MyDD :: Likely VP Nominees

Likely VP Nominees

by Mr Grohl, Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 05:55:05 PM EST

I just replied to a post by lori regarding HRC's likely VP picks and it gave me the idea to dedicate an entire diary about it. I would like to try to initiate some discussion about who each candidate is likely to pick as their running mate, should they get the nomination. I thought it would be nice to see a diary that doesn't focus on red-faced name calling between the partisans of each candidate.

lori suggested that Hillary's likely VP pick would be Obama or possibly Mark Warner. I can see maybe Warner, but definately not Obama. The only way she would consider Obama is if the nomination battle is super close and goes down to the wire nationally between the two of them. Then she might be advised to pick Obama to heal the rift between primary voters. Otherwise, it would be stupid to pick a VP that might become more popular than you. Warner would be a real coup, but I think a lot of party establishment would prefer he run for the Senate. I'd say the clear favorite right now for Hillary's VP is former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack.

Vilsack couldn't jump out of the race quick enough in order to endorse Hillary and has remained very close to her campaign. I suspect some quid pro quo and think he's been promised a place in Hillary's cabinet (I don't mean that as an anti-Hillary conspiracy theory, it's just how things tend to work in presidential politics). Besides Vilsack I would list the following possibilities, in order from most likely to least likely (all names mentioned by people close to HRC's campaign): Ohio governor Ted Strickland, Warner, Bill Richardson and former Senator Evan Bayh. These guys would balance the ticket well because they would appeal to white guys in the Midwest, which will be the most challenging demographic to win over for Hillary.

I would be very surprised if Obama did not pick Tom Daschle for VP. Like Vislack and Hillary, Daschle has been very instrumental in Obama's campaign. Daschle would also balance the ticket nicely, creating a New Guy/Old Guy, Outsider/Insider ticket. He might help the ticket be competitive in the West and add gravitas to the ticket as well.

With Edwards I'm drawing a complete blank. Same with Richardson. Any thoughts? Let's try to keep it clean and only argue about the likelyhood and merits of each candidate's possible VP pick, not who is likely to win the nomination and why they're so great and everyone else sucks.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Vice President, Tom Vilsack, Mark Warner, Ted Strickland, Evan Bayh (all tags)

Permalink :: 45 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

I think Edwards would pick Obama.

1. He is young

He is also for change
He would be urged to pick Obama
He won't pick Hillary, and I doubt she would take it.(ego)

If He dose not pick Obama, then I would go with Daschle, or Richardon.

by Mbon007 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 06:21:30 PM EST

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

I could see Edwards asking Obama, but I doubt Obama would take the VP spot, even if asked. He's fit nicely into the Senate and like he's said many times on the stump, even if he waited ten more years to run for president, he'd still be younger than most of the other candidates. Why risk a prospective Senate career for the chance at being somebody else's number two?

by Mr Grohl on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:45:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards... (none / 0)

The best ticket our party could possibly come up with, IMHO, is John Edwards / Former Florida Governor and Senator Bob Graham.

Understand that I despise Dick Cheney and all he stands for. What I am about to say is that we need a "Cheney type" in that our party and our country need someone who will advocate for Edwards' bold progressive agenda, not angle for the presidency.

I also think that we need Edwards to either double down in the south, or have a veep from the Midwest or rust belt.

Here are my other choices for Edwards' veep choices...

Virginia Senator Jim Webb
Ohio Governor Ted Strickland
Retired General Wes Clark - Arkansas

and then of course there is always Obama. I think they compliment each other nicely, I just don't think the progressive agenda needs a VP who will be more concerned with branding himself, than with moving the agenda.

If everything goes to hell and "Hillary the Hawk" wins the nomination then I think it's down to...

Indiana Senator Spineless Evan Bayh
Former Iowa Governor Spineless Tom Vilsack
Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner
Ohio Governor Ted Strickland

or...

DLC Chairman Spineless Harold Ford

It the nominee is Obama I think he'll go with either...

Strickland
Richardson
Warner
Daschle (though I think that he is a long shot)

As for the GOP...

Romney would pick either...

MS Gov. Haley Barbour
Fred Thompson (this could also happen the other way around)
Mike Huckabee
SC Sen. Jim Demint (talk about a payback)
SC Gov. Mark Sanford
Newt Gingrich (Long Shot)
Jeb Bush (Even longer shot, but if the base turns on him when he tries to rush to the center from the wingnutia is the far far far super duper pooper scooper double secret probation right wing, he might need to do it)

For Fred Thompson I think he would go for someone younger, because of the health issues. Someone like...

Sanford
Huckabee
SD Sen. John Thune (maybe)
MN Gov. T-Paw (It's a long shot, but who knows)

For Giuliani, I think he would pick a base appeaser. Someone like...

Barbour
Sanford

And I think McCain has already made it clear that he would pick T-PAW.

The bold progressive leader is the most electable candidate. Reclaim the Democratic Party! Support John Edwards.

by Michael 4 Edwards on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:28:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

Hillary Clinton/Mark Warner
He brings a lot of southern appeal and is a little more conservative than Clinton. Could play very well in the South. A possible run for the Senate will remove him from the short list.

John Edwards/Kathleen Sebelius
Edwards has moved too far to the left. He needs someone with experience who is a moderate Democrat.

Barack Obama/(someone with foreign policy experience)
Possibly a general or Bill Richardson. I have no idea. Not sure about Dashcle. That is news to me.

Bill Richardson/(someone from the South or big state Democrat)
Possibly Mike Easley, Phil Bredessen, Ed Rendell. Those are good choices for him. Barack Obama is a good choice too.

Joe Biden/Barack Obama
You heard right. He needs someone with inspiration.

Chris Dodd/Barack Obama
Same as Biden.

Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel I'm not too sure about.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 06:23:13 PM EST

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

As a continuation, you mentioned Vilsack in your Diary. If Clinton is elected, I see him as a possible Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Agriculture, or Secretary of the Interior.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 06:26:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

I just realized, every one of my tickets have a minority on it. What are the chances of that happening on the Republican side? Almost zero.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:00:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likely VP Nominees (1.00 / 2)

What are you on? "Too far too the left". Get off it. What a hack-like thing to say. Which republican pundit did you steal that bit of conventional wisdom from. When is the last time you looked at where the American people stand on the issues?

Edwards is the most electable by far. Please challenge me on this because I have a TON of polls to back it up and all I have to do is copy and paste them to make you look ridiculous.

If you're going to just parrot conventioal wisdom hackery that is based or right-wing spin, do the world a favor and STFU!....f***g hack

The bold progressive leader is the most electable candidate. Reclaim the Democratic Party! Support John Edwards.

by Michael 4 Edwards on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 02:14:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

Michael, I was having an intelligent and unbiased conversation with these fine bloggers here, so take your bias elsewhere. The last 24 hours have seen a lot of people with strong and unreasoned opinions (myself included). Just because you love Edwards does not give you the right to be a snotty a-hole. I did not insult you, offend you directly or cursed you in any posts except this one and you have violated the terms and rules layed out MyDD my friend.

"Edwards is the most electable by far. Please challenge me on this because I have a TON of polls to back it up and all I have to do is copy and paste them to make you look ridiculous."

And if you knew me any you would come to realize that I have the exact same sentiments. Edwards is the most electable TODAY. But I have also said that claim is diminishing.

"If you're going to just parrot conventioal wisdom hackery that is based or right-wing spin, do the world a favor and STFU!....f***g hack"

The right wing has no interest in Edwards.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 02:38:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

Well, at least this diary made it for about eight hours without virtually no nastiness. Just harmless speculation and reasoned debate. That's what this site used to be about. I'be been watching this diary all night out of a sort of academic interest to see how long it would take before the name-calling began. I guess I should be pleased with the eight hours, considering how ridiculous and uncivil things have gotten here over the summer.

by Mr Grohl on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 02:50:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

I genuinly enjoyed those eight hours of honest debate and speculation and just as mad when Michael came in. Seriously, it's people like that who ruin it for all of us. And don't expect to sit back and take crap from someone, I will hit back, I just wish I did not have to do it.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 02:56:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

Vilsack wouldn't be a wise choice for Clinton. The man has no charisma and limited cross-over appeal. Hillary would much rather choose Evan Bayh or Mark Warner, who are charismatic, Bill Clinton-like leaders from red states. But with Warner considered a potential senate candidate, Bayh would be the more likely choice. She might want Bill Richardson too, but possible skeletons and his controversial service in the Clinton administration diminish his chances.

Barack Obama is still a probable choice for Clinton. Historically, it is not uncommon for former rivals to join together -- Kennedy/Johnson, Reagan/Bush, Kerry/Edwards, etc. Also, there would likely be incredible demand for her to choose Obama, especially if he does well. Even though he's from a safe blue state and African Americans vote Democratic no matter what, Obama still has cross-over appeal and his pressence would increase turn-out among blacks and younger voters. But if Clinton truly doesn't want Obama, I suppose Harold Ford would be an alternative pick. He may not have won last year, but he'd have similar appeal as Obama, with the key difference being he'd have an easier time with moderates/conservatives in red states -- although the Daily Kos would explode.

I think you're right about Obama/Daschle. The young outsider teaming up with an old insider would be an appealing, Kennedy-esque ticket. Obama could also go the route of Lincoln and form a unity ticket with Chuck Hagel. To beef up his national security creditials while remaining an outsider, Obama could also go with Wesley Clark, Bob Kerrey (assuming he doesn't run for the Senate), or Anthony Zinni.

As for John Edwards, he'll have no choice but to pick a woman or a minority. Another white male getting the nomination when everyone was so excited about having the first black, female, or Hispanic president would feel anti-climatic.

Janet Napolitano, Bill Richardson, or Kathleen Sebelius would be good choices for Edwards. They help in swing states out west, bring executive experience, and Sebelius appeals to Edwards struggle to assist the poor and helpless due to the tragic tornados in Kansas. Edwards could also select Mary Landrieu to send a message about Katrina, although it could cost a senate seat so it wouldn't be wise. Blanche Lincoln might be a wise alternative (Arkansas is close to Louisiana).

I have no clue who Bill Richardson could pick.

by Namtrix on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 06:40:47 PM EST

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

I agree that Sebelius or Napolitano would be great choices for Edwards, and those choices fit well with Edwards' style. I think he would really be attracted by the symbolism of it: strong, female VPs from Western Red States.

by Mr Grohl on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:48:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

Sebelius would be interesting with Clinton. Two tough ass women. But I think Clinton oughta pick Webb and just get a rough and ready loose cannon up there to attract the right-of-center vote (that which she's not already attracting)....

I proudly support Barack Obama for President!

by Zeitgeist9000 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 07:20:03 PM EST

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

No chance of a Clinton/Sebelius ticket. The ticket will get 10% of the male vote (the gay population, no offense to anyone).

And I think Webb will do more good in the Senate than as VP. If she is going to pick someone from Virginia to be VP it will be Warner.

Someone mentioned Bayh, I think he is a great choice too. I was not very happy when he and Warner declined to seek the nomination. Inside, I was hoping for a Warner/Bayh ticket.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 07:27:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

Wow, those are my feelings exactly. A Warner/Bayh ticket would have been a dream come true for me. I was very upset that neither of them ran.

by Namtrix on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 07:29:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

That would of been change with leadership and experience. So hopefully, Warner or Bayh will end up on the ticket and be President one day.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 07:55:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

Too early to speculate VP. I firmly believe primaries are more difficult for Hillary than general election. If she gets the nominee, white house is within reach no matter whom her running mate is.

I was also hoping for Warner. He could definitely be a very attractive candidate. Richardson, such a gaffe machine did surpringly well in Iowa, NH. People really like governors.

I suspected there might be some other reasons for Warner's decision of not seeking nomination....

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 07:31:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

Warner was always my first pick too. I also was disappointed when he decided not to run. I think Webb would be too much of a loose cannon to appeal to Clinton. She (or anyone, for that matter) would want someone that could be relied on to tow the line.

by Mr Grohl on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:50:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

My thoughts are :
Hillary/Warner or Hillary/Bayh
Hillary will not take anyone who might outshine her on a stage and she will continue to define herself as a centrist for the general election which (shockingly) is all she really is anyway.

Obama/Hillary or Obama/Clark
I think Hillary (unlike John Edwards) will jump at the chance to be a vice presidential nominee because it will be the only step forward left for her ambition. If the ticket wins she can still be the presumptive nominee in 2016 at age 69, and if it loses you know she is still running in 2012 a la John Edwards. If not Hillary, it might be General Clark who would provide Obama with the foreign policy gravitas that he knows he still lacks.

Edwards/Schweitzer
I totally disagree with the comment above that Edwards will take a moderate VP because he has moved too far left. I think that just like Hillary (in reverse) what you see is really who he is and how he intends to govern. He will (I hope) pick Brian Schweitzer of Montana who will cement the ticket's appeal to middle american men and confirm his administration's committment to environmental protection.

Others - no one else has a chance for the Presidential nomination except for maybe Al Gore.
Initially I had thought that Richardson would be a natural VP pick because of his ethnicity and geography but he has hurt his chances beyond repair by his "mistakes" during the Presidential campaign. Biden might otherwise be considered except for the fact that regionally and culturally he doesn't help anyone. and why not John Kerry. Wouldn't an Edwards/Kerry ticket in 08 be too weird.

by AlanR on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 07:49:45 PM EST

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

Clinton is probably going to go with either Obama or Warner .

Obama is going to give her a run for the money in the primary , She will eventually edge him out but its going to be close.

In the end she will have to choose between the new people Obama can pull into the process and a southern strategic choice in Warner.

I do not see Vilsack , Bayh or Richardson happening.

If I was to wager I would say Warner , but its close with Obama.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:35:25 PM EST

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

Warner/Obama will be great on the stump and in the v.p. debates ,

Richardson/Vilsack/Bayh will suck in debates . They will end up in the administration but not on the ticket.

She has no problem on National Security/Foreign policy , so what she probably need is either some that can draw in new voters like obama or someone who can open up some states in the south/midwest like Warner.

Obama is no slouch in the south too because he might be able to push out black voters a notch , Clinton is capable of doing that on her own but Obama on the ticket is an added bonus. But she might be wary of putting obama on there , because tahts a little too much history right there and we don't know how it plays , thats why I give Warner the edge.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:42:12 PM EST

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

Hillary's not going to be concerned with the fact that Richardson/Vilsack/Bayh are not inspiring on the stump or on stage. She's (or anyone) not going to want someone that will outshine her on the campaign trail. Vilsack or Bayh would be attractive 'cause they would help underscore her "centrism." Vilsack and Richardson, both being successful governors could signal an emphasis on executive and governing experience. You already know how I feel about the likelihood of Hillary picking Obama.

by Mr Grohl on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:57:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Some possibilities (none / 0)

Clinton/Richardson seem like a big likelihood at this point, but also Clinton/Warner, Clinton/Vilsack. I think Clinton and Obama have actually bloodied up the waters too much already for them to run together.
Obama; I have no idea, but probably someone with "foreign policy experience".. Wesley Clark perhaps, Anthony Zinni, or maybe pick someone like Dodd/Biden.
Edwards, he's kind of trapped already to pick a non-white male. My favorite choice of his of course would be Kathleen Sebelius, but Obama's also not a bad choice (assuming they don't end the campaign hating eachother), Richardson too. Edwards should look for someone who is popular, moderately liberal, comes from another region, and doesn't conflict with most of his core principles. This is why I think Kathleen Sebelius works out the best.

by KainIIIC on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:55:55 PM EST

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

General Wesley Clark for ANY Leadership ROLE.

He's been a grunt, a commander, a general, a business man, CEO, a politian, studied economics and was a Rhoades scholar.

The man would be a GREAT LEADER.

Coonsey's World http://coonsey.wordpress.com/

by coonbug on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:13:23 PM EST

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

Strickland would not help in Ohio. His win in the Governor's race was much more due to the weakness of his opponent, Ken Blackwell. Strickland is also a lackluster campaigner and an awful debater.

by steveinohio on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:39:05 PM EST

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

I live in New Hampshire now, but only just moved here last year from Ohio. Strickland was my House Rep in South Eastern Ohio and I've got to respectfully disagree with you. Strickland is no slouch on the stump. He has that blue-collar, no-nonsense aura about him (pronouncing bushel like "booshel", for example) that appeals to rural, southern Ohio voters. That's why any state-wide office holder will tell you that appealing to the southern half of the state, regardless of party affiliation, is key to winning in Ohio. Plus, he's currently one of the most popular (when looking at job approval numbers) governors in the country right now.

by Mr Grohl on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:04:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

How are the campaigns going in Nh , who do you think will carry the day.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:12:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton/Clark n/t (none / 0)

The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

by Populism2008 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:00:45 PM EST

Re: Clinton/Clark n/t (none / 0)

I'd bet a million dollars against Clinton ever picking Clark. It's my understanding that the Clintons are not fond of him. Supposedly, they felt he was too much of a loose cannon as NATO commander and didn't stick to the Clinton administration's script, or follow orders properly. At least that's what I read somewhere. Clark would be a better choice for Obama, 'cause he would add foreign policy experience. Clark would be a good 'attack dog' too. I would think Obama might want to have someone that could battle it out in the trenches and let Obama stay above the fray. I still say Obama will pick Daschle, though.

by Mr Grohl on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:10:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton/Clark n/t (none / 0)

The Clintons had no problems with Clark as SACEUR that I know of. His problems were with SoD Cohen and Joint Chiefs chair Shelton, precisely because they didn't like the Clinton administration's script. Bill Clinton gave Clark the Presidential Medal of Freedom and has said, and it has been confirmed by others in the Clinton administration, that Clinton did not and would not have fired Wes Clark (including in Kosovo itself where he was met by adoring crowds who wanted to know how could Clinton have fired the General and Clinton outright denied it). Cohen and Shelton presented it as a regular rotation to get their own General Ralston in that job. This was about Clark's bucking the brass when he thought they were wrong. Not about Clark and the Clintons, but about army politics.

I won't take your bet. It's my judgment, too, Hillary Clinton won't be picking Wes Clark as VP for a few reasons.

First, there is no geographic advantage. Second, she thinks she is versed enough on her own in foreign policy and national security, so I don't think she would do what seems to others to be the obvious. Third, he may be too outspoken and forceful for VP. Fourth, even if asked, I'm not sure it's the spot for him in any administration, because he is cut out to lead, plan and execute; so unless the president drops dead, God forbid, it's a waste of his time and talents.

by zac on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 09:01:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton/Clark n/t (none / 0)

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

by Mr Grohl on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 10:24:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

Thinking of those with National/Foreign Security experience, you have:

Carl Levin
Jack Reed
Bill Nelson
Evan Bayh

But I can see all of them in Cabinet positions, not VP.

by mattmfm on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:40:39 PM EST

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

Carl Levin: way too old, Secretary of Defense
Jack Reed: interesting, I never thought of him.
Bill Nelson: too old, NASA Administrator, CIA Director maybe.
Evan Bayh: I think this is a good possibility.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 12:22:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

I really don't think Hillary has to worry about Obama being more popular than she is- he could certainly grow to be but by the time he gets enough savy and experience to truly pull that off, she'll be at the end of her second term and ready to hand it over to someone else. I don't think a popular VP would be bad for her- I think she wants more of a partnership relationship anyway- I have to admit, I have started liking Obama again recently. He has made big mistakes but I do think he is sincere and they were made from good intentions. Edwards, on the other hand, I think is deliberately misleading and calculating and "two-faced." I would not mind Obama as Hillary's VP pick, I'm just not sure he could help her win any states that she could not win on her own and that's usually the criteria for the VP pick- except I don't think Clinton did that with Gore so much so who knows, maybe....

by reasonwarrior on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 12:49:27 AM EST

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

Clinton
Need: white male, hispanic, reassuring

Richardson
Warner
Strickland
Webb
Dodd

Obama
Need: experience, foreign policy, white

Clark
Graham
Jay Rockefeller
Richardson (it's the resume)
Biden

Edwards:
Need: Excitement, foreign policy

Clark
Webb
Richardson (no excitement)
Graham
Biden

by David Kowalski on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 06:37:24 AM EST

A few will be discussed and quickly ruled out (none / 0)

I think Warner, Richardson, and Graham all fall in that category. Each has some issues that I think a candidate will avoid.

Richardson has the touchy feely thing and believe he once lied about playing a sport (baseball?). Graham would basically ruled out before for some compulsive habits ( I guess he writes down almost everything he does during the day ) and Warner has whatever issue it is that resulted in him suddenly backing out of the Presidential race ( a few rumors out there).

by dpANDREWS on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 12:13:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A few will be discussed and quickly ruled out (none / 0)

The baseball thing is probably a genuine misunderstanding. He claimed that he told he was on the short list of a club while it turned out he wasn't. However the incident was when the draft rules were new and when it was common for clubs to notify more potential players then they ended up putting up for the draft or something like it.

Anyway, it's complicated and it doesn't make him look good while it is a difficult explanation why it isn't murky but a misunderstanding so it'll count against him even though it's an idiotic non-story.

And while people will focus on something as silly as that there plenty of valid reasons against him that nobody would care about. sometimes you just have to wonder about our priorities.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Ernst on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 09:19:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thinking outside the box for a minute (none / 0)

I think the list above for HillC basically is a good one. However what if she did something stunning and picked (and he agreed) Colin Powell?

That would be stunning. It wouldn't be like picking your typical Republican. Because of Powell's military background and lack of elected office experience he isn't a fierce partisan.

by dpANDREWS on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 12:09:43 PM EST

Re: Thinking outside the box for a minute (none / 0)

You see, I'm still tring to figure out where Colin Powell lives. He grew up in NYC, and if he lives in New York, he is out of the running for HRC. But, he is a little old and I think Democrats may want an exciting young Democrat as VP to carry the torch for a third term.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 01:00:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama could be that young Democrat down the road (none / 0)

by dpANDREWS on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 02:36:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah (none / 0)

Possibly, but I doubt he will be for Hillary Clinton. You never know though.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 04:49:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thinking outside the box for a minute (none / 0)

I sincerely doubt that will happen.

He helped and gave support to her opponent.

Colin Powell doesn't ensure any EV and doesn't have an electoral base. (It's not where you live that decides that, It's where they voted you into office)

He is damaged goods over the Iraq war. His testimony for the UN was a pivotal step in the lead-up to the war. And his testimony turned out to be false. That makes his weak spot exactly the same as Clinton's. Having a VP that reinforces a weakness is counter to the function of a VP electorally.

He personally engaged in politics against the Clinton administration. He forcefully intervened in the Gays in the military debate to the detriment of the Clinton administration. Handing the Clinton a political loss at a time they were political vulnerable.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Ernst on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 09:07:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thinking outside the box for a minute (none / 0)

No, his weak spot is much, much worse. He lied to the whole world at the UN using doctored, discredited and misleading "evidence", and he knew he was telling lies even as he said it. His crime is immeasurably greater than Clinton's or Edwards'. Other than point, I agree with you 100%. She'd have to be drunk to pick him.

No Way. No How. No McCain.

by Denny Crane on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 11:08:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thinking outside the box for a minute (none / 0)

Colin Powell is entirely distasteful to me, and Hillary has no reason whatever to chose him. What does she gain? A liar and a fraud? He's not a fierce partisan, but that didn't stop him from doing the heavy lifting in selling the pre-invasion lies to the American people. I used to have enormous respect for him, but that ended years ago.

No Way. No How. No McCain.

by Denny Crane on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 11:05:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Likely VP Nominees (none / 0)

I live in Ohio and though Ted Strickland in congress voted against the Iraq War in congress and voted against every trade deal even the WTO and the Unions love him even more then Edwards or Howard Dean I doubt he will be the pic. Mostly because of his age and the fact that he can't succeed clinton. Also I want him to stay governor so he can reregulate our power companies who have been gouging us in this state for too long. If you guys think I am agest i happen to be waiting for my Gravel bumper sticker to come in the mail. He is the man who most deserves he Presidency. It is about time that some of these candidates come up with their own platform.

by sblock on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 09:45:34 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login