the Dem ticket, be in the position to potentially appoint SC justices and be pro-life.

by such sweet thunder 2008-05-25 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Strickland yes, Bayh and Webb no

Plus Bayh comes off like the Democratic version of Dan Quayle.

by LIsoundview 2008-05-25 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

That's got to be the worst list possible.

2 Corporate Dems (Clinton, Bayh)
2 Republicans (Bloomberg, Hagel)
1 Farakhan praiser (Rendell)
The guy standing behind Hillary nodding stupidly as she is saying "Shame on you Barack Obama".

by recusancy 2008-05-25 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

While I would prefer Hagel as SecDef, he's an all right and honorable guy.  His position on the war has evolved in a principled way.

He may not be right for the ticket, but putting him on the short list and leaking that fact is probably a good idea.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-25 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Who would your short list be then?

by JDF 2008-05-25 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

See below.

by recusancy 2008-05-25 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Did you see the polls the other day? .. What does that tell you when in PA(of all places) .. an Obama-Edwards ticket out polls an Obama-Rendell ticket? .. Rendell isn't that popular in PA anymore

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-05-25 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Right because on poll proves so much about the makeup of a state and how it will vote in November...

Do you live in Pa?

Do you work on campaigns in Pa?

I do both of those things and I have to tell you that underestimating Rendell's stength in this state would be foolish for anyone.

by JDF 2008-05-25 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Yeah ... I live in PA .. and volunteered too .. and his ego is bigger than even Hillary's .. and if anything .. he has a lot more name recognition(which is why people like Sebelius do so bad in those polls) ... and you can say it is one poll all you want ... Edwards beating Rendell for a VP pick says a lot .. one poll or not

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-05-25 05:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

I like Webb a lot, but I just don't see it. As mentioned earlier, he isn't that popular in Virginia. I don't understand the netroot's imo odd behavior in becoming so excited over Webb and Hagel (that's more at DKos than here). I love Webb as a Senator from Virginia but I don't see how it helps us in November.

Stickland would be nice, but he was just elected in 06 and I don't know how that would play with the electorate in OH.

by Airb330 2008-05-25 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Strickland would play very well. Ohio is completely different from 2004 and 2006. The GOP is in shambles there and the dems have control of all the state offices. Strickland would help in Southern Ohio and other parts of appalachia. If I'm correct, he is also a preacher who was against the war from the beginning so that would really fit well with Obama's message.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-25 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Strickland also came out of the AG scandal looking pretty good.  He is popular here... even Republicans that I have spoken to have a grudging respect.  Twofold reason, he approaches things logically and the previous Republican Governor was just a mess...  Strickland could sleep in his office every day and look good by comparison...

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-25 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Not sure where you see people in the netroots liking Hagel. That seems to be a Broderish pick of the beltway crowd to me.

DKos and most others are quite emphatic against it.

by recusancy 2008-05-25 09:29AM | 0 recs
The poster is right on Webb though

I think if you asked most people who their Senator is, they probably wouldn't be able to answer.  People know their Governors, and their mayors if they live in big cities. I'm not sure anyone can ut VA in play, and if one candidate could, it would have to be Mark Warner.

by such sweet thunder 2008-05-25 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

if he passes up Hillary he makes hash of his own message. Recall, Barack ran on being a unity guy who didn't have gratuitous fights and could bring all sides together.  so, how can he have a personal beef with the other most popular Democrat in the race. He he can't  unit himself, who can he unite.

His other message is that he needs a mandate to have a bottom up kind of governing style, he'll take his direction from us if we give him a big enough win. But, we want him to choose Hillary, something like 70 percent of Democrats want that, and if that isn't bottom I don't know bottom, and yet it's not going to influence him?

These are the things we're all looking at, can put his money where his mouth is. If he can't, and he won't be able to run against McCain's character, then he'll lose the GE for us.  

by anna shane 2008-05-25 08:57AM | 0 recs

He needs a VP who doesn't speculate about his assassination. Hillary doesn't pass the sanity test. Sorry.

by Firewall 2008-05-25 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL.

Imagine Hillary a heart beat away form the Presidency? She would do all she could to get him impeached. It would be relentless. Her and her surrogates pushing day after day to make a case. And there would be the assasination prospect. I wouldn't trust her with his security. The Clintons are ruthless.

by kitebro 2008-05-25 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL.

oh god.  give it a rest.  Go back to freeper land, because you are using their talking points.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-25 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL.

And her crazy husband to add to the Clinton Drama.


by Bush Bites 2008-05-25 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL.

Hillary did not do that.

I don't think she would necessarily mesh well with his themes, but I expect her to get the offer.

The problem with that is, if she doesn't take it, and there is every reason to believe she won't, it weakens the ticket right out of the gate.

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-25 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL.

Look, I hate to frame my arguments around what republicans will do (which is swift-boat Jesus Christ if he were running), but it's pretty imagining tons of attack ads using clips of the P and VP sniping at each other hard.

I think this is problematic.

by nwodtuhs 2008-05-25 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL.

oops, should be "not pretty"

by nwodtuhs 2008-05-25 09:07AM | 0 recs
You can HR me until November,

but Hillary's not appearing on the ticket no matter how much you click the little button on an online Hillary fansite.

by Firewall 2008-05-25 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

LOL.  Which one: "change" (HRC being the ultimate in "establishment") or "unity" (HRC being loathed by 50% of the public)?

by neeborMolgula 2008-05-25 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

You raise an interesting point, although loathed isn't what she's polled as, it's mistrusted. Yet those who poll they don't trust her also poll that she'd make a competent president and she can be trusted to do what she says, so I don't know what mistrusted means, she's not mistrusted as a leader, so I think they mean she doesn't always say what she means about her personal opinions.  She's maybe seen as too polite?  

by anna shane 2008-05-25 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

good points are wasted on that one, just a drive-by TR instead of thought poster.

by zerosumgame 2008-05-25 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

False, but keep trying...

by neeborMolgula 2008-05-25 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

I was actually referring to general favorability, and she's really more like 45% unfavorable.  If she's on the ticket, we're guaranteed to be playing a game of inches.

by neeborMolgula 2008-05-25 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

you tried to say unfavorable but loathed came out?  the same point is true, many who have some unfavorable opinions about her trust her as a president. Go figure.  

Plus, those unfavorables were won by her through trying to get us universal health, and for being a unmeek woman.  I like her better for the stands she took that were for me.  

by anna shane 2008-05-25 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

you tried to say unfavorable but loathed came out?

Nah, just hyperbole, though there is quite a bit of unhinged "Hillary hate" around.  And unjustified though it may be, her unfavorability gives her very little margin for error.

Do you have a link to the poll you're talking about?  I'm curious about who these people are.

by neeborMolgula 2008-05-25 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

70%? not in this world. Not after last week. If they took a new poll I'm sure it would be much lower.

by GeeMan 2008-05-25 06:02PM | 0 recs
Yes, it will backfire badly if Obama

wins the nomination and chooses a lesser qualified, pro-Obama woman over Hillary. That is a given...

by Rumarhazzit 2008-05-25 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, it will backfire badly if Obama

It would be tough to find someone lesser qualified.

by kitebro 2008-05-25 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, it will backfire badly if Obama

There's no personal attack here.  Criticism of Hillary's inexperience is not HR-worthy.

by Shem 2008-05-25 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

I am now a big proponent of Obama/Webb.  Just have Moran's brother or Deeds run for the Senate seat if Kaine won't.

by Bobby Obama 2008-05-25 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Woops Obama/Warner it should say.

I would take Obama/Webb as well.

by Bobby Obama 2008-05-25 09:05AM | 0 recs
I would love to see Obama/Warner.

I think a two Senator ticket would be a bad idea, regardless of who the second senator is.  And of the non-Senator choices, Warner strikes me as by far the best match for an Obama ticket.

by Elsinora 2008-05-25 09:48AM | 0 recs
Webb hates campaigning

I do not think he would be an asset to the ticket. Keep him in the Senate, where he can do some good.

by desmoinesdem 2008-05-25 09:11AM | 0 recs
I agree with Lynn Sweet

Picking a woman other than Hillary would backfire on Obama. If he wants a woman on the ticket, it should be Hillary.

She is the one who has inspired hundreds of thousands of new voters to register this year, not Sebelius or McCaskill.

I think Obama will go with an ultra-safe white guy.

by desmoinesdem 2008-05-25 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with Lynn Sweet

Knock on your neighbor's door. Ask them if they know who Gov. Sebelius is. When they say no ask them if they know who Sen. Clinton is.

Of course they know nothing about her and haven't been inspired to vote. She hasn't been campaigning to them for the last year nor have they been representing the nation for 8 years of their life.

by Trowaman 2008-05-25 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Webb is the logical choice. Clinton has disqualified herself because of her lack of judgement.

by NYWoman 2008-05-25 09:13AM | 0 recs
No to Hillary---b/c of Assassination remark

by slinkerwink 2008-05-25 09:14AM | 0 recs
A sure way to piss of Hillary Supporters!

If Obama goes ahead and picks a woman as the VP, that's not HIllary; it would be like spitting at her supporters and would put many General Elevtion votes in jeopardy, including mine.

by NJDEM1 2008-05-25 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: A sure way to piss of Hillary Supporters!

So Obama should pick someone that doesn't fit in with his message? .. the winner is not locked into picking the 2nd place finisher .. if you can't handle Obama making the choice he thinks is best .. then go vote for McCain if you must(if you want to watch this country continue down the awful road Bush has put it on)

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-05-25 10:12AM | 0 recs
This is Hillary's last chance

That is why she's fighting so hard. Delude yourself if you want, but there is no way that she will be a favorite in 8 years.

by highgrade 2008-05-25 09:26AM | 0 recs
My rankings

1) Al Gore
1a) Sharrod Brown

I don't think VA is blue enough to turn this cycle, despite the recent polling -- nixing the VA trinity.  Sam Nunn was pro-life for too long for his candidacy to float.  Strickland, as I mentioned above, has had horrible racial moments during his campaigns.  Evan Bayh is pro-life.  Rendell wouldn't help with geography.  It's unfortunate, because the best thing for party unity would be to select a Clinton-supporter, but there isn't a good selection in the bunch.

I feel the same way about Obama's open supporters.  I get the feeling that the top tier candidates don't endorse.

by such sweet thunder 2008-05-25 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: My rankings

Sherrod Brown is a perfect pick. He is progressive from a key battleground state. He got elected to the US Senate by unseating a so called Moderate Republican who was part of the Gang of 14. He has served 7 terms in the US House before getting elected to the US Senate and his wife is a newspaper collumnist of the Cleveland Plains Dispatch.

by nkpolitics 2008-05-25 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: My rankings

Sherrod Brown is a perfect pick. He is progressive from a key battleground state. He got elected to the US Senate by unseating a so called Moderate Republican who was part of the Gang of 14. He has served 7 terms in the US House before getting elected to the US Senate and his wife is a newspaper collumnist of the Cleveland Plains Dispatch.

by nkpolitics 2008-05-25 04:13PM | 0 recs
I agree with Webb.

As for Hillary.

Obama would have to be crazy to select a Veep who's waiting for him to get whacked.

by Bush Bites 2008-05-25 09:37AM | 0 recs
Veep List
  1. Warner
  2. Richardson
  3. Sebelius - because of what she's done, not because she's a woman
  4. Schweitzer
  5. Feingold
  6. Sherrod Brown
  7. Clark
by recusancy 2008-05-25 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep List

Why would you pull Warner out of that Senate race?

Sherrod Brown would be an interesting choice but I don't like the idea of 2 first term Senators

I like Feingold but I am not sure what he brings to the ticket (he would be a great VP but not a great VP candidate in my mind.)

Richardson is a good choice perhaps but Strickland is good for more EVs

by JDF 2008-05-25 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Hillary talked her way out of the offer of Veep.

And I want to express my sincere thanks to her for that.

The Bush/Clinton stranglehold is broken. The WH returns to the custody of the Americans in 2008!


by xdem 2008-05-25 09:41AM | 0 recs
You make a good argument with Nunn too.

It never made sense to me before, but does now that you explained it.

(Has he been active since he left the Senate?)

Though, I think, Webb would still be my number one choice.

by Bush Bites 2008-05-25 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: You make a good argument with Nunn too.

Nunn's a homohater who was instrumental in scuttling Clinton's lifting the ban on Gays serving openly in the military. I support Obama but I'll vote third party if Nunn's on the ticket.

by Ian S 2008-05-25 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Webb is a poor choice. He's very likely to go off-message and he hates campaigning. Plus aside from Kaine who is good senate material for the Dems? And let's not forget the women issues brought up in his last campaign. It's a stupid attack but he'll be demagogued relentlessly about it, and if certain female demos are already pre-disposed to have negative feelings about Obama, or vaguely sexist this will be very counter-productive.

by MNPundit 2008-05-25 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

We do have to plan for an October surprise.

Obama could do worse than have a Veep with a military background.

by Bush Bites 2008-05-25 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Let me get this straight.  You can't pick a woman for VP unless it's Hillary.  And that's not sexist because?

Jesus, since when does Hillary own the trademark for the X chromosome?

by Deadalus 2008-05-25 09:56AM | 0 recs
With a couple of exptions,

all of the people listed are stomach turners to me. But whomever Obama picks, it won't change how I vote. A third Bush term is not an option.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-25 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Webb has already said absolutely not to a VP position no matter who the nominee is.

I would not vote for Obama even if he put Clinton on the ticket unless he was VP and then only maybe.

I can't think of a VP that would compliment him that he would be able to get along with. He cannot choose a woman but needs an older white man with more experience. John Edwards is out. Richardson won't help him with the Latino voters.
Clark or Biden might be his only possibles.
Someone mentioned Sherod Brown- whom I really respect but I don't think the two of them would mesh AT ALL.

by Justwords 2008-05-25 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Who ever it is, will be the most vetted VP choice in our history.

by nogo postal 2008-05-25 10:03AM | 0 recs

Were it anyone but McCain who was running, I'd be first in line at the Napolitano Fan Club.  But since God Himself can't give us Arizona this cycle, then Napolitano sadly doesn't make too much sense.  It's a shame, she's extremely well-qualified and well-liked.

I also like RIchardson, but I was also an early Richardson supporter in '04 and '08, but knew full well he wouldn't make it very far.  It's a shame, he's extremely well-qualified.  I guess it depends on how much work Obama thinks he'd need with the Latino community, and just how much water he thinks Richardson could carry in that regard.  But Richardson is extremely knowledgeable, and he's the kind of person who has had so much experience at the Federal and State level that you know he could assume the Presidency at a moment's notice - he'd also be good to have on hand because of his familiarity with international diplomacy vis-a-vis his old UN post and his work with N. Korea.

At any rate, if picking another qualified woman over Clinton makes women's groups go nuts, then isn't that a sign that all of this breathless hollering isn't about sexism in general but instead is about Clinton herself?  Isn't that the goal of feminism, for women to be judged on the same playing field and with the same rules as men?  I would think picking a Ted Strickland, in a reality-based world, would have more risk of antagonizing women's groups.

by auronrenouille 2008-05-25 10:10AM | 0 recs
People who don't understand VA politics

Really, I have to take all of these pundits (including yourself) with a huge grain of salt, because none of you understand VA politics.

We have a strong Democratic Governor, one strong Democratic Senator, and another strong Democratic Senator on the way.

While Kaine can't run twice in a row, it is very important that he serve out his full term to ensure that his popularity carries into the next election to help his replacement win.

If Webb were to leave the Senate, there is not another candidate in VA who is a shoe-in to win his seat over a Republican. President Obama needs every senator he can get.

Lastly, Mark Warner is going to be on the ballot running for Senate this year. We don't need the vice presidential nominee to help win VA. Warner is so popular here, he is likely to give Obama several percentage points of reverse coattails just staying in his own senate race.

Also, the most recent polls here show Obama beating McCain by 7 points before VPs are even considered.

by 2501 2008-05-25 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Now that I've heard that Warner is being actively considered by the Obama campaign, I favor him even though the logistics would be somewhat of a headache. Kaine would be able to appoint his replacement and could even jump in himself considering he cannot run as governor again. With Warner on the ticket as VP driving turnout, it's quite possible the seat would be safe.

Warner brings something nearly all of the other options besides Edwards lack - real charisma, and his business background and non-partisan credibility really reinforces Obama's message. He's also the only prospect I can see that would be a strong candidate in their own right. Not to mention the importance of locking down VA.

Webb would be a close second but his past statements on women and some of the stuff he has written are landmines. I also have trouble imagining him getting along with Obama.

Strickland helps in Ohio, but would be a poor pick IMO. He doesn't seem to fit Obama's message and comes across badly on the trail. Bayh is even less appealing because he wouldn't even bring a state.

What I'm afraid of is that the campaign is leaning towards Sebelius, mainly because Obama likes her personally. I don't think she would be a very strong pick. Not only would picking another woman have the potential to anger Clinton supporters, but I don't see what she brings to the ticket (certainly not Kansas). Judging by her SOTU response, she's not a very exciting speaker and, besides, Obama-Sebelius would be the hardest ticket to pronounce in history.

by animated 2008-05-25 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep


your analysis on Obamas VP choice seems to be heavily influenced by the rose coloured glasses you are wearing and is by and large just wishful thinking and the bargaining state (coming right after grief) of coping with a loss.

Hillary would totally destroy Obamas change message. And national elections are all about the main narrative. Obama has cultivated his narrative for years. He wont risk it by choosing someone woho is viewed as a Washington insider and one with higher unfavorables as his to begin with. And he wont be willing to have a ticking timebomb named Bill Clinton anywhere near his office.

Obama will also not choose someone with bad judgement, because better judgement (not only but most of all on Iraq) is part of his overarching narrative (I may not have McCains experience, but much better judgement). That rules out Hillary Clinton too and sadly it also rules out John Edwards and Joe Biden.

Obama will also not judge someone, who him/herself clearly aspires to an even higher office (the presidency). The VP has to be the most loyal person on earth. Like Gore stayed loyal to Clinton even in his darkest days. That absolutely rules out Clinton, since she wants to succeed him as president and he would always have to watch his back.

Obama will also never choose someone, who has publicly denounced many of his core campaign pledges on direct diplomacy and health care, or someone who has questionaed his fitness to be commander in chief. Repeat after me: It aint gonna happen. Republicans wouldnt have a field day, they would have a field YEAR with confronting Obama with quotes of his running mate, saying VERY unflattering things about him. It would be a huge handicap in every debate.

Obama will also most certainly not choose a running mate who is anti-choice. Talk about building bridges to Hillary supporters and then say with a straight face that Strickland would be a good VP. Really? How are woman voters gonna feel about a pro life VP being one heart beat away from the office which makes Supreme court nominations? Same with Timothy Kaine. Same with Chuck Hagel. He cant explain those choices to the base and much less to Hillary supporters. Your analysys on Strickland is so incompetent it really hurts. Sorry, but it had to be said. You are a front pager and as such I expect more from you than regurgigating MSM talking points.

Then you really go off the cliff by going along with the assertion that Hillary supporters would actually be rather offended than appeased by the choice of another woman. By that you basically admit, that Hillarys campaign is a pure personality cult. Its not about advancing womens causes or writing history by electing the first woman president. No, its just about electing Hillary Clinton. Her supporters want only her, no other woman can match her. No other woman should get in her way. That woman would be a female Judas.

You do understand how offensive THAT is???? You do understand how self serving and egocentric that is?

I do believe, that some hardcore Hillary supporters view it that way. Maybe Jerome and you. But the vast vast majority of Hillary supporters hopefully have a completely different view and they would be jubilant if Obama picks a female running mate.

And whats this crap about Sebelius and Napolitano not heaving nearly the qualification as Hillary? Crap! Bullshit! Those two woman have 100% more executive experience than Hillary. Hillary has none executive experience. She only has second hand knowledge. And judging her by the campaign she leads, she doesnt look good at organizing, staying out of the red, surrounding herself with competent advisors etc. These two woman have won elections in deep deep red states twice (!) without giving up their core beliefs, without flipflopping on their pro choice stands. Compare that to Hillary who changed her position on Iraq, on NAFTA, one could argue on choice too, as she is now trying to assuage conservative voters, that she really really doesnt like abortions.

How can you argue that Sebelius and Napolitano are less qualified than Clinton? Its a complete myth. As Obama was successful at portraying himself as an agent of change, Hillary was successful at coining the conventional wisdom that she is the experienced candidate. She is not.

I am shaking my head in disbeleif when I read many of the front page posts here. And they have become just as outragously stupid as many of the pundits comments on TV.

Look at the hard cold facts and get over the bargaining phase soon, so we can reunite as a party. But Hillary will stay in the Senate. She is part of the problem, not the solution!  

by MarcTGFG 2008-05-25 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Best Comment so far.

by parahammer 2008-05-25 11:25AM | 0 recs
Running out of steam

Obama's "change" message is running out of steam.  He needs someone with some substance to counteract he amateurism.  "Change" may get you the Dem. nomination (BARELY and with the help of 2 large states being discounted)- but it won't win you the election.  Sorry, it just won't.

by easyE 2008-05-25 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

By not choosing Clinton, on the other hand, Obama opens himself up to the Republican claim, already being made, "You can't even unify your party.  How can you claim to unify the country?"

He has a difficult choice, but if he wants to pick a woman, it needs to be a high profile, very experienced woman.  It's evident that Obama supporters have no respect for Clinton's experience, but Clinton supporters do.  Most people in the non blogospher have no  clue who Sibelius & Napolitano are.  And KS and AZ aren't going Dem in any scenario, so it would be a waste of the spot.

by LIsoundview 2008-05-25 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

What if Obama selects a Woman who has endorsed Hillary  Clinton. My pick would would be Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln. She is exactly the same age as Barack Obama. She can deliver Arkansas,Missouri,or Tennessee to Obama. She has been in the US Congress. since 1992. She is from Rural America. She is a mother of two young boys and her husband is a Doctor.

by nkpolitics 2008-05-25 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

I'm sorry but I am not aware of her record.  What would you say are the highlights of her Senate career?

by LIsoundview 2008-05-27 01:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Obama has already lost a lot of women voters for good - I'm very nearly one of them. He'd better be sure to win over as many as he can. I'm not sure how he can do that, but it had better get on his radar pretty quick.

by denise b 2008-05-25 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

I believe most democrats and even democrats really accept change to be "Change from Bush."

It's going to hard for Obama to change anything with solid majorities in Congress.

by Check077 2008-05-25 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

"why not Hillary? It could piss more women off than it mollifies."

This statement drastically overestimates how attached a large majority of women are to Clinton.

She has her fans and her enemies, but a large swatch in the middle is apathetic.

by KyleJRM 2008-05-25 11:59AM | 0 recs

IF he wins the nom and IF he chooses a woman other than Clinton- I will be so pissed that I don't know what I'll do.  It would be a HUGE mistake.  Backlash central in my opinion.

by easyE 2008-05-25 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Why isn't Wes Clark on your list of Clinton supporters who would make good VPs?  

Personally (as an Obama supporter) I would think Strickland would be a lousy VP, as the video of him standing behind Clinton shouting "Shame on you Barack Obama" would be easy fodder for the Republicans.

I like Clark or Kaine personally, although I understand Sebelius is better than her State of the Union response led me to believe.

by Chicago Lulu 2008-05-25 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

Nunn!?  He was the most hawkish Democrat in congress until Lieberman came along!  He is also what most people would consider a Blue Dog Democrat, wrong on all social issues as well.  To even mention a right wingnut like Hagel is preposterous.  Have you ever examined his voting record?  Aside from the war, he is wrong about everything.  I would not pull the lever for Obama if any of these clowns were on the ticket.

At this point, some of us who have supported men like Dodd, or Gore or Clark, are pretty unhappy with the final outcome.  Most of us ended up in the Clinton camp. I have been grinding my teeth and telling myself I will ultimately vote for Obama, although I don't like him on the issues when he finally gets pinned down and forced to take a stand.  But if you saddle us with a conservative Democrat in the vice presidency, you can expect a loss in November.  Really.

by candideinnc 2008-05-25 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

he needs military cred against mccain.  i say webb

by bluedavid 2008-05-25 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

I'm concerned that people aren't cognizant of the opportunity cost of any veep pick: if we lose a Senate seat or key governorship, particularly one we don't even control for the current cycle, it just might not be worth it if we're not talking about the difference between victory and defeat. With Webb, Warner, and Kaine campaigning for Obama, he's got a great shot at the state even without one of them on the ticket.

The things I worry about, roughly in order:

1) Losing a likely pickup. If Warner is on the ticket, we lose that seat. If he is not on the ticket, we win it. Period. Even worse, should Obama somehow lose with Warner as his running mate, Warner's suddenly unemployed and tarnished in the national spotlight, and we've lost our best backup.

2) Losing a seat we may not win again. Do we have another Jim Webb or Tim Kaine in the wings? If Claire McCaskill were to go to the Naval Observatory, who would appoint her replacement? (Might be Nixon, but I'm not sure of that.) Would we get another Montana governor after Brian Schweitzer?

3) Losing a rare opportunity to get a progressive in a red state. Sebelius and Napolitano would both have a terrific shot at Senate seats in '10, but not if they're otherwise engaged.

And then there are choices that are unwise in terms of winning this year:

4) Alienating a big chunk of the base by violating core principles. We can't have a pro-lifer on the ticket, Strickland fans. I wouldn't gamble on him claiming a change of heart. I'd also be scared of Biden being that close to the seat of American power.

5) Picking someone who is appealing on paper but who won't run a great campaign and will probably be good for gaffes and old scandals. Richardson, of course.

6) Undercutting the message of the nominee. That's Clinton. That's Clark. If a fresh new voice is what's called for, and if the candidate at the top of the ticket is qualified to manage foreign policy by himself, an old hand is exactly what's not needed.

7) Underscoring the negatives of the nominee. People are concerned about his lack of experience--how about someone who's been re-elected, and not a McCaskill, a Webb, a Tester.

8) Inviting undue controversy. Richardson is going to have a second problem, an ugly one that I don't wnat to consider overmuch: people who are already skeptical of a black president might balk altogether at a ticket of two minorities. (Remember those comments from W.Va. about them "taking over?" One charismatic person on a ticket can talk his way out of that. Two, not so much.) I wouldn't argue this point too stridently were Deval Patrick now a huge rising star in the party being talked up for this nod, but for Richardson it's just an unacceptable extra layer of risk for an already mediocre pol. This is also a problem for Napolitano--a rumored lesbian is just a step too far with this ticket. I don't think this is a problem for most female prospective choices, actually--it would be perceived as gutsy, but at this point it's anything but.


9) We want to nominate someone who will serve faithfully for eight years and be ready for the top spot. That makes it hard to choose anyone who's getting up there in years (do the Bush people wish they'd stood up to Cheney and picked someone young and appealing?), or someone who will be bitterly resented by a chunk of the party (Strickland, again), or someone who isn't quite willing to play nice (Webb, again, or Clinton, again).

I don't really have a formula for distilling these criteria into a preferred candidate, I'm afraid. I just know that I'd be horrified at the choice of Clinton, Warner or Richardson, distinctly disappointed by the choice of Webb, Clark, Strickland or Tester, and very nervous at the choice of Napolitano. Edwards has the unique problem of having multiple unsuccessful campaigns under his belt, but is in many ways the ideal choice. Sebelius would also be excellent in that role, even if we'd be taking a step back in Kansas politics.

Hell, I'd really like a woman on this ticket. Will Patty Murray or Maria Cantwell endorse Obama quickly after Hillary concedes? How about Blanche Lincoln?

by epenthesis 2008-05-25 07:07PM | 0 recs
Obama/ Colin Powell

Someone who all republicans love much more than MCBush, who is the number one expert on Foreign Affairs and defending the United Staes. No one has better creds than Powell and this team will be unstoppable. Maybe 50 state upset with just about all senate and house seats won as well.

by benjaminsp 2008-05-25 09:53PM | 0 recs
Hillary as VP should help Obama with white women

If you look at the 2004 results and national exit polls, Bush beat Kerry by 25 points (10.8 million votes) with the 36% of the electorate who are white men. Meanwhile, Kerry offset this by winning nonwhite men by 27 points (10% of the electorate)and nonwhite women by 50 points (12% of the electorate which resulted in 11.6 million votes. In other words, Kerry's advantage amongst nonwhites resulted in a little less than a million votes compared to Bush's advantage with white men. The difference in the election is that white women favored Bush by 11 points resulting  in a 5.4 million voted advantage which just about explains the final 3 million vote margin.

With that in mind,Obama's challenge will be to try and win the white woman vote and do a little better with white men.I think the lower hanging fruit is white women compared to white men. This where the challenge will be because Kerry didn't have the equivalent of mobilized women whoi supported Hillary to try and win over like Obama must.

Which is why I think that Hillary is the best choice here to try and convince and mobilize white women that a President Obama is better than McCain.

If Obama can come under 20 points with white men but can come within 5 points of white women, then he should be able to exceed Kerry's majorities in the nonwhite group.

What does this mean from an EV calculation. I think that Obama on his own can make VA, NM, and CO in play. I think Hillary strengthens him in MI, OH, PA. I don't see WV or KY in play at all. I think that MO & FL are two states that Hillary can help with.

The key groups to win over are white women and suburban voters. The key groups to try and make some porgress with are rural voters (where Bush won by 19 pts)..

by chatters71 2008-05-26 11:17AM | 0 recs
Hillary as VP should help Obama with white women

If you look at the 2004 results and national exit polls, Bush beat Kerry by 25 points (10.8 million votes) with the 36% of the electorate who are white men. Meanwhile, Kerry offset this by winning nonwhite men by 27 points (10% of the electorate)and nonwhite women by 50 points (12% of the electorate which resulted in 11.6 million votes. In other words, Kerry's advantage amongst nonwhites resulted in a little less than a million votes compared to Bush's advantage with white men. The difference in the election is that white women favored Bush by 11 points resulting  in a 5.4 million voted advantage which just about explains the final 3 million vote margin.

With that in mind,Obama's challenge will be to try and win the white woman vote and do a little better with white men.I think the lower hanging fruit is white women compared to white men. This where the challenge will be because Kerry didn't have the equivalent of mobilized women whoi supported Hillary to try and win over like Obama must.

Which is why I think that Hillary is the best choice here to try and convince and mobilize white women that a President Obama is better than McCain.

If Obama can come under 20 points with white men but can come within 5 points of white women, then he should be able to exceed Kerry's majorities in the nonwhite group.

What does this mean from an EV calculation. I think that Obama on his own can make VA, NM, and CO in play. I think Hillary strengthens him in MI, OH, PA. I don't see WV or KY in play at all. I think that MO & FL are two states that Hillary can help with.

The key groups to win over are white women and suburban voters. The key groups to try and make some porgress with are rural voters (where Bush won by 19 pts)..

by chatters71 2008-05-26 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Veep

I've gotta say... There is some pretty shameful commentary being spouted amongst supposed progressives going on here.

The argument that Clinton is the only female allowed on the ticket because any other female would be seen as a pander or consolation is preposterous.

There are many qualified great American Democratic leaders who are (gasp) female, some of which even have a big chunk of executive experience.

I think Sebelius could really prove her worth before November. An education/health care advocate, not wildly liberal, direct & plainspoken, Midwestern, grew up in southern Ohio, an executive, not a divisive partisan figure (even in beet-red Kansas), she can't stay governor after 2010 because of term limits...  She reminds me a lot of Gore in '92.  She may not bring her state to the table but I think a lot of folks in the midwest swings can relate to her.

Here's another prediction... If Sebelius doesn't get on the ticket, she will run in the next avail presidential election.

She's my choice for VP at this point.  And if she doesn't make it there, cabinet.  I feel almost as strongly about Webb. Ig

by evantakesall 2008-05-27 08:35AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads