MyDD :: McCain:Aug 29th for his VP; Obama within 96 hours

by tomanderson13 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:27:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks

i'm also hoping obama selects clark. although i would like biden also. but like i said, VP really doesn't matter much. it's really going to come down to whether or not people can pull the lever for obama.

Re: are you joking? (1.00 / 1)

"It looks like a relative lightweight beat her to the punch."

Yea, pretty much.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:45:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by sweet potato pie on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:15:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Anyway to talk bad about the first black nominee Jerome.

Stay classy.

United we stand, divided we fall.

I see I didn't miss much in the 6 weeks I got married/honeymooned and moved to Virginia from NY.

The good news is I already became a resident and registered to vote here.

by mefeck on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:45:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The huge mistake (2.00 / 1)

is to confuse the dynamics of the primary with those of the general election. Ask Mike Dukakis, or John Kerry.

Obama did beat Clinton to the punch, and good for him. But if you missed the way Clinton closed the primary season, and the way she fights tough against Repubs, there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.

No, the Obama fans THINK the primary was a rough fight. That's what concerns me. There will be no comparison between that dance and the war that's coming.

If he chooses Joe Biden to get some gravitas, God help us. Imagine the number of dumbass things Biden has said over the years. It's staggering.
And if you want to know Biden's status among his peers, check out the extent of support he received in terms of endorsements for his 2008 presidential run. Very instructive.

by Thaddeus on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:19:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sounds like Alegre (none / 0)

~80 days remain.

I'm still waiting for the war to come and the dip in the polls.

Or then again, maybe (just maybe) Obama is better at this than the Clintons.

by iohs2008 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:53:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

better than the Clintons? (none / 0)

Well, Clinton went 2 for 2, so it would be rather difficult to do better than that.

by Thaddeus on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:52:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Correction: 2 for 3 :) (none / 0)

And who are we voting for anyways, Hillary or Billary this time around?

PUMA Logic: Just because Bill Clitnon is the only democratic candidate to win the Presidency in 28 years means that only Bill Clinton can win the Presidency.

by iohs2008 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:24:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Unable to follow your own argument? (none / 0)

1. Ah, you were the one who said maybe Obama was better than the ClintonS, so the Hillary or Billary distinction issue at this point makes no sense.

2. we are talking about general elections: the Clintons are 2 for 2.

3. Twisted logic: only Bill Clinton can win. No, but try this slowly: The Clinton team has shown it knows how to compete successfully in a general election; we are now in a general election;; it would be of value to have their input at this point.

OK?

by Thaddeus on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:17:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Electing the loser (none / 0)

Sorry Alegre, but I can't see how we should we should elect someone for the general who can't get themselves out of the primary.

And you're not thinking fourth dimensionally. Sure, ONE clinton won in 1992. But what about the OTHER in 2008? her campaign was a disaster and tone deaf to modern times.

Which is why she lost.

And the minute you start medling the two together, the less people want to vote for them.

by iohs2008 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:30:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So obnoxious AND silly (none / 0)

I'm not Alegre and I've been on this blog for over a year. Your insistence on your erroneous version of reality based on no evidence and the rudeness of calling someone by another name is a disqualifying combination.

As for electing the "loser," please, please familiarize yourself with U.S. history--for starters Kennedy-Johnson and Reagan-Bush.

by Thaddeus on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:35:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The huge mistake (none / 0)

thaddeus,
what about all the dumbass things McCain has said over the years? quit focusing on the negative, and start kicking some ass...

like i said before, VPs don't matter that much when it comes time to place your vote.

by tomanderson13 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:58:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sure it matters! (none / 0)

It's the first presidential decision a candidate makes. In this case Obama could re-galvanize millions of women, or he could choose a candidate that mobilizes Hispanics, or helps carry a critically important state. Biden does none of these.

To go past Hillary to another '08 candidate who got no support from voters is a statement--to me it's about Obama not wanting to be overshadowed by Hillary. That strikes me as weak and egocentric. Maybe that's unfair, and certainly most people won't ultimately be influenced by the Veep choice, but to say they don't matter that much is to miss completely the reason so much careful attention is put on the process.

by Thaddeus on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:56:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sure it matters! (none / 0)

my god thaddeus, you make it sound like the Clintons don't have any baggage. they do, lots of it. if so many people decide who they will vote for based on the VP (and that is what you are implying), then there's a strong possibility that Clinton as VP would galvanize many republicans and independents against obama's ticket.

i don't think that is true. the people who are voting against obama have already made their decision no matter who the VP is. and i seriously doubt many at all will decide to vote for obama based on his choice of biden, bayh, clark, richardson, kaine, clinton, etc. as VP.

sure, if obama chooses paris hilton or bozo the clown, he's doomed, but to say that the choice of biden, bayh, clark, richardson, kaine, or clinton is going to make or break obama, is clearly wrong.

i refrained from saying this earlier, but i am now compelled to point out that you seem to be stuck in the past...upset that clinton didn't get the nomination and even more disturbed that obama may not select hillary as VP.

the past is the past. look at the positives. if obama is elected, clinton may very well end up on the supreme court.

by tomanderson13 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:06:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Spare me the psychoanalysis (none / 0)

You were right the first time to avoid it.

I'm not worried about Hillary-she'll be fine. I'm concerned about the future of the country. I want to see a Democratic administration. Biden is an overly cautious and ultimately harmful pick, in my opinion.
To go to any other contender in '08 requires rejecting the greatest vote getter in Dem primary history. One would need a great reason to do that. I haven't heard one and I'm not a middle-aged + woman. I suspect a critical number of women will stay pissed if a retread like Biden is chosen instead of a woman who inspired so many women and really carried their dreams with her.

But more than that, this shapes up as a very close election. Any major decision between now and then will shape the outcome. Only a political naif would think the choice of a running-mate isn't one of those key decisions.

I'd be happy with Clinton, Sebelius, Strickland, Reed, Kerry or Clark; satisfied with Daschle, Warner, Kaine, or Rendell. I'd be sorely disappointed with Bayh, Richardson, Dodd, Biden.

Got it? I'm not obsessed with Hillary.

by Thaddeus on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:13:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spare me the psychoanalysis (none / 0)

thaddeus said, "Any major decision between now and then will shape the outcome."

you are still over-emphasizing the VP decision.

i suspect the presidential debates will have much more of an impact on people's perceptions of the candidates than the veeps they chose. historically speaking, many americans can't even name the VP.

by tomanderson13 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:20:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you saying (2.00 / 1)

Hillary wouldn't be Swiftboated.

During the primaries her numbers went up BECAUSE Republicans stopped attacking her and focused solely on Obama.

Think about it.

overthrow the government~participate

by missliberties on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:20:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you saying (none / 0)

This has been demonstrated pretty clearly in a graph up at 538. While attacks skyrocketed for both Obama and McCain after February, hers never even got off the landing pad.

That said, as the VP, she'd be much harder to attack in that way. Not to mention that they've praised her so often by now.

"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 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:26:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

Hillary has been great. But Bill and her Rothschild friend, among others, have not been.

by politicsmatters on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:53:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taylor Marsh (2.00 / 1)

I don't think Clinton makes much logical sense...

The logical choice is probably Biden. He fills in the supposed Obama deficits....

"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg

by JenKinFLA on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:16:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Biden highlights the deficits (none / 0)

and is also a blowbag, hasn't had a real job since he was 30, and is a blowbag (did I mention that?) Biden and Hillary both ran for president. Hillary got 18,000,000 votes; Biden got approximately 18. And it's going to be Biden?

If so, say hello to President McCain.

by Thaddeus on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:43:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Biden highlights the deficits (none / 0)

So if it's Obama/Biden, McCain wins? Uh, ok. Wanna put some money on that?

I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt

by fogiv on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:25:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Biden highlights the deficits (none / 0)

Well that doesn't make any sense at all....picking the VP is all about the runner-up for the nomination?

United we stand, divided we fall.

by mefeck on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:07:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Biden highlights the deficits (2.00 / 1)

You mention the blowbag part?

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:49:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Doesn't make sense.... (none / 0)

unless Obama wants to be president. She got 18 million votes and closed like the wind. This is a freaking no-brainer. If he blows this pick he will make a huge mistake, quite possibly one that will lose the election.

by Thaddeus on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:45:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Doesn't make sense.... (2.00 / 2)

You actually got me to laugh at your doomsday talk. I realize you are just trying to push for clinton, which is fine by me but you are missing two important points.

1. In the end, people will vote for the top of the ticket. Try to track down a VP candidate who brought a state or a constituency in the last few decades. People who hate Obama are not going to vote for him simply because he picked Clinton.

2. He won the nomination so its his choice. This may freak out those of us who have come to believe our internet opinions are all important and all powerful, but he has a good chance of being the most powerful person in the world so I figure he has earned the chance to pick who he thinks best fits his vision of the future.

by Xris on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:06:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Doesn't make sense.... (none / 0)

You actually got me to laugh at your doomsday talk.

:: chuckles::

Yawn.

by spacemanspiff on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:15:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Doesn't make sense.... (none / 0)

I would.

by handsomegent on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:26:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taylor Marsh (2.00 / 2)

Yes, Biden is very logical:

Obama can run his commercial about McCain being in DC since the 80's, and how Biden beats that by a couple of decades.

Obama can run on his opposition to the war, and talk about how Biden voted for it.

Sure.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:48:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taylor Marsh (none / 0)

The "change" argument of McCain being there for so long isn't really a winner anyway, is it? What is more important is pointing out how much McCain has sold himself out, and Biden is pitch-perfect for that. How many people in Washington can count themselves as familiar enough with McCain to truly call him a putz? They can jump on Obama when he criticizes McCain because of his inexperience, but they don't have that with Biden.

That said, I sure wish it was Clinton instead.

"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 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:59:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

personally i like Clark, but to your point (none / 0)

the moment Obama chooses Hillary, 1) the Iraq vote problem will still exist and 2) how are they going to explain away McCain's commercial showing Hillary talk about how she and McCain are ready to be CINC, but not the Democratic nominee?

by highgrade on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:35:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Substitute the word Biden with Clinton (none / 0)

It's little saving grace that Clinton's only been in peoples' minds since 1992.

by iohs2008 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:55:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome, darling, isn't that the case against Hill? (none / 0)

what you just said is correct, only it applies to your Gal as well.

"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!

by Al Rodgers on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:05:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome, d (none / 0)

She's not my gal. Anyway, I think the 'change' mantle with her as a woman resonates.

by Jerome Armstrong on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:14:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taylor Marsh (2.00 / 1)

Ive taken a breather from the primary wars but have kept up and had time to reflect on how things went down and what would be good for the way forward.

Im convinced no matter who Obama picks the media is going to both gush over the pick and eviscerate him for the pick.

Lets face facts. The media has picked McCain to be the 2008 version of GWB in that what he says will not get scrutinized because 'hes not a detail guy' and 'hes off the cuff' and 'he was a POW', etc., etc. Not that the media will let McCain off the hook completely, but McCain will get a free ride throughout.

This election is about vetting Obama and nothing else. And its more fun for the media to praise and destroy Obama at the same time.

This is just what I believe.

So as far as Obama's VP pick, it doesnt matter.

However, I have had some time to soften my position on Hillary and could almost bring myself around to her being a really solid plus as VP. But.....

What people keep forgetting is the baggage of Bill. If Hillary was married to an unknown, her as VP would have been a done deal forever ago. But you simply can not have Bill and Hillary, the team, as your VP. Bill simply is not capable of not taking the lead.

Obama has said one thing consistently about his campaign and style - no drama. He gets crucified for this when he doesnt attack or doesnt get crazy. Hes too cool. Too methodical. Too detached. Whatever.

But the Clintons THRIVE on drama. It is in their DNA as political animals. I do not mean this as a detraction, per se, but Obama is the anti-Clinton in many ways. The Clintons love to rumble, love to mix it up, love the fray.

But again, you simply can not have Bill around. Hillary on her own would be amazing. Obama and her could work together and do great things. But Bill simply can not be second fiddle. I truthfully believe Bill would not be able to be 'controlled' to a necessary level to keep dramas out of an Obama administration.

It hurts me to say this because I still have an affinity for him, but Bill is Kryptonite for Obama.

by pattonbt on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:48:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taylor Marsh (none / 0)

Mojo for a reasoned argument. Sadly, alot of folks around here from both sides of the "primary wars" have yet to get the message that they are over, and continue to rain friendly fire on each other.

I disagree that Bill Clinton is some sort of unmanageable crazy man. He is a powerful personality, a force of nature even. But though forces of nature cannot be controlled, they can be harnessed for our benefit.

> Bill simply is not capable of not taking the lead.

So give him something to lead on and let him go at it. My thought is special envoy to Israel and Palestine. Bill came closer than any President since Carter to solving that Gordian Knot, and would no doubt since his whole effort into it. To him, it would be a second chance to add to his legacy. If he succeeds, Obama would deservedly get a huge share of the credit. If he fails, at least he was kept "out of the way" from your point of view, and Obama gets some credit for putting the issue front and center by sending such a high visibility envoy.

> Bill is Kryptonite for Obama.

I have never been a huge Obama fan - I still am not, although he has my vote this fall, and I hope to be pleasantly surprised. That's why when I see this argument from Obama backers, it just amazes me that I have more faith in Obama's leadership abilities than they do. Whatever else you can say about the guy, he runs a tight ship. He can handle having strong personalities around him, and he will assert his authority when needed.

Also, having sat in the Oval Office, Bill Clinton has an appreciation and respect for the presidency. Heck, he went out of his way not to undermine W on several occasions.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:01:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taylor Marsh (2.00 / 1)

Its not that I dont trust Obama or Bill in their management abilities, its that I dont trust the media (I know I shouldnt worry about that, but I do because it is a reality).

The media will make every Bill moment a circus. I honestly believe it will be As The World Turns. The discourse of the nation will be preset back to hateful dreck we've had for the last couple of decades (not that the media and right wont find something to crucify Obama on, thats what they do). At least Obama sans Hillary and Bill can become his own president.

I do agree if Obama could get Bill to agree to some high profile 'world ambassador' type thing it would be perfectly suited for Bill. But lets not fool ourselves that Bill doesnt run with a fast crowd that Obama doesnt seem to want to affiliate with. The spotlight will be back on Bill, on sadly to say, he has never really been one to show self control.

Dont get me wrong, I have mucho respect for Bill's presidency (mostly because economically he got out of the way which is about the best thing a president can do when times are good), but he couldnt control himself when the spotlight and bullseye was directly on him, can he do so now?

It just makes me twitchy, because part of me wants to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he hasnt shown that I should (of course like it matters what I think in the big picture, but thems my thoughts).

by pattonbt on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:44:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taylor Marsh (none / 0)

> its that I dont trust the media

Kudos for finding the argument most likely to work with a person who chose "itsthemedia" for a screen name. :-P

But you are right, the media does hate Bill, to a degree that is truly pathological. They hate him more than they hate Hillary, and maybe even more than they hate Gore. I have to admit that is a point against picking Hillary for VP.

In fact, I am willing to bet if you could watch all his recent "controversial" remarks in context, and without the emotional tension of a closely contested primary, they would not seem all that controversial. The media set out to make them controversial, because that was their approved narrative, fulfilling their group judgement that Bill is a bad bad man.

I don't want to go back and beat a bunch of dead horses going all the way back to January, but one very recent example is the excerpts they played of him seeming to be angry at Obama for making him out as a racist. If you watch the actual interview, Bill explicitly says he is not upset with Obama or the campaign, and that he does not think they did anything wrong at all. He is seething with resentment toward the news media for making him out to be a racist, and trying very hard to hold back, because he knows they will twist whatever he says. And they did.

We agree on the point that if Hillary is chosen, Bill is going to have to hide someplace with no electricity at least until November. I just happen to think that the mainstream media is about 60% to blame for that situation. Another 20% of the blame goes on progressive and new media stars like EJ Dionne and Josh Marshall and Kos, who have sat by and said very little as one big Dem after another has been trashed over the past 2 decades. I'll tag Bill's inability to keep his mouth shut for 20% of the blame, but keep in mind, many a Republican with a much bigger foot-in-mouth reflex than Bill's has been protected by the media, and lionized. Case in point, John McCain.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:34:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain:Aug 29th for his VP; Obama within 96 ho (none / 0)

McCain will pick the GOP congressman. Obama would be smart to pick Hillary but I think its going to be Bayh.

by nzubechukwu on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:19:58 PM EST

Something else about August 29th. (2.00 / 1)

The 29th is John McCain's birthday, which as we all know is also the day Hurricane Katrina laid waste to a chunk of human history. McCain, of course, will be celebrating it just as he did when Katrina hit. With cake and a photo op.

If Obama is smart, he'll be looking for a way to kill McCain's momentum before it starts. Come up with something to commemorate Katrina and do it BIG. Get some New Orleans residents in front of the camera to talk about the rebuilding effort and the continued need for help. If he does this, it's harder for McCain to dominate coverage like he's hoping to do. Without a jumpstart, they will have trouble keeping any sort of focus on their convention.

Is this exploitative? Sure, and that sucks. But honestly, what should we be thinking about that day, McCain turning 73 years old or how New Orleans STILL needs help?

"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 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:24:31 PM EST

Re: Something else about August 29th. (none / 0)

Excuse me, I mean 72.

"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 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:25:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain:Aug 29th for his VP; (none / 0)

Politico has this quote from a McCain staffer that they'll "own the weekend." Maybe it's me, but on weekends in early fall, my family is enjoying the outdoors. We certainly wouldn't be glued to the tv, seeing McCain and his vp.

BTW, the Politico article also said that McCain is "building a crowd" of 10,000. Is it really that hard for them to get 10,000 folks to see McCain?

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:33:23 PM EST

Re: McCain:Aug 29th for his VP; (2.00 / 1)

Not just early fall weekend, LABOR DAY WEEKEND.

"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 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:35:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain:Aug 29th for his VP; (2.00 / 3)

Republicans did a fine job ensuring that they'd not get any bump during their convention. Start it off on Labor day, end it on NFL opening night. That's whatcha get for trying to play hardball with the scheduling.

"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 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:37:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain:Aug 29th for his VP; (2.00 / 1)

It's also Giants v. Redskins, which is a huge opening night draw. In fact, the only thing bigger would have been Giants v. Cowboys.

by Eric11 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:37:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain:Aug 29th for his VP; (2.00 / 2)

Good point! Who the hell is watching news coverage on Labor Day weekend?

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:47:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain:Aug 29th for his VP; (none / 0)

They started builing that 10k crowd just after the Battle of Hastings. Such is the enthusiasm gap.

I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt

by fogiv on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:30:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Some Republican guy from Ohio (2.00 / 1)

Bob Ney!

Race to 270: Tracking presidential elections since 2004.

by bschak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:36:40 PM EST

Re: Some Republican guy from Ohio (none / 0)

He's available too!

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:48:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain:Aug 29th for his VP; Obama within 96 ho (none / 0)

If obama is smart he will choose Hillary Clinton. Hillary is the only universal VP candidate that covers all of the bases of Obama's weaknesses. She is also key to secure the traditional demographics of females, Latinos, and blue-collar workers. Although Obama has picked up some momentum in this area ever since the primaries....it is better to be safe than sorry.

It is gonna be quite a task to make Indiana a blue state. Sure Bayh may be able to make McCain sweat a little in Indiana and Ohio. But Indiana/Ohio are states that have been red for years now....and Obama didn't do so well there in the primaries.

Joe Biden is a good guy and may help Obama solidify the foreign policy credentials. However, is Biden recognized in the areas West of the Mississpi River? I don't think so. Also the state of Delaware is a LOCK for Obama. So adding Biden doesn't help especially with the foot in mouth tendencies.

As far as McCain is concerned. Beyond the political junkies like us who post on blogs regulary....the perception is that McCain is a maverick and "friendly" towards Democrats/Independents. It should also be noted that the religious right is gonna vote for the GOP. Ain't nothing we can do about that.

So the question is who will be McCain's VP? Will McCain pander to scorned Hillary supporter by picking a pro-choice VP or worse a female such as Sarah Palin or Carly Fiorina. Will McCain pick Lieberman(a former Democrat VP candidate).

Will McCain pick Romney? Most of us can see through Romney very cleary and I recognize him as a neo-con true to the bone. However, Romney did win the Governorship in the state of Massachusetts. I am VERY curious to know how he did that. That factoid may be use for their advantage as a perception that Romney is also a independent mind. May very well appeal to Indpen

by newmexicodem on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:53:21 PM EST

A female? (2.00 / 1)

I really can't see McCain picking a woman. He likes to say he would, but underneath the surface, he seems to be a classic misogynist. He'll keep women on as advisors, but I don't see him pulling one in in such a serious leadership position.

"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 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:57:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A female? (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, McCain seems to have a fundamental lack of respect for women.

by ArkansasLib on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:22:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by oliver99 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:49:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If a woman is picked it could only be Sarah Palin of Alaska. Not going to happen because of Alaska problems with the Republican party and that she has little experience.

It will not be Ridge, Lieberman or any pro-choice candidate.

It's down to two:

Pawlenty or Romney

It will be Pawlenty

by notedgeways on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:28:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think Pawlenty too, because... The Republicans have not won in the MN presidential race in gods on forever (we didn't even vote for Regan in the '84 bitch slap). Pawlenty is their only shot at doing so, and I think they want a symbolic win in the heat of the Midwest, and I think whoever it is will have strong Midwest ties.. OH or MN, Pawlnty has some national exposure, and is a pretty boy. he also has broke with traditional Republicans on some minor issues (drug reimportation) so bolsters the faux maverick theme.

Pawlenty and Biden.

"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"

Yeah, but he's really desperate to get that PUMA vote....

by LordMike on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:21:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by PSUdan on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:02:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Surely he could replace their ten votes somehow.

Re: McCain:Aug 29th for his VP; Obama within 96 ho (none / 0)

so let me make sure I follow you here. Republican values voters are sheep who will always vote Republican so McCain is guaranteed to get all of their votes regardless of who picks as VP or campaigns. Conversely, Democratic voters require a specific VP type or they will ignore their history of voting preference and personal values in order to stick to their party?

by Xris on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:09:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain:Aug 29th for his VP; Obama within 96 ho (none / 0)

Romney won as a no-name in an election where the Dems ran a dead horse. The State Dems have corruption issues (or had, Deval Patrick is a Godsend), and this came after a series of pretty serious Democratic scandals. At the time, Romney was known for successfully pulling off the SLC Olympics, and not much else - he ran as a moderate and people didn't have reason to believe otherwise at the time.

By the end of his term, he was widely reviled and was a lame duck for years due to the large Democratic supermajority in the General Court and Senate. The running joke in State House circles was that Romney's sole purpose was to validate the General Court's parking stickers; GC passes a bill, Romney vetoes it, GC overrides veto, Romney shrugs.

by auronrenouille on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:37:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Portman would be a great pick (none / 0)

and makes the most sense. He wouldn't anger the base, or any obvious fragment of it. He's the right age, photogenic, and has good cred on mainstream economics--an area where McCain needs help. 50 bonus points--he's from Ohio, the most important state in this election.

He has no obvious burdens such as Mormon, gay or Democrat. Palin is ridiculous because of lack of experience, newborn with Down's and little scandal. Whitman and Fiorina way too far out of the box. Ridge is pro-life; Cantor is Jewish. Thune and Pawlenty are the other safe choices. Thune, I think, would be better in a debate and in TV in general.

Most likely: 1. Portman; 2. Thune; 3. Pawlenty

by Thaddeus on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:58:08 PM EST

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

And all across the nation, people would say "Who?"

by politicsmatters on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:06:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"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."

To which we answer, "Bush, Jr".

by vcalzone on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:11:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"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."

"Remember the policies of the Bush administration? The ones that sent our economy into a tailspin? Guess who was instrumental in coming up with those!"

by vcalzone on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:13:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]