Warner out of VP contest

by Jerome Armstrong, Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:29:25 AM EST

Mark Warner says that he's only running for the Senate: "I have not sought and I will not accept any other opportunity."  Too bad, as Obama & Warner would be a great team. If I had to bet, I think it'll come back to an Obama-Clinton ticket. Not that I want it or think its the only ticket-- just that its the only one that really makes sense for Obama to take a decisive advantage. Especially with both Strickland and Warner, the best two Gov options, having taken themselves out of contention. Well, there is another couple of Governors that could happen still, Schweitzer being the best, Sebelius & Richardson too. So maybe Clinton is the 'fallback' option still.

On the GOP side, hasn't Lieberman already taken himself out of contention? I don't see it happening, as it would only fire up Democrats, and Lieberman does not do anything for the social conservatives. McCain is going to choose a conservative to shore up his credentials on the right, and he's going to choose someone that's younger than himself. Sarah Palin is who I'd be the most afraid of him choosing, she'd engage the conservative moms that Bush had going for him the past two elections.

Overall, it seems to me that the race has become sorta at a summer standstill. The latest Gallup poll, at 45-42 Obama leading, has a pretty high number of other/neither/undecided voters, at 14 percent, given that name recognition is at 98% or thereabouts for each candidate.

Have a great Father's day!




Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 237 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Obama is still crushing McCain in Rasmussen's tracker.  Hes been up by 7 for a while now, including today.


by Bobby Obama on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:37:34 AM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

And McCain is under 40% in today's Rasmussen.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:33:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Pollsters will make it look good for Obama until (1.00 / 1)

after the convention, and there is no more danger of an
HRC nomination.

It's a bad signal that Obama gets these VP rejections.
Insiders realize he has no chance.


by layer cake on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:37:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (none / 0)

Strickland ruled himself out last year when he was asked about being Clinton's VP. It has nothing to do with Obama.


by jadegirl on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:39:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (none / 0)

Link, please?


by markjay on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:06:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (2.00 / 1)

From November 2007

Strickland

About 1/3 down the article


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:41:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (none / 0)

Thanks


by markjay on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:52:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (none / 0)

Thanks for posting this. I was offline all day after the above comment.


by jadegirl on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:40:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (none / 0)

I know this is the new in argument from Obama doubters, if you assume that Strickland and Warner have an interest in becoming president someday, other jobs provide at least as good path as does vp. Actually, Governor is a much better spot from which to run than vp and the Governor-Senate combination is also quite good.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:42:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (none / 0)

Clinton lost to the better Democratic candidate in a contest for the Democratic vote even with the help of operation CHAOS voters. Time for you to grow up and get over it or go join the Republicans.


by TMP on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:00:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (2.00 / 0)

Pollsters will make it look good for Obama until after the convention and there is no more danger of an HRC nomination.

Yes, those all-powerful pollsters who fabricate the results out of thin air because all they want is for Dems to lose. They fear nothing more than a Hillary VP nod and will do everything in their power to stop it! BWAHAHAHAHA


by animated on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:49:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (none / 0)

What, you don't remember this Zogby poll released on the eve of the 2004 election?


U.S. Presidential Election Poll
November 8, 2004
Copyright 2004 Zogby International

George Bush: 5%
John Kerry:  4%
Ralph Nader: 1%
John Zogby:  90% Pwnd LOLOLOL!!! Zogby Rulez other droolez!



by sneakers563 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:02:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (none / 0)

LOL


by animated on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:13:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (none / 0)

What? That makes no sense at all.


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
by Denny Crane on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:01:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah (none / 0)

It goes right to my hips but it's oh-so-delicious.


by thurst on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:59:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (none / 0)

Warner knows it is a bad move. He is the only person who can win that Senate Seat.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:44:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (none / 0)

"no chance" no butt.  Obama's going to crush John McCain no matter who he picks for VP. And won't you look ridiculous when he does. (by the way, this is a progressive blog. I think Red State might be a better fit for you)


by Democrat in Chicago on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:27:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is still crushing McCain (none / 0)

Not that I want it or think its the only ticket-- just that its the only one that really makes sense for Obama to take a decisive advantage

Or lose his decisive advantage.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:49:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Warner needs to be in the Senate (2.00 / 2)

That would be a DEFINITE pick up seat for the Senate so using him as a VP choice wouldn't be wise.


by puma on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:40:10 AM EST

When I saw Clinton give her (2.00 / 1)

concession speech, I realized that there is no better campaigner out there (other than Obama).  

I could see her in WV and KY saying '...and that is why WE MUST ELECT BARACK OBAMA!'  The response to that?  A resounding chorus of 'YES, MA'AM!'

Maybe the dream ticket would work.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:47:12 AM EST

It would work if reversed. The problsm (none / 0)

with Obama is that he has no record to tower over
the Chicago ghosts.

People have no way of judging him.  The slick messages
written up by his marketing staff can't counter the Wright stuff.


by layer cake on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:40:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It would work if reversed. The problsm (none / 0)

He's done pretty well so far, though, no? He beat the inevitable nominee who started way ahead in the polls, with lots and lots of money, and 100 superdelegates.

But you do have a point and I'm sure the Obama campaign is well aware of the need to let people know more about his biography.  Bill Clinton had to do the same thing in 1992. Before the convention, most people thought he came from a wealthy family and didn't know he had a child. After the convention, they understood his roots, having heard him talk about his single mother, being raised by his grandparents, etc., (interestingly, a similar story to Obama's) and that carried him forward.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:45:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It would work if reversed. The problsm (none / 0)

"He beat the inevitable nominee who started way ahead in the polls, with lots and lots of money, and 100 superdelegates."

He also beat the Wright Distraction. But a big part of it is that everyone but blind partisans bent on his destruction realized that tarring him with someone else's words was fundamentally wrong.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:03:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When people are disgusted with our (none / 0)

current government and our current 'leaders' they want to elect fresh new leaders.  That's why Obama is doing so well.  He's a constitutional scholar, he has a record of public service and he's not part of the old establishment.  When things are going well, we want more of the same.  When they are not, we want to elect a really smart person who is not part of the problem...that's why Obama will win.

He has the same experience Abe Lincoln had when he ran for president (another really smart person) and he turned out all right.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:37:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fight the smears (1.00 / 1)

He's a constitutional scholar...

What has he published?  Where has he been tenure-track faculty?


by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:53:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He wasn't tenure track faculty. (none / 0)

Which is a plus.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:58:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He wasn't tenure track faculty. (none / 0)

So if he wasn't tenure-track faculty, and if he never published anything (not even a student note when he was editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review), he's not a constitutional scholar.  Period.


by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:15:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He wasn't tenure track faculty. (none / 0)

He was offered a tenured position at University of Chicago several times. He turned them down. They don't offer tenure to unqualified people at UoC, which I've ever heard is a pretty decent law school.

I'm surprised you conspiracy theorists are still pushing this tripe. Don't you have a made-up tape to obsess over these days?


by Stroszek on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:18:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dead wrong (none / 0)

He was offered a tenured position at University of Chicago several times. He turned them down. They don't offer tenure to unqualified people at UoC, which I've ever heard is a pretty decent law school.

According to a press release from the University of Chicago Law School, Obama was a "senior lecturer" (essentially a high-profile adjunct) from 1992-2004 and was, on several occasions, "invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position," which he declined.

Note that's "tenure track" -- not tenured.  Meaning he was invited to be an entry-level professor, a position in which he would be expected to publish significantly if he wanted to gain tenure.  And he declined that position.

A few years ago, I was invited to join a prominent strategy consulting firm, which I declined in favor of another line of work.  Do I get to call myself a strategy consultant now?

So, once again, if Obama's such a constitutional scholar, WHAT HAS HE PUBLISHED?  You don't get to call yourself a scholar if you don't publish.

If that makes me a "conspiracy theorist," well, crank up the X-Files DVD.  Calling Obama a "constitutional scholar" is like calling Hillary a military commander on the basis of her visit to Tuzla.


by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:39:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dead wrong (none / 0)

It makes me sad to watch you dead-enders squirm like this.

Let's begin:

You say, "(essentially a high-profile adjunct) "

Actually, no.

This is from their statement: "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status."

They specifically say that those who hold the position are regarded as professors and is specifically distinct from adjunct status.

So, either you're trying to intentionally deceive me or you didn't read the whole statement. If the former, you failed, if the latter, I suggest you actually inform yourself.

"WHAT HAS HE PUBLISHED?  You don't get to call yourself a scholar if you don't publish."

Actually, you get to call yourself a scholar if you're an accomplished academic with enough knowledge to teach (in a position considered equivalent to being a professor) at one of the prestigious law schools in the country, who also contributed as a researcher to numerous published papers. I haven't looked into whether Obama was the main author of any published paper, that'll certainly be an interesting project, but I would hesitate taking the word of right-wing bloggers before you make that assertions. A lot of published academic papers (particularly pre-internet papers) get lost in the flux, so not being available on Google is not "proof" for your case.

Anyway, let's sum up your argument the guy graduates Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School, collaborates on scholarly papers as president of the HLR, works in a position at the University of Chicago that's considered equivalent to being a professor, and frequently declines joining on as full-time faculty... obviously, dude knows next to nothing about the constitution and has done no scholarly work whatsoever.

Brilliant reasoning. Now, tell me again about those SHOCKING Farrakhan connections, whitey?


by Stroszek on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:52:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dead wrong (none / 0)

Also, it's worth checking out the blogs of the UoC professors, especially the parts where they basically say they begged him to join the faculty.

That is, if you can stand to see anyone write anything positive about Senator Obama, which I imagine you can't.


by Stroszek on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:00:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dead wrong (none / 0)

Also, it's worth checking out the blogs of the UoC professors, especially the parts where they basically say they begged him to join the faculty.

Once again: a few years ago, I had a management consulting firm begging me to become a management consultant.  I turned down the offer.  Do I now get to call myself a management consultant.

Obama turned down the offers to join the faculty as a tenure-track professor.  That is, he had an offer to pursue a scholarly career; instead, he became a politician.


by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:56:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dead wrong (none / 0)

Actually, you get to call yourself a scholar if you're an accomplished academic with enough knowledge to teach...at one of the prestigious law schools in the country, who also contributed as a researcher to numerous published papers...

Dead wrong.  The sina qua non of being an academic is publishing original research -- not "contributing as a researcher" to published papers, but publishing them yourself.

I haven't looked into whether Obama was the main author of any published paper...

Please do, before you tell us what a leading scholar he is.

[Obama] collaborate[d] on scholarly papers as president of the HLR...

If you're making this argument with a straight face, you clearly have no idea of how law reviews work.  

Unlike other academic journals, law reviews are run by students.  The senior editors select articles for publication from among hundreds of submissions -- itself a highly controversial practice, since the editors aren't themselves lawyers or legal academics.  More junior editors edit the articles for clarity and space, verify citations, and ensure correct Bluebooking (i.e., formatting) of citations.  They don't collaborate on original research.

As an aside, there are many social scientists and other faculty who question whether law review articles are truly scholarly literature, since most of them aren't peer reviewed.  I'm sympathetic to that view, but I'll set it aside for now.

"Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status."

With due respect to the UoC Law School here, I think this distinction between "senior lecturer" and "lecturer" is a semantic one.  They're basically trying to give a fancy title to more accomplished adjuncts for whom teaching, say, legal writing to 1Ls would be beneath them.

This is common at law schools.  Larry Sonsini, for example, is best known as a leading corporate lawyer in Silicon Valley, but he also teaches securities law at Boalt.  (IIRC, he's even written a few law review articles on the side.)  It would indeed be demeaning to call him an adjunct.  Sonsini wouldn't claim that he's pursuing a scholarly career, though.  He's basically coming back to teach at his alma mater what he's learned as a leading legal practitioner.

Lastly, let me digress for a moment and explain why I care deeply about this topic.  (Contrary to the original poster's bizarro rantings, it has nothing to do with Louis Farrakhan, right-wing bloggers, "Whitey," or other nefarious characters.)

I have many friends who are academics, both in law schools and in other fields.  And to claim a glorified adjunct is a "leading constitutional scholar" does a grave injustice to those junior scholars who work very hard to accumulate long publication records.

It reeks of arrogance for the Obama campaign to claim that being a "senior adjunct" makes Obama some kind of leading constitutional scholar a la Lawrence Tribe or Bruce Ackerman or Cass Sunstein.  It reminds me of when Obama said that growing up in Indonesia qualifies him as commander in chief.

I'm not arguing that Obama "knows nothing about the constitution," or that he's a poor lawyer.  Indeed, I'm inclined to think he would make a better Supreme Court justice than a president.  I am saying, however, that until someone produces a list of publications that Obama has authored, he cannot justly be called a scholar.


by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:29:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dead wrong (none / 0)

I can't disagree with that logic. He really needs to do an in-depth interview on the subject or something at the very least. Debate the issues with someone that has a more originalist interpretation.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:57:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When I saw Clinton give her (none / 0)

And Hillary is a good/great debater.  Certainly better than McCain and probably better than almost anyone McCain would pick as VP.  Of course, she is also a better debater than Obama, so I don't know if that would be a problem.

I saw Gov. Jindal on one of the morning political shows this morning and while I disagreed with him on just about everything (he said he is for teaching ID), he is charismatic and seems like a good guy and would be very troubling as a VP opponent.  I hope McCain picks someone else.


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:31:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whoever he picks won't be debating (none / 0)

against him but will be debating against whoever McCain chooses.  Obama vs. McCain...who do you think will be the better debater?  I think Obama's hands were tied in Dem vs. Dem debates which made him seem hesitant on the attack.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:01:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoever he picks won't be debating (2.00 / 1)

Well obviously Hillary won't debate against Obama (again), I just wonder about the possibility of her upstaging him both in debates and with Bill and all that.  I am going to be optimistic about it for now.  

I think Obama will wipe the floor with McCain.  The funny/great thing is that Obama is not always a great debater because he actually thinks about his answers before he responds, unlike Bushie who just spews whatever comes to his pea-sized mind.  To me, it's another example of Obama's ability to be nuanced in the world of politics where everyone wants things to be black and white (no pun intended).  Obama both literally and symbolically inhabits a world of nuance where things are not always right/wrong, good/bad, easy/hard.  It's what I like the most about him.


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:38:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoever he picks won't be debating (none / 0)

Yeah but Bush wasn't a good debater either so I'm not sure how comparing the two does much for the argument.

Obama does not debate well; neither does McCain. When dealing with an experience meme not doing well in a debate is harmful for the cause.  McCain will win in debates against Obama. Clinton would've cleaned McCain's clock & left him looking "confused."  It is a real problem.


by jrsygrl on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:35:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoever he picks won't be debating (none / 0)

I don't think Obama loses against McCain in the debates simply because McCain has looked more and more confused over the last few months.  I think if Obama can just pull off moderately decent, he wipes the floor with McCain.


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:30:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoever he picks won't be debating (none / 0)

I get that McCain has been looking confused - however he also has that authoritative thing about him - he wanted the town hall meeting b/c they work for him.  Being that the meme is that Obama is unsure, his speech patterns (the uhhs & uhhms are frequent) are very problematic when debating/spontaneously speaking when it comes to making a solid point or trying to persuade someone of your certainty/expertise (it is something that would be harped on in an intro to public speaking course) he does stand a good chance in losing against McCain & reinforcing the experience meme being pushed by the GOP. That is a very real problem. Clinton was very confident when she spoke & would've wiped the floor with him but his debating style is a problem.


by jrsygrl on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:04:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome that would be an exciting ticket! (none / 0)

but I am not getting my hopes up.  I have finally accepted that it probably wont happen and now this diary, hehe.  Its not nice to fool with an old lady!!!!   Sigh.  I will keep my fingers crossed though.


Another proud Hillary Clinton supporter for Obama
by Sandy1938 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:00:32 AM EST

McCain went after another of Obama's VP (none / 0)

selection team member, Eric Holder, because he was the lawyer who helped pardoned Marc Rich.

If McCain is going after Eric Holder for Marc Rich, how is Obama going to be able to put Hillary on the ticket since it was Bill Clinton who pardoned Marc Rich.


by puma on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:03:46 AM EST

Re: McCain went after another of Obama's VP (none / 0)

While I'm not wild about the idea of putting Clinton on the ticket, Obama shouldn't let Republican concern trolls determine who it is.

First, pick someone who can lead the country should the need arise; Political concerns second.


The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:19:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain went after another of Obama's VP (none / 0)

That got no traction. McDesperate is already in full Hillary mode. That is, the kitchensink/kneecap strategy that didn't work for her either.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:07:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It won't (none / 0)

The GOP is going to go after everyone (very skillfully). The decision needs to be made as to who is best in responding the the attacks. The Clintons have been through (successful) G/Es before - they know how to win with the full country looking on. They are also not afraid to fight & they have proven they can do it.  Noone can say they have undergone the same level of scrutiny by the GOP, and not many can say they have the same ability to fight back that they exhibit.

So it comes down to who can best handle them as campaigners.


by jrsygrl on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:38:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I'm not sure why you quoted yesterday's Gallup numbers but not today's Rasmussen tracking which shows an Obama lead of 7, with McCain at 39. I know you're feeling your way at trying to say something positive about Obama, but it's really not that hard.

Warner made the right decision. We should not give up a solid Senate seat pick up. There are other strong VP contenders, including Richardson and Wes Clark.


by jadegirl on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:06:00 AM EST

Why Clark? (none / 0)

I see his name mentioned a lot and I don't understand why.  He's a liberal military guy which is nice, but I don't what else people see in him.  Since he's never held any kind of office, I worry that he would just reinforce the "Obama is inexperienced" line.

Anyway, I'm not trying to be rude or anything.  I'm genuinely curious what Clark brings to the table.


by sneakers563 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:18:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Clark? (none / 0)

He ran a multi-national military force and won a war with no casualties.  Sounds like he knows how to run a large operation with lots of people and lots of opinions.


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:27:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Clark? (none / 0)

Plus, as VP, Clark is supposed to be an advisor and someone trustworthy; he does not need to be a politician.  He's smart and attractive and seems to be a good person, all good qualities for a VP.  Plus, he is a Hillary supporter, which at least shows a little bit of reaching out (though not as much as many people want).  And one of the unfortunate advantages of Clark is that he is a white male; there is some question of how centrists and moderate conservatives would respond to a ticket with a black man and a woman or a latino (Richardson).  


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:41:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: VP contest (none / 0)

How about Christine Todd Whitmann?


by moevaughn on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:09:42 AM EST

Re: VP contest (none / 0)

for McCain, that is


by moevaughn on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:16:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: VP contest (2.00 / 1)

Hadn't thought about it, but is seen as more traitorous by the GOP base than even McCain.  Palin would be formidable, but I wonder if personal circumstances take her out of the running in this cycle.

And I'd have risked that VA-SEN race (or had Warner run in both) to go Obama-Warner this year.  Sigh.


by Adam B on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:24:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: VP contest (none / 0)

If McCain needs to distance himself from loser GWB, Todd Whitman on the ticket would help -- and she's well-liked by Independents.  and she's strong on the environment -- a really hot issue now.  I think she's pro-choice, so that might not be good for religious right.  She would draw the women though.


by moevaughn on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:50:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: VP contest (2.00 / 1)

You nailed the reason why Whitman of the boxed candy fortune won't get on a national ticket -- abortion. The pro-choice Republicans get shut out of the platform when they try to get a statement that abortion is a complex moral issue and McCain would destroy himself with the base with Whitman on the ticket.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:55:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: VP contest (none / 0)

yep.  that must be why her name hasn't come up.  Since she doesn't have much of a future with GOP, I wonder if she'll join the Independents.  That's quite an inclusive group, with socialist Bernie Sanders and warhawk Liebermann.


by moevaughn on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:14:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Christine Todd Whitman (2.00 / 1)

I've actually thought that Obama should give her another shot at EPA.  She struck me as a very level-headed person who was trying to protect the environment, because that's the job title and something she believed in.  Of course that didn't work out under Bush, where the job description was really "deflect criticism while we eviscerate environmental protections for the benefit of our friends in industry".  But if she was given a chance in a forward-thinking administration, I think she'd be excellent, unfortunate party affiliation notwithstanding.


by lilnev on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:18:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: VP contest (none / 0)

You may be right - I never understood why so many people liked her - I'm from NJ & I can't stand her..


by jrsygrl on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:39:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Too bad about Warner, I feel that Obama/Warner or Obama/Edwards would be amazingly stong tickets.  I disagree about Obama/Clinton, I don't think that pairing would be good for either.

I think it's looking more and more like Obama/Clark


by ArkansasLib on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:15:01 AM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I'm not really aware of any sort of relationship between the two - the only place I've seen this really talked about was the "Four Days in Denver" fiction.


The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:20:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I personally don't want Hillary to be the VP.  There is just too much down-side for her career to that option.  And as I said before she is exposed to more risk than Obama should the ticket lose.

However, as you can see by the lead story on the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/world/ asia/15nuke.html?em&ex=1213675200&am p;en=7dae8fb60503ce92&ei=5087%0A

the story being released after months of sitting on it comes down again to National Security.  Clinton will be the strongest (non-millitary) candidate that Obama could put into that position.  Sebilius and Richardson do nothing for Obama on that front (yes, even with Richardson's negotiation skills) and only weaken him on Economic and Foreign policy.

Obama has lot's of choices, Clinton is the smartest political choice.  Whomever he picks has to not only be able to be politically savvy, but bring voters along with them, and shore up Obama's political positions that he is vulnerable on.  I don't see very many choices for him out there that fill all of those billets.


Well I guess that's one way to say things have 'changed'.
by TxDem08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:20:13 AM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I'm always surprised to hear everyone (especially the press) mentioning that the VP position is "worthless."

Why is that?  In the history books a vice president is always remembered.  Secretary of state, attorney general, senate majority leader?  Not so much.

If they cut a deal between themselves (making her primary role the health insurance czar), it could certainly be win-win.

With the dwindling list of candidates that actually want the VP position, I could see him defaulting to Clinton, escpecially with poll numbers showing him over McCain by less than 10 points (Gallup is now only +3 for Obama).

If he can gain on McCain by 10-15 points, then he can surely run as his own brand, with a "new name" friend as VP.  Otherwise I think Clinton is a safe choie.  At the very least she can flip Arkansas for him, and strengthen chances in OH, PA, WV, and a few others.

- Matt


by mjc888 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:33:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I agree completely, the VP choice is far from worthless, in fact it will be key for both candidates this year given their weaknesses (Obama's inexperience and McCain's age).


by animated on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:53:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I'm saying that the VP position is anything but "worthless".

It's going to be the position within the Democratic ticket that makes or breaks the push regain the White House.  A weak ticket, means we all need to focus on down-ticket races and even then a weak National ticket really hurts those races also.

Webb, is a good choice, but we can't afford to lose his seat in VA.  Clark, a great National Security choice, but is weak on the policy/politics side.


Well I guess that's one way to say things have 'changed'.
by TxDem08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:18:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

How is Clinton good on national security? She voted for the war and hasn't shown what I'd consider to be good judgment since.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:56:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Then Obama isn't good as well, as his record mirrors her's since he entered the Senate.

She has experience on the Senate Armed Services Committee and her foreign policy positions are just some of the reasons that 18 Million people were voting for her.


Well I guess that's one way to say things have 'changed'.
by TxDem08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:22:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I've definitely come to realize Clinton is the best VP choice. McCain, whether he wanted to or not, has pushed the campaign in that direction, and the refusals of so many potential candidates like Warner, Strickland and Edwards just cements it.

It also takes away any big bump McCain would get from picking a female VP like Sarah Palin.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:25:49 AM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Sadly, Sarah Palin just gave birth to a child with Down syndrome.  She has a great future in the Republican party, but this won't be her year.


by feynman on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:33:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Yeah, you're probably right. I knew she just had a child born with DS, but the full implications escaped me.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:14:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I have a child with Down syndrome, and I don't see that disqualifying me from any job.  The child would be 9 months old by the time she assumed office.

I guess the main challenge would be being part of a grueling campaign run with a young baby, but that would apply regardless of whether the child had Down syndrome or not.


by markjay on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:11:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I wouldn't think it would disqualify anyone from a job, but this is a pretty abnormal job. It would mean 6 months of not being able to see her that much, then moving the whole family out to DC, all while still having responsibilities as the governor (unless she stepped down) and getting MASSIVE media attention at all times. It would definitely apply to any newborn baby, but wouldn't it be of even more importance to have as active a role as possible in your baby's development with something like down syndrome? Genuinely asking, since I have not yet had any kids myself.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:47:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I believe her last child makes 5 (or maybe 6)?  I think that fact might weigh in more heavily than the fact that she has a child with DS.  Also her husband is a commercial fisherman so he obviously couldn't pursue his trade in DC.


by JustJennifer on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:09:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree. (none / 0)

I also think Jodi Rell would make a much better choice.


by JimR on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:33:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I disagree. In the WSJ poll, 22% were less positive toward Obama with Clinton on the ticket and 22% were more positive. It was a wash.  


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:36:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

These national polls don't mean much.

The big question is whether Clinton would cause Obama to win or lose any individual states.

Surely all of Obama's internal polls are geared in this direction.


by mjc888 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:40:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Sure - And I still don't think Clinton is helpful in swing states. That whole argument has been predicated on the view created by exit poll analysis of good/bad blocs for Clinton/Obama which have been shown to NOT carry over to the Obama-McCain matchups.

For example, Clinton decisively won Hispanics against Obama, but Obama is decisively winning Hispanics over McCain.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:58:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Sure - And I still don't think Clinton is helpful in swing states.

You mean swing states like FL or MI or OH or PA or NJ?

Those swing states???


Well I guess that's one way to say things have 'changed'.
by TxDem08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:25:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

You got to be kidding. As a Michigander I can tell you that Obama doesn't need Hillary to take Michigan. Not by even the wildest stretch of the imagination.


by GeeMan on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:55:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Obama will need all the help he can get.  Whether from Hillary or another VP choice (yes even in MI), but they must be at least able to shore up his deficiencies and help him project knowledge and a forethought on foreign policy.


Well I guess that's one way to say things have 'changed'.
by TxDem08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:21:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I have yet to hear the average person in Michigan have much nice to say about Hillary. Oh sure, you have the usual party toadies such as Granholm, Brewer and few others. Doesn't mean much when it comes down to the vote.Hillary got about 329,000 votes in Michigan for the primary. Michigan will turn out 2 1/2 million plus voters for the general election.So she has so far about 13% or 14% of the possible vote,not exactly a ringing endorsement.


by GeeMan on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:22:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I hear plenty of good things from plenty of people of MI about Hillary, and how they want her and not the DEM candidate they have now.  

It means a lot when it comes down to the vote, Hillary got 329,000 more votes than Obama, and even if MI turns out 2.5M voters, not all of them will be voting DEM., and your 13-14% is based off of the 329k votes she had.  If you do that then Obama is dead in the water.  Street runs both directions my friend.

Right now RCP has McCain up 2, but Rass has Obama up 3 w/ the latest poll from 2 weeks ago.  Not exactly a ringing endorsement either.

Once you move out of your bubble, the entire playing field becomes clear.  You should step outside once in a while.


Well I guess that's one way to say things have 'changed'.
by TxDem08 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:00:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Didn't you just cite a national (2.00 / 1)

poll upthread to show why he should use Clinton?  Seems kind of strange that you are now saying national polls don't mean much.

Guess we all use them when they help make our point, eh?


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:48:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Well, I've been far more amenable to the idea as of late. The thought of Clinton as Prez used to terrify Republicans, but they've spent the last few weeks praising her, so what can they do?


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:16:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

If she doesn't energize the opposition against Obama, I'm all for it.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:16:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

ALso, where was the WSJ poll? I missed that one.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:17:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Don't answer. The big one. I missed that question.

We shall see. I still think Edwards was the best choice. But he has no interest in it anymore.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:19:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/docume nts/WSJ_NBC_SURVEY_June2008.pdf

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25096620/


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:21:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Obama Mccain

47   / 41

Obama Clinton Vs Mccain /Romney

51   / 42

That doesn't seem like a wash to me.


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 Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:26:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0)

Romney is also one of the most hated politicians in the country. So that may have something to do with it ;)


"Live your beliefs and you can turn the world around." --Thoreau
by Populista on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:56:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well (none / 0)

I'm not sure where you get that idea from, but Romney was certainly never hated in Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in the country.  

Unless you mean people would never vote for a Mormon, I have not seen high negatives for Mitt.

People much more hated than Romney:

Hillary
Bill
McCain
Giuliani
Lieberman
Gore
Nader
Bush
Cheney
Buchanan (not sure if he still counts as a politician)
Ted Kennedy

I'm not sure how Romney cracks the top 25 of most hated politicians.


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:48:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I'm crushed by this. Obama/Warner would be a dream for me. I have just written a diary about this.

I'm now advocating Obama/Gore.


by Makey on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:30:05 AM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I thought Gore already took himself out of the running, months ago.  And honestly, just like with Clinton, it would be a silly move for his career.  He's internationally recognized, and has one signature issue - much better for him to be able to push that issue than be tied to playing a supporting role on all kinds of issues.

Gore, Edwards and Webb all said they didn't want it months ago.  You can push for them, but you'll probably be disappointed.


by NoBlinkers on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:46:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama/Biden (none / 0)

That's my prediction.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:51:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Biden (none / 0)

Novak wrote a column saying his name (Biden's) was floated the most before Johnson stepped down.


by animated on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:56:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Biden (none / 0)

I like Biden.  He's a bit of a hot head.  And he made the weird, unfortunate comment about Obama being the first "clean" AA to run for office.  I don't think he is going to be picked.

On CNN Napolitano was asked about being a pick.  She said "I already have a job".  I know that is the standard answer when asked though.


by JustJennifer on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:22:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Biden (none / 0)

In light of all the more recent comments by Obama, Hillary, and McCain, Biden's "clean" comment looks like not even a blip on the radar.  I highly doubt that miniscule gaffe has any impact on whether he's chosen.  The bigger problem with him is that he probably doesn't help win any specific states.


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:50:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Biden (none / 0)

I'd love it. He IS a hothead, but he's a pretty lively hothead, and when has that ever been a bad thing. McCain's fresh new voice for VP would have to be pretty damn sharp during the debates to keep up.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:55:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

We needs Democrats to step up and provide the flank now for Obama. In this historic journey he is taking.

Gore we need you.


by Makey on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:30:52 AM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Clinton is the clear choice for VP and I say this as an Obama supporter who was annoyed with her campaign style during the primary.  


by agpc on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:32:40 AM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I'm with Ed Rendell on this. Clinton is a poor choice because the vp is supposed to be in a support role and she and Bill would have a large spotlight on them.  


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:37:48 AM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Very true, but he needs to win first.  That list of 20 is now down to 15 or so, with only one or two high profile candidates left.

I would only be opposed to having Richardson on the ticket.  He doesn't impressive me at all.  Very weak speaking skills and not very authoritative.


by mjc888 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:43:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I don't like Richardson either. I saw him speak once and though he was awful.

But I don't think Clinton would be good on the ticket.  Her negatives are very high and they turn off independents who are open to Obama.  And it undercuts Obama's message of change. I like Kaine, Webb, Sibelius, Schweitzer, Clark.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:49:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio would also be a good potential choice. He's been consistently anti-war and opposed to bad trade agreements, with very close ties to unions. And Ohioans strongly support him.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:59:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Did he actually say that?  I only remember his saying:

A) He would like to see her on the ticket.
B) She shouldn't bargain for the position.
C) Obama may be able to win without her.
D) He is not interested in VP.

- Matt


by mjc888 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:39:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Ed Rendall did not say that.


by Scotch on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:45:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

"The rule for the vice president is make sure you never upstage the president," said Rendell. "It's rule one. You know, Hillary Clinton in some ways couldn't help but upstage, even if she was trying not to."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2008/06/rendell-cools-o.html
We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:42:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

In context:

Last week, Rendell seemed optimistic that Clinton would get the V.P. nod. By Wednesday, the Governor had changed his tune, fearing that Clinton could overshadow Obama.

"The rule for the vice president is make sure you never upstage the president," said Rendell. "It's rule one. You know, Hillary Clinton in some ways couldn't help but upstage, even if she was trying not to."

Rendell also thinks that former President Bill Clinton could greatly complicate matters if his wife was the vice presidential nominee. Clinton has made several controversial remarks while stumping for his wife on the campaign trail, such as comparing Obama's victory in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's win in 1988, then later claiming that the Obama camp had "played the race card" on him. Earlier this week, the former President issued a tirade against the media for its alleged Obama bias.

"The Obama campaign would have to make strict rules, you know, about what President Clinton could and could not do during the campaign," said Rendell.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:47:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

That does not say that he thinks that she SHOULDN't be offered the VP, it only shows that he is doubtful that she would be offered it because she is bigger than he is.  I doubt that he would tell her to turn it down.  


by Scotch on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:32:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Well, Ed Rendell recently signed a petition for the "dream ticket" on voteboth.com, so I think his original quote was taken far out of context.

http://www.voteboth.com/who


by mjc888 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:25:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dennis Kucinich would be proud (none / 0)

to serve as Obama's VP.
Obama should pick among friends.
by layer cake on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:51:40 AM EST

Re: Dennis Kucinich would be proud (none / 0)

Oh, totally.  But he is best left as the quirky local politician.  Nationally he would be the butt of many, many jokes.

This coming from someone who lives a street away from Kucinich here in Cleveland.


by mjc888 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:56:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dennis Kucinich would be proud (none / 0)

Kucinich would be a smarter version of Quayle.


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:52:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

weirder. not so sure about smarter. /nt (none / 0)


by layer cake on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:21:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dennis Kucinich would be proud (none / 0)

Geez Louise, now there is someone who would represent CHANGE.  To the extreme.  Maybe way to the  extreme.  But that is just in my humble opinion.


by Scotch on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:44:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

it was a snark (none / 0)

apologies for being too subtle.


by layer cake on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:22:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

don't bank too much on VPs (2.00 / 1)


I'm not so sure that a) people ever remember who the VP candidate is (quick, who was Truman's? Wilson's? Hoover's?).

The whole "balancing the ticket" thing is relatively new, and I see little evidence that it matters. Edwards was on the ticket to deliver North Carolina (which still would have left Kerry down by 5 EV) and we see how well that worked.

Gore picked Lieberman as a more conservative running mate but he couldn't carry his own home state, and had he won Florida he would have been the first president of the modern era (20th cent) to win without carrying the home state crowd.

Cheney might -- and I stress might-- have been on the ticket to deliver Wyoming, but it isn't like that was competitive.

WOuld Hilary Clinton make Arkansas flip? Maybe. Maybe not. Primary dynamics are different from GE dynamics. They tell you little about the final tally.

Obama can answer any issues of experience by simply saying "hey, experience didn't matter for Bush II, Reagan, Carter, Eisenhower (who had never held elected office), Teddy Roosevelt, Coolidge, or Hoover. All those guys were elected and their records are all over the place. Experience simply doesn't matter in the real world and the voters have made it clear it doesn't matter to them either.

More to the point, strong on national security doesn't mean "let's bomb everybody." If Dems would quit buying that meme we'd go a long way towards changing the debate. Clinton bugs me because she bought it and voted not once but TWICE to go to war with someone who had never, ever threatened the US.

Both Clinton and Obama are centrist Dems -- with Clinton the more conservative on many issues, and her national security schtick scares the hell out of me. I'd have voted for her as president if she were the nominee, but she ain't.

There are other reasons she'd make a less than stellar VP choice. FIrst, it cuts into the idea that Obama is offering something different. Second, she has a stack of negatives that would bring out the base on the other side, as much as a the racists are out for Obama. The double whammy would make things harder, not easier. I can think of a few women on the ticket who help rather than hurt in that respect.


by camaxtli on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:55:15 AM EST

Re: don't bank too much on VPs (2.00 / 1)

The idea that Hillary clashes with change is getting old for me.  Isn't half (if not more) of Obama's list experienced politicians?

How is Biden full of change and Hillary "status quo"?

First African-American + first female looks like change to me, and they nearly vote the same on every issue.


by mjc888 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:00:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't bank too much on VPs (2.00 / 1)

How is Biden full of change and Hillary "status quo"?

And there you have it.  The whole "Hillary isn't change" argument simply holds no water at all.


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
by Denny Crane on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:12:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Perception equals reality (none / 0)

Of course Hillary is for change.  But the perception is that she is somehow looking back to the 1990s.  It would be the same if Obama chose a Kennedy.


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:54:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't bank too much on VPs (none / 0)

So a female vp/potential president isn't something different?  Hell, a white man in a dark suit seems to be more sameness to me than I think I can stand.


by Scotch on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:42:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't bank too much on VPs (1.00 / 2)

Clinton...voted not once but TWICE to go to war with someone who had never, ever threatened the US.

Excuse me, but in 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, an American ally, and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia, another American ally.  And he launched scud missiles against Israel, yet another American ally.

All of this came about eight years after Saddam launched one of the bloodiest wars of the twentieth century, against Iran -- not an American ally, to be sure, but a move that showed he was serious about using force from the get-go.

After the war, he continually fired on U.S. planes patrolling the no-fly zones.  This led Bill Clinton to bomb Iraq for several days in 1998.

What kind of alternate universe are you living in when you say Iraq never threatened the U.S.?

Now, perhaps the threat was ultimately not a serious one, or one that could have been contained by continuing the regime of U.N. weapons inspections or sanctions.  I would say that was the ideal course of action.  

But back in 2003, many of today's anti-war folks were complaining that sanctions were "killing Iraqi children" and looking for ways to loosen them.  In hindsight, they worked quite well.


by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:08:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, they did. (2.00 / 1)

They indeed "worked quite well" at killing Iraqi children.


John McCain: He flunked ECON 101.
by Shem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:51:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I must disagree (none / 0)

I also have this disagreement with others I know.

The sanctions did not kill children, saddam did. He took what money came in, both on the table and under the table, and put it to HIS own use and not to the use of the Iraqi people. It was to his advantage to have "women and children" suffer, this helps get him the sympathy he needed to try and kill the sanctions.

Do you remember all of the "palaces" etc. that were built during the sanctions?

There were NO sanctions on food or medicine.

This was clearly HIS doing and his fault.

Enormous sums of money went into creating man-made lakes and waterfalls, elaborate gardens, marble rooms, and other luxuries. In total, Saddam Hussein's holdings included about a thousand buildings spread out over some 32 square kilometres (12 square miles).

Here's a roundup of news reports where you can learn more about Saddam Hussein's palaces:
http://architecture.about.com/cs/greatbu ildings/a/saddam.htm

Google image search:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&am p;safe=off&resnum=0&q=saddam's%2 0palaces&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N& amp;tab=wi

Yep... it was those damn sanctions that killed those children...  hm.


Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:36:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't bank too much on VPs (none / 0)

Clinton...voted not once but TWICE to go to war with someone who had never, ever threatened the US.

Excuse me, but in 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, an American ally, and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia, another American ally.  And he launched scud missiles against Israel, yet another American ally.

All of this came about eight years after Saddam launched one of the bloodiest wars of the twentieth century, against Iran -- not an American ally, to be sure, but a move that showed he was serious about using force from the get-go.

After the war, he continually fired on U.S. planes patrolling the no-fly zones.  This led Bill Clinton to bomb Iraq for several days in 1998.

What kind of alternate universe are you living in when you say Iraq never threatened the U.S.?

Now, perhaps the threat was ultimately not a serious one, or one that could have been contained by continuing the regime of U.N. weapons inspections or sanctions.  I would say that was the ideal course of action.  

But back in 2003, many of today's anti-war folks were complaining that sanctions were "killing Iraqi children" and looking for ways to loosen them.  In hindsight, they worked quite well.


by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:19:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't bank too much on VPs (none / 0)

In your alternate universe Iraq never launched the war against Iran with the tacit approval of the US.

In your alternate universe, there was never the discussion between Iraq's foreign minister and our ambassador, in which we told the Iraqis that we don't get involved with their border disputes with Kuwait.

Also, I was referring to Kyl-Lieberman, and setting the stage for war with Iran, which has never directly threatened the US, and in fact is dealing with what amounts to a blockade.

Clinton has far too much eagerness, it seems, to prove her chops on security by adopting an aggressive stance.


by camaxtli on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:17:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Face it the only one that's going to cause ANY real excitement is Clinton. All the rest that are left are a 1.0 on the Richter scale. Clinton's a 7.0.


by ottovbvs on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:03:45 AM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I will say that I've been watching CNN a lot less since the Dem race has ended.  :)

McCain's machine is a joke, yet he is shockingly close to Obama in the numbers.

Obama + Clinton would be a PR and money machine.  They might not draw huge a huge amount of new Repubicans and Indepedents, but they would turn out Democrats like never before.


by mjc888 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:07:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Shockingly close. And am I alone in thinking the whole thing has lost a load of fizz since she withdrew.


by ottovbvs on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:11:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I don't think the polls -- looked at as a whole -- are shockingly close, considering how competitive and closely fought the nomination contest was. And Obama is doing very well with hispanics, working class and women voters already.  


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:13:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Well you wouldn't since you long ago sacrificed any objectivity where Obama was concerned. Considering the parlous state of the Republicans, McCain's obvious weakness as a candidate, leads of around 6% don't strike me as earth shattering. It's early days but he should have got a bigger bounce than this coming out of her withdrawal. I can tell all is not well in the state of Denmark because of the amount of special pleading by Rich in today's NYT.  


by ottovbvs on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:41:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

There's no need to get personal.

And I really don't understand why you consider Rich to be doing any "special pleading."  

Could you explain?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:01:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

You're not alone.  I think the race has been downright boring.  For me, at least, she was the one who seemed to keep the energy alive in the campaign, and I didn't realize how much until the race ended.  Now it is just down to two men, the same as always, and people will start realigning who they actually will vote for in the privacy of the booth now that the excitement in the primary is over.

I actually want Obama to win, believe it or not, but I am a little concerned, yes concerned, that he seems tired or out of sorts, or something, since Clinton left.  Maybe he needs Clinton and the challenge of keeping up to her energy to keep his energy going strong.  McCain is a little boring to run against.  It used to be that the candidates would rest up following the primaries until after the conventions are over.  Guess there is no chance for rest nowadays.


by Scotch on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:38:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I'm a Clinton supporter but I've had no anguish about the idea of voting for Obama although it's clear a lot have. Rather more than I thought to be honest. Obama's a fine candidate and a great guy but anyone who thinks there wasn't an element of risk in nominating him out to lunch. And there's no doubt the campaign has lost it's sparkle. When I saw the list of names being floated for vp all of them worthy no doubt but none are going to create real excitement. And it's hard to deny the whole campaign has lost its sparkle since she departed. It stands out a mile.  


by ottovbvs on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:48:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I don't know about "losing it's sparkle," but I do agree that nominating Obama was a bit of a risk.  However, I'm willing to take that risk if it means we have a (good) chance to pull the whole country to a more liberal position, rather than moving to the center again.


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:56:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

He hasn't really been campaigning. He's been making a few speeches since the one in Minnesota and he's been firing off retorts to McCain, but the first serious moves he has made were moving the DNC to Chicago and dispatching a huge number of volunteers around the country. If that doesn't symbolize "I'm about to kick the door down", I don't know what does.

It's funny, because McCain HAS been campaigning. Obama has been just batting him aside.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:22:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

He HAS been resting, though. McCain had weeks and weeks of twiddling his thumbs and taking his time. Storm clouds were forming on Friday. When Obama decides to push into the next phase, we will know.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:25:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Connect the dots! (none / 0)

...have jumped the gun on Lieberman, as far as his relationship with the far right's concerned.

A lot's happened with regard to this story while you were out of the country in the past week, give or take.

I think the only real negative for Lieberman, as far as being on the GOP ticket's concerned, is his age. And, the age thing might still not be enough of a reason to keep him off the ticket, IMHO.

That being said, if youth is going to win the day on the GOP side, as far as a veep choice is concerned, Crist and/or Jindal make a lot of sense. Huckabee is certainly still on the short list, IMHO, too.

Here's some solid reasons why I think (and many others do, too) Lieberman's still perceived by McCain as a top pick to appease the evangelicals, etc. Note, I'm listing them in chronological order, oldest story first. And, when you remember there's some really serious and intensive press/communications coordination and triangulation occurring between the evangelical community and the Lieberman and McCain camps right now, a scary and clear picture is beginning to emerge:

--Glenn Greenwald's piece from Salon.com, about 10-1/2 months ago: "The mainstream, sane, serious Joe Lieberman."

--At the very end of 2007, James Kirchick, the Assistant Editor at the New Republic published the following in the NY Daily News:
Yes, Lieberman helps McCain - but not how you think.

Cut to the past 7-10 days, again in chronological order:

--Lieberman's on the agenda now for the GOP Convention in St. Paul, pretty much confirming this story, which ran earlier in the Spring: Lieberman may speak during GOP Convention. This is going to be a lot more than just "pulling a Zell Miller," IMHO.

--After the highly-publicized showdown between Lieberman and Obama last week, on the floor of the Senate, which occurred less than a couple of hours after Lieberman totally slammed Obama at the AIPAC meeting, this appeared the next day: Wherein Lieberman essentially gives his middle finger to everyone involved, in response to Obama reading him the riot act the day before.

--Then this from the Conservative Jewish rag, the Daily Observer just last week, the day after Lieberman's letter goes out: "Conservative Jewish Paper Pans Obama for Not Being Like Hagee."

--And, now there's this in today's news: " U.S. pastor apologizes to Jews for 'God sent Hitler' comments."

IMHO, there's a concerted effort underway here, with Lieberman's communications director leading the charge.

I believe there's a strong chance the GOP will hold their noses and allow McCain to run with Lieberman, age issues notwithstanding. And, in fact, the writing's been on the wall--and continues to accrue as recently as today--as far as this is concerned for quite awhile.


by bobswern on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:10:31 AM EST

Re: Connect the dots! (none / 0)

The chances of the GOP having a pro-choice candidate are NIL.  


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:14:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Connect the dots! (none / 0)

"The chances of the GOP having a pro-choice candidate are NIL."

Curious since McPander himself was "pro-choice" in 2000.

January 26, 2000

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) -- Republican presidential candidate John McCain, when asked Wednesday what he would do if his 15-year-old daughter Meghan became pregnant and wanted an abortion, said it would be a "family decision."

"The final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel," McCain said, speaking of himself and his wife Cindy.

"I would discuss this issue with Cindy and Meghan, and this would be a private decision that we would share within our family and not with anyone else," McCain told reporters in New Hampshire on board his campaign bus nicknamed "The Straight Talk Express. "Obviously I would encourage her to bring, to know that baby would be brought up in a warm and loving family, but the final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel."

McCain grew irritated as reporters pressed him on the subject. Asked if that was the same answer an abortion-rights advocate would give, McCain said, "I don't think it is the pro-choice position to say that my daughter and my wife and I will discuss something that is a family matter that we have to decide."

Even back then he didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:58:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Connect the dots! (none / 0)

He's never bee pro-choice when it comes to the policies others would have to live under.  His lifetime NARAL rating is a zero.

And the Republican base won't accept a pro-choice candidate, especially from a presidential nominee they don't like that much anyway.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:02:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He's never bee pro-choice when it comes to (none / 0)

That's the point. As with all Republicans, "virtue" is for the other guy to live by.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:13:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Connect the dots! (2.00 / 1)

Can you imagine the look of McCain-Lieberman vs. an Obama-Clinton?

McCain-Lieberman = old codgers-ville.


by mjc888 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:17:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Clinton you say? Nah, not gonna happen.
I do hope youre right on Johnny going further right. We Dems need all the help we can get.
Just because the Quarterback throws an interception, you dont stop blocking for him.
by tellinya on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:19:41 AM EST

Undecideds break anti Obama . . . (1.00 / 0)

that's a big lesson of the primaries.
Let's relax and get cocky when Obama is 50% + 1 in the polls.
I'm still a sceptic!
by kosnomore on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:28:15 AM EST

Re: Undecideds break anti Obama . . . (none / 0)

. . . in the primary against Clinton.  And not in all contests.  BTW, how did undecideds do in the GOP primaries?  


by PabloZed on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:38:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm just stating my opinion - - (1.00 / 0)

when he's above 50%, let's party.  Not 'til.
With a crappy war, a crappy economy and high gas prices, he's at 47%?  Not too comforting.
I see a lil' too much premature celebration, that's all, IMHO.
I'm still a sceptic!
by kosnomore on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:07:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

BARR LIEBERMAN 08 (none / 0)

Rah rah


by NY Writer on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:45:14 AM EST

CNN Poll (none / 0)

I happen to see a segment yesterday about the CNN poll and the most astonishing number was that by 21% voters favored Obama over McCain on the issues (I believe it was 58-37%).  That sets up nicely for Obama's current economic tour.  Also, today on Face the Nation Jim Vandehei said Obama was showing a real understanding of the economic issues and was able to intellectually explain the philosophy behind his policies in a way that McCain has not been able to.  He also said you would think it was Obama who had the three month head start.


by PabloZed on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:50:07 AM EST

Re: CNN Poll (none / 0)

Jim Vandehei

- Who the hell is that ?


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 Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:03:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CNN Poll (none / 0)

He runs Politico.


by sweet potato pie on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:09:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Rasmussen tracking for Sunday is out, it shows...drum roll please...a 7-point lead. Obama holding steady.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/daily_presidential_trackin g_poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows Barack Obama attracting 46% of the vote while John McCain earns 39%. When "leaners" are included, Obama holds a six-point advantage, 49% to 43%. This is the eighth straight day that Obama has enjoyed a lead of five-to-seven points...


by animated on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:05:52 PM EST

Palin and the undecideds (none / 0)

McCain is staying close due to a lot of doubts
about Obama

Sarah Palin will be discussed in a future diary
on vice-presisdential choices.

She would have appeal to working moms who supported Clinton, but she's very unknown.
I really think McCain's choice will be Romney or a woman.


by esconded on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:13:22 PM EST

A VP should "do no harm" (none / 0)

and Clinton as VP would turn away many independents.
Her negatives are way too high amoung the midwest, undecided,
lesser-informed voters.
by coprog on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:23:08 PM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I'm a lot clearer about the ones I DON'T want:
Richardson: Just yuck! Terrible campaigner, annoying personality.
Biden: Suffers from loggorhea. He can sometimes control it, but not enough.
Sebelius: Great governor of Kansas, but absolutely no charisma. SOTU response showed it.
Hagel, Bloomberg, or any other Republican: No, no, no!!! The only thing I can think of that would make me seriously consider not voting for Obama would be his choosing a Republican for VP.
Clark: Nice guy and smart too, but a terrible campaigner.

My short list would probably be:
Clinton
Schweitzer (although he's a Neanderthal on guns)
Janet Napolitano
Ed Rendell


Rules for Life: Do not annoy others; Do not be too easily annoyed.
by Not the only Dem in KS on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:25:07 PM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Ugh, as a resident of PA, I'm going to be absolutely PISSED if Obama picks Rendell.  I like Clark a lot, and I could be easily persuaded about Hillary, but Rendell would piss me off (not enough to not vote for Obama, mind you).


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:59:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I'm curious - what is it you don't like about Gov Rendell?


Rules for Life: Do not annoy others; Do not be too easily annoyed.
by Not the only Dem in KS on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:01:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Looking at it from a what would be good for Hillary standpoint, I say she shouldn't be VP.  But from the perspective of what will energize the base and help us win, I say she is the obvious choice.  I think if she does end up being the pick it will be a pretty big sacrifice for her to accept that role.


by JustJennifer on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:28:26 PM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Here is how I see the VP playing field working.

OBAMA:

I think he needs to balance out the ticket.    He needs to pick someone that can help him in the swing states.   Notice that I emphasized the plural from of STATES.   Simply picking a politician from one particular state will not be sufficient.   Just look at what a mistake Edwards was for Kerry.   He also needs to mend the wounds suffered with the whole race and gender divide.  I think that eliminates all of the female choices for Obama with the exception of Hillary Clinton.   Picking a unknown female other than Hillary may add salt to the wound to certain feminists.

Remember the VP is gonna be in the spotlight until Election day.   The VP is gonna be expected to be media savy and have good communication skills during the few VP debates with the opposition.   If anyone saw the Democratic Response to the SOTU earlier this year.....that was a perfect example of POOR communication skills displayed by Kathleen Sebelius.

MCCAIN:

If I were him I would wait until Obama makes his selection.    Then McCain has two choices:

1)He can balance his ticket out by rally the conservative base and GOTV efforts by picking a reliable right-winger such as Romney.  Romney's expetise on the economy may help Mccain who is more of a hawk that a CEO.

2)He can take advantage of scorn Hillary supporters and reluctant Democrats by going moderate and picking someone like a JOE LIEBERMAN or heaven forbid a female politician like Sarah Palin, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Cindy Fiorna, etc...


by newmexicodem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:35:55 PM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I think McCain will wait til Obama picks.  Their convention is after ours.  Smart move for them.


by JustJennifer on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:49:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

He's not going to pick Lieberman for godsake. The Republican party would go nuts. Apart from Iraq Holy Joe is actually very very liberal. I'd say it will be someone like Romney or some governor we've heard of but most electors haven't.
As for Obama if he picks a woman other than Clinton for no other reason than to add gender balance the Clinton women are going to go apeshit. I've always thought the ineluctable logic pointed to Clinton and the events of the past couple of weeks(relatively weak bounce, Johnson fiasco, faltering energy, strong residual Clinton sentiment) are making me more convinced this is the likely outcome.  
by ottovbvs on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:56:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

The "Clinton women"?  I know lots of women who supported Clinton and not one is voting for McCain. One says she's not sure she could vote for Obama, but the last time we talked, she said "I may get there. It's five months from now."  What happens with the vp won't affect their decisions.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:04:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (2.00 / 1)

They don't have to vote for McCain they just don't have to vote. You have no objectivity where Obama is concerned. It's pretty well summed up by the fact you think his poll numbers v McCain are just great and  the hubris of this statement:

"What happens with the vp won't affect their decisions."

It's actually very apparent that if he puts a woman other than Clinton on the ticket it is going to cause a lot of resentment amongst the most dedicated Clinton women supporters.


by ottovbvs on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:15:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I am inclined to agree.  It would look like a slap in the face to Hillary.  Besides, none of other female candidates are as good as Hillary, so he would essentially be picking a different woman just to avoid her.  That would look really terrible.  


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:00:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

INHO, the proper way to approach this is not by having a set of male candidates and a set of female candidates and then ranking those separately.  Furthermore, picking a Governor who happens to be a woman would bring a skill set that non-Governors do not have.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:30:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

That's all well and good, but perception is reality. And if a woman not named Hillary is picked, many Hillary supporters will be outraged, fairly or not.


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:29:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

"You have no objectivity where Obama is concerned."

Again, let me ask you to can the personal statements.

I base my view on how women who supported Clinton react from, gasp, women who supported Clinton. I know a lot of them, virtually all of them over 50. And there's months to go. Right now is not a time to be pessimistic; it's a time to fight and to reach out.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:19:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Republican party would go nuts (none / 0)

They've been nuts for decades. But right now they're shell shocked and would accept anyone they imagine would attract enough votes for them to win.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:21:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

If he doesn't pick Hillary, many of her supporters will be upset. Not because they are women. As we all know, many HRC supporters were not women.

Take gender out of the equation. Take Obama and Clinton themselves out of the equation. If it were two white male candidates and each of them had very committed supporters. The second place candidate in a very close primary that goes down to the wire is not offered the VP. Woudln't it make sense that the second candidates supporters would be upset?

It's too easy to dismiss "Clinton Women." I'm responding generally to some of the commenters on this threat. Not specifically to your comment, newmexicodem.

Still it's amazing to me that people aren't able to look at all this objectively. That people can't see that a 2nd place finisher in a very close race has done more than prove herself.

If it was Senator Apple and Senator Orange. And Sen Apple won. Would Sen Orange get any respect?


by carrieboberry on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:39:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I suspect (none / 0)

Warner is dropping out of the VP process for the same reason he dropped out of the prez process, and it may be that he doesn't want the scutiny.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:52:15 PM EST

Darn (none / 0)

I was willing to risk the Senate seat for Warner. Oh well.

Jerome. Since your on the ground in Virgina, why don't you think Tim Kaine would be a good pick? Beacuse he would hand the state over to a Republican or beacuse he's done stupid policy stuff?

Sebelius seems like the best choice to me at this point. She has a strong record. She reinforces all of Obama's strengths and doesn't undercut his central arguments (both where anti-war, didn't take lobbyist money, ran as progressives but successfully reached out to Republicans).

She isn't the best speaker but she is not as bad as the SOTU response.

My ideal tickets where Obam/Gore, Obama/Edwards and Obama/Warner. Obama/Schweitzer would have been amazing but he is running for re-election and I think if asked would do the same thing Warner and Strickland did.  

Obama/Sebelius 08


"Live your beliefs and you can turn the world around." --Thoreau
by Populista on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:04:05 PM EST

Re: Darn (none / 0)

I think as far as 'chemistry' goes, Kaine and Obama match up well, but Kaine is underwhelming as a speaker, and he's had a falling out here among progressives from not delivering much at all, see the VA blogs lately, including RaisingKaine, which now just call itself RK, and as far as I think, Webb is also a poor campaigner, and makes the issue all about a war when the economy is what matters the most now.

Sebelius, I used to think that Warner would pick her. It's not the SOTU speech, but the camapigner, that is lacking, I watched her on CSPAN one day in PA, it was shockingly low in both energy and ability.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:51:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah (none / 0)

Kaine seriously pissed most progressives off. I think Webb would as well. Warner would have been the best pick.

Sebelius is not a amazing campaigner but I don't think her campaigning would HURT Obama and what she's done in Kansas would be a asset for sure once we get to the governing part which is what should matter.  

Good to hear your thoughts.


"Live your beliefs and you can turn the world around." --Thoreau
by Populista on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:53:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Clinton or Loose. Plain and simple.  His only saving grace is 6 dollar gas by November.


by nzubechukwu on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:11:26 PM EST

Clinton or Lose. (none / 0)

Bassed on past predictions by Clinton advocates, Obama should already be down to McCreep by 100% right now.

Their guesses haven't been very accurate, to say the least.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:18:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton or Lose. (none / 0)

Yep he beat her by a landslide.


by ottovbvs on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:20:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yep he beat her by a landslide. (none / 0)

Beating theCclintons at all was quite an accomplishment, and indeed the biggest upset in history, since it was SHE who was supposed to win in a landslide -- even her own campaign had no plan for after Super Tuesday when she was supposed to wrap it up then.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:31:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep he beat her by a landslide. (none / 0)

Yep he beat her by a landslide. The insecurity of you folks is rather funny.


by ottovbvs on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:34:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yep he beat her by a landslide. (none / 0)

You repeat yourself.

And it's not insecurity. If there's one thing every Democrat should know, it's that swiftboating must be countered with truth.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:37:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep he beat her by a landslide. (none / 0)

Please don't start insulting. It's been a nice day so far, and we're actually having a discussion, which becomes impossible when the trolls get baited.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:33:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep he beat her by a landslide. (none / 0)

Actually, I think the other commenters are being perfectly polite and reasonable. Your introduction of insults, however, suggests insecurity on your part.


by Stroszek on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:57:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

It'll be $5 but the comment about Clinton is likely valid. What's most astonishing about all this is that his partisans are dancing in the streets because he 6-7 point lead. It's early days, this could and should get better but to pretend these are great numbers after the bounce from her departure is an eyeroller.    


by ottovbvs on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:19:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

They're not great numbers, but considering how hard fought and competitive the primaries were, they're just fine.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:20:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

And given all the claims about groups Obama couldn't get -- based on how he did versus Clinton -- it turns out that those patterns didn't hold against McCain:

* Obama's Bump: Days after becoming his party's presumptive nominee and receiving Clinton's endorsement, Obama has opened up a six-point advantage over McCain (47%-41%) in the latest NBC/WSJ poll, which is up three points from Obama's lead in April. Perhaps the most fascinating numbers are in the crosstabs, and some of the numbers will surprise folks who memorized every exit poll from the Democratic primaries. Obama leads McCain among African Americans (83-7), Hispanics (62-28), women (52-33), Catholics (47-40), independents (41-36) and even blue-collar workers (47-42). Obama is also ahead among those who said they voted for Clinton in the Democratic primaries (61-19).

(From First Read)


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:27:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I seriously don't get this (none / 0)

All we've been whining about for months is the "divided" Democratic Party and how that division would cost us the election.

Maybe she wouldn't accept it, but it doesn't make a tinker's damn bit of sense to me that Obama's first choice wouldn't be Hillary Clinton.  She brings energy, skill, machine, star-power and name recognition.

Most importantly she would deliver hundreds of thousands of pumped, primed and ready volunteers.  Tossing Clinton would be akin to sying "thanks but no thanks" to Move-on, SEIU and the AFL-CIO.  WTF sense would that make?

Sure, it's not Obama's ground game, but she does have her own ground and fund raising organization in place around the country. She would splatter whatever VP the GOP ran in debates.  She's tireless, fearless and hungry, plus she draws and electrifies her own crowds.  I'm having a tough time imagining Biden doing that, or any of the other remaining names.

Seriously, all these "negatives" strike me as nothing more than left over Hillary hate. I thought the most important thing was to unify the party.  Putting Clinton on the ticket would do just that.  


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:27:13 PM EST

Putting Clinton on the ticket would do just that. (none / 0)

The party is unifying just fine. Obama will choose the VP he and his team decide is best and all the talk and petitions that amount to forcing Hillary onto his ticket hurts her chances.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:34:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Putting Clinton on the ticket (none / 0)

Yep sure sounds like it.


by ottovbvs on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:40:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yep. (none / 0)

Check out the demographics from Clinton's 1996 win and you'll find that the panic attacks (or concern trolling) about Obama are unjustified.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:22:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep. (none / 0)

Thanks, freespeechzone. Having comparative data is great for putting any set of numbers into the proper context.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:28:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's only been one week (none / 0)

The party has not unified yet, and there are still myriad things that can go wrong. It's entirely possible he may decide on Hillary anyway, he just didn't want to, as you say, get forced into it.

Never say never, because that's how you get screwed.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:36:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The party has not unified (none / 0)

100% unity is a mythical number. Obama's Democratic Party is as unified as Bill Clinton's was. And maybe even more considering the wreck Bush/McSame have made of things and the unmitigated disaster a third term would be.

Don't let a handful of bitter bloggers lead to a false impression of disunity.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:41:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The party has not unified (none / 0)

I have a nominee for nutsiest blog post of the day:

Do you suppose many women oppose the election of BHO simply because they don't want to be forced to wear a khimar when he institutes sharia law? However, as everyone here knows, his half-brother says he is a Muslim. We don't know what he will do in office because we've never had a Muslim for President before. We've never even had an Arab-American for President before. It has been said he is far more Arab than black.
http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=656#commen t-176960


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:55:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The party has not unified (none / 0)

Looks like McTrolls have taken over that place. Or has it been a "front" site all along?


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:29:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I seriously don't get this (none / 0)

It is a complete no brainer. As you say no one else you can name would bring a fraction of the energy, excitement, savvy and know how to the ticket that she would. And yet the most extreme Obama partisans are opposed to it although it would be a massive addition of strength. I can't decide whether it's residual Clinton hating or concern that she might overshadow him. Either way it's irrational. He's going to be at the head of the ticket although he's not going to be able to relegate her to funeral attending so he gains by it. There's certainly an Obama faction that appears to prefer the risk of losing without her to the almost certainty of winning with her. It's a form of nihilism.


by ottovbvs on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:39:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I seriously don't get this (none / 0)

Those pushing Hillary for VP need to provide evidence that she would help Obama rather than stating it as baseless fact.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:24:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I seriously don't get this (none / 0)

18 million votes are all the facts anyone should need.  

Not in her "delivering" those votes in November, but in her ability to garner them in the first place.  Those 18 million votes speak factually to her talents and appeal as a campaigner.  


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:23:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

18 million votes are all the facts anyone should n (none / 0)

You need to cite evidence that Obama won't get those votes without Hillary on his ticket. What we're seeing in polls is that he is.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:26:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I seriously don't get this (none / 0)

Or rather, some people just don't think she brings all that much to the ticket and/or she and Obama would not work well together either on the trail or in the office.

Clinton did not do substantially better in the one poll where she was compared alongside other candidates. She was also outperformed by Edwards.

Also, "nihilism" doesn't mean what you think it means. Preferring other VP candidates to Clinton does not imply any sort of ontological or epistemological position. I'm a Kantian idealist and I think Obama would be better served by a moderate governor. Just my opinion.


by Stroszek on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:54:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I seriously don't get this (none / 0)

1. Edwards doesn't want it

2. polls taken today do not take into account the effects in November of her existing supporters on the ground working for the ticket

3. Polls taken today do not register the strength of a truly unified ticket and Party.


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:21:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I seriously don't get this (none / 0)

1) This morning, Edwards said he would accept the position on Steph. He's playing coy like every other candidate.

2) Possibly.

3) Huh? Yes, they do. If Obama/Clinton can't do better than Obama/Edwards or even that much better than Obama/????, it really shoots a hole in your effort.


by Stroszek on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:37:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I seriously don't get this (none / 0)

I should say, of course, that I don't mean to dismiss your theory outright, it's just that there is evidence indicating the contrary, and there is no 100% degree of certainty as to who would help out most.

The strong opposition among independents to an Obama/Clinton certainly is a worry, and that's really what the debate comes down to: what's more important, not alienating independents or rapidly uniting the party?

Recent polls indicate that the party is uniting by itself, and in all likelihood, it will continue to do so as Democrats become aware of McCain's fairly orthodox conservatism. Certainly, the intense feelings shared by the fringe conspiracy theorists at places like Hillaryis44 and TalkLeft are an aberration. That's a few hundred votes we can certainly do without, and their extreme sentiments don't represent the vast majority of former Clinton supporters, most of whom are loyal Democrats who value policy over personality.


by Stroszek on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:53:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I seriously don't get this (none / 0)

You may be a Kantian idealist. I'm a pragmatist. As I've long thought, he's going to need her more than she needs him. She's unquestionably the second person in the democratic party with a devoted army of followers. She's safely ensconsed in a completely safe senate seat and she'll be around for 20 years. He's narrowly won the nomination, there's clearly an immense amount of unhappiness/uneasiness around in the democratic party (just read some of the stuff here), and despite an appallingly weak opponent and an opposing party that's in the tank he's only ahead in national polls by 3-7% which doesn't strike me as particularly good. We'll see but with every day that goes by I see the odds increasing that he'll have to offer it to her. Now since this is going to be an incredibly good thing for democrats that strikes me as a good idea. Far too much of the "against" argument here is motivated by irrational prejudice or maybe a fear she might overshadow him.        


by ottovbvs on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:00:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I seriously don't get this (none / 0)

"Idealism" in the sense I referred to evidently doesn't mean what you think it means either. Kantian idealism and pragmatism are closely intertwined, the latter deriving many key concepts from good ole' Immanuel. But I'll spare you the history of philosophy (hint: don't use words you don't really know)...

I don't think there's an immense amount of unhappiness/uneasiness at all, certainly no more than what we saw in other competitive years, notably 1992 when Clinton faced a tremendous amount of post-primary hostility. In fact, a recent National Journal poll showed that Democrats are vastly more satisfied with Obama than Republicans are with McCain.

Of course, on sites like this you will find unhappiness because you're being exposed to the candidate's 100-200 most intense supporters. This should not be taken as representative of normal people. The vast majority of Clinton supporters are loyal Democrats who value policy over personality. If any of them are still taking a second look at Obama/McCain, I'm confident a good debate on the issues will bring them home (and most of them are already home).

Right now, Obama has a wider lead against "this appalling weak opponent" than Clinton ever had. If you want to worry about 7% margin of victory, then Clinton's failure to ever hit that number herself (or ever really do significantly better than Obama in tracking polls) hardly supports your argument.

I don't see her odds growing better with each day at all. I see Obama's numbers consistently increasing among Democrats, which suggests that he'll probably be inclined to go with someone who solidifies a big majority among independents.

As whether arguments are motivated by "irrational prejudice," that may be the case for some, but that doesn't mean there's a valid argument for another candidate being a superior pick. If you want to play this game, I could say you "irrationally hate" Clark, Schweitzer, or Edwards, but that's just a silly, pointless road to go down.


by Stroszek on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:16:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I seriously don't get this (none / 0)

I'm waiting for the evidence that any other candidate out there would bring as much to the ticket, beyond smug satisfaction for those that just can't stand her.  

I heard a talking head make the strongest theory out there right after she suspended her campaign -- Obama will assemble of short list of folks he's more comfortable working with and if he's up by five points or more and has a comfortable electoral spread by the convention, he'll go with someone from his short list.

If McCain is within five or the electoral spread looks iffy, he's going to go with Clinton, if she'll take it.


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:28:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I seriously don't get this (none / 0)

SUSA indicates that Edwards brings a lot to the ticket, and contrary to what people have been saying, he was on Steph this morning saying he would accept VP if offered.

Beyond that, there's no 100% way to gauge how much ANYONE would bring to the ticket, but again, Clinton's hardcore supporters need to realize that people can have stronger positive feelings about another candidate without "hating" Hillary Clinton.


by Stroszek on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:48:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I seriously don't get this (none / 0)

If Edwards is in it, he needs to get that spot, or at least be on the super shortlist.

The problem is with Edwards, he would be easy to counterprogram against, so to speak. Getting the VP on the table gives McCain an easy opening. I say wait it out. If we make enough noise, McCain will be forced to throw Veep out there just to get press.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:55:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I seriously don't get this (none / 0)

Oh, absolutely. We're playing a game of VP chicken, because whoever goes first knows that the other's VP will be chosen specifically to highlight key contrasts... and that'll be the narrative of late July.


by Stroszek on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:57:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Today's Gallup poll is 44/42 Obama.

How hilarious is it that other/neither is at 14%. LOL

I think it's about time that Gallup modifies their sample, because ever since they had that brief outing due to the severe weather, there numbers have been strange, to say the least.

Today's Rasmussen numbers are unchanged: 46/39 for Obama.  49/43 when leaners are included.


by RussTC3 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:06:01 PM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

My bad, Neither/No Opinion is 14%.  Other is 1%.


by RussTC3 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:07:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

As a former Clinton supporter I don't want Clinton has VP, but if that is Obama's choice and if Clinton accepts, I will support it.

I just find it odd that three top notch VP choices, Edwards, Strickland and Warner have removed themselves from contention. There are still many names left. I just don't think Obama will choose Richardson or Daschle. If he chooses a woman other than Clinton it will not go across very well with many female Clinton supporters. If I had to bet, I would put my money on a general.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:36:26 PM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Clark or Kaine would be my bet. I like them both but Kaine would make VA a lock, especially with Warner running for Senate.
by parahammer on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:40:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

On This Week, Edwards said he would accept the position but he's not seeking it. He's either having second thoughts or realized he was TOO coy the other day. Either way, his hat is back in the ring.


by Stroszek on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:59:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Strickland and warner removed their names for different reasons than Edwards ... besides .. what would you expect them to say? ... it's unseemly to openly politic for the job .. who else besides Hillary's campaign(and her supporters) have openly begged for the VP slot?  No one ... they all say they aren't interested .. unless the actual call comes


John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:15:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's 5 months before the election (none / 0)

5 months ago Obama was behind by around 10 points nationally in the primary. I say give the man some time and he will be OK.
by parahammer on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:39:21 PM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

The only reason I'd like to see a Obama/Clinton ticket, is to hear all the Obama faithful' heads explode. It'd be the height of irony, if all the Hillary Haters, now would have to start telling us how great she is, and why she should be the VP.


by muggle on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:13:44 PM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I'm an Obama supporter and I used to support Clinton.  I switched in January.  And I would hope you could avoid this sort of divisive commentary. It's not accurate, it's not civil, and it's not politically productive.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:19:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (1.00 / 6)

But you've gotta see the irony of all the haters, now having to praise Hillary, don't you? Just the sound of heads poping on DailyObama alone, would sound like downtown Baghdad!  


by muggle on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:26:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (1.00 / 1)

"would sound like downtown Baghdad!"

I think my friends who are getting shot at in Baghdad would beg to differ. Please don't play politics with people dieing.


by SocialDem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:48:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards has not ruled out... (none / 0)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2008/06/edwards-has-not.html

"ABC News' Mary Bruce reports: 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards this morning left open the possibility of a second run for the position. "I'd take anything he [Obama] asked me to think about seriously," Edwards explained in a "This Week" interview with George Stephanopoulos."


by mady on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:27:18 PM EST

Re: Edwards has not ruled out... (none / 0)

Interesting.... that is a pullback from previous statements.  Hmm... I could totally be down with an Edwards ticket.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:47:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

This is OK because we need him to pick up that senate seat more than we need him as VP.  There's plenty of other good options out there that wouldn't require us giving up a senate seat (this goes for Sen. Webb too)


by Democrat in Chicago on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:29:55 PM EST

Jesus. Obama/Clinton? (none / 0)

Give it a rest.

ABC


Howard Dean is my go-to guy
by lojasmo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:50:38 PM EST

With Caroline Kennedy leading the (none / 0)

VP search team now that Johnson is out, what are the chances that we'll see HRC on the ticket with Sen Obama? I'm not as confident as Jerome is. What I'm more afraid is that a quick VP nominee selection other than HRC would reopen the raw wounds of the primary, further alineating some of HRC's diehard supporters. I'm hoping Senator Obama's team would take some time to announce the VP name (if it is not  HRC) and  meanwhile would take some positive steps to be inclusive of the HRC supporters.


by louisprandtl on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:54:11 PM EST

Re: With Caroline Kennedy leading the (none / 0)

Obama knows how to maximize press.  You won't see the VP pick until either its needed to combat a big McCain Momentum boost OR very close to the convention.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:46:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sherrod Brown... (none / 0)

Liberal.  Effective while in House.  Ohio.  Appeals well to Appalachia.  Relatively youthful, like Obama.  Midwest/Big Ten Country appeal.

Read this and think about it....

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=6342


by palamedes on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:57:02 PM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/daily_presidential_tra cking_poll

Just Curious Jerome why you mentioned gallup which hasn't been updated for a few days, but ignored Rasmussen.  


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:41:43 PM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

If I had to bet, I think it'll come back to an Obama-Clinton ticket.

Something along the lines of "I'll eat my shoe"?
McCain = Iraq. John McCain = overturn Roe.
by PantsB on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:30:05 PM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

If Obama does not want to choose Hillary, I think he should announce this sooner rather than later. This would undoubtedly drum up a wild spell of press and would upset HRC fans.  They would need time to get over it before the election.

If he does side with Hillary, I would wait until a later date.

Keep in mind that the "unkown" VP slot probably helps his polling numbers a bit.  We really haven't seen the possible (negative) impact of HRC voters if he passes her up.  I wouldn't be surprised if he dropped a point or two in the polls.


by mjc888 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:42:24 PM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Today on Face the Nation Jim Vandehei said Obama was showing a real understanding of the economic issues, and was able to intellectually explain the philosophy behind his policies in a way that McCain has not been able to.  He also said you would think it was Obama who had the three month head start.


Flashlights rc heli videogame
by blueskyadf on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:31:42 AM 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
Username:

Password: