NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, now that Hillary Clinton is out, who do you think Obama should pick as VP?

Using an article to help, and with the limited choices in the poll here...

(Reuters) - Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, who will claim the Democratic presidential nomination on Tuesday, has taken the first small step toward choosing a running mate.
ADVERTISEMENT

Obama has asked Jim Johnson, former head of mortgage giant Fannie Mae, to begin research on potential candidates for the No. 2 slot on the ticket, media reports said. Johnson performed a similar task for Democratic presidential nominees John Kerry in 2004 and Walter Mondale in 1984.

Here is a list of some possible Democratic vice presidential candidates, in alphabetical order:

* Joseph Biden, 65 - The senator from Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is a respected foreign policy expert who would give Obama authority on the issue. But Obama might not want to add a second senator to the ticket, and could be looking for a fresher face to reinforce his message that this election is about change and the future.

* Wesley Clark, 63 - A retired Army general and former NATO commander who ran unsuccessfully for the presidential nomination in 2004, Clark is a supporter of Hillary Clinton who could help rally the party and provide a boost on national security issues. But he did not run a strong campaign in 2004 and he would be unlikely to generate much enthusiasm among party activists.

* Hillary Clinton, 60 - Polls have shown strong Democratic support for a "dream team" ticket of Obama and Clinton, his top rival for the nomination. Obama has not ruled out the option, which would help unify the party after a grueling nominating battle. But Clinton also would bring complications, including the return of former President Bill Clinton to the White House. A joint ticket could help attract some of Clinton's supporters -- including women and white working-class Democrats -- who have been reluctant to support Obama.

* Chris Dodd, 64 - The Connecticut senator, a fluent Spanish speaker and expert in Latin American issues, is the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a former foe for the presidential nomination who quickly endorsed Obama after dropping out. He would help bolster Obama's foreign policy and economic credentials, but presents many of the same drawbacks as Biden.

* Chuck Hagel, 61 - The Republican senator from Nebraska, a conservative Vietnam veteran but outspoken critic of the Iraq war, would help Obama reach out to independents and Republicans and reinforce his promise to bridge partisan divides.

* Tim Kaine, 50 - The Virginia governor was one of Obama's earliest and strongest supporters and could help him in a state that traditionally has been Republican in presidential elections but has been turning Democratic in recent years.

* Sam Nunn, 69 - The former Armed Services Committee chairman from Georgia is a respected foreign and military policy voice, but his age and conservative view on some social issues might make him an awkward fit with Obama.

* Ed Rendell, 64 - The Pennsylvania governor has been one of Clinton's strongest campaigners and he could help woo her supporters and help deliver a key state. A former district attorney and the mayor of Philadelphia, Rendell has executive experience that could help Obama.

* Bill Richardson, 60 - New Mexico governor, a Hispanic, could help with Latino vote -- the fastest-growing segment of the electorate and a potentially vital voting bloc. A seasoned negotiator, the former energy secretary and U.N. ambassador would also bring foreign policy experience to the ticket as well as inside knowledge of how Washington works.

* Kathleen Sebelius, 60 - Two-term governor of Kansas could bring some vital elements to the ticket: she's a woman and as the leader of a mostly Republican state has shown she can work across party lines. But she is largely untested on the national stage.

* Ted Strickland, 66 - The governor of Ohio is another strong Clinton supporter who comes from a battleground state. A former U.S. congressman, the first-term governor is not well-known nationally.

* Jim Webb, 62 - The first-term Virginia senator, Vietnam veteran and former secretary of the Navy has written seven novels, including "Fields of Fire," considered one of the best novels about the Vietnam War. Webb could help Obama in a state that has turned more Democratic in recent years.

These are the likely choices...

Anybody
But
Clinton

Theres alot of talk that General Tony Zinni, former Commander of Central Command and Former Envoy to the Middle East may be drafted into the VP spot. He'd be an excellent addition, he has enormous influence in the middle-east and maybe the US's image will be repaired with him in a position like that.

Anybody
But
Clinton

That took some work. But, and bear in mind I agree with you, who do you think he SHOULD pick?

That took some work. But, and bear in mind I agree with you, who do you think he SHOULD pick?

I'd go with Richardson!

Just a side note, if he picks Rendell, I will not vote for Obama.

That took some work. But, and bear in mind I agree with you, who do you think he SHOULD pick?

I could also tolerate Dodd or Hagel.

Anyone but Hagal. That guys an ass clown.

Richardson is a perfect fit with Obama. His accomplishments in diplomatic relations and energy along with governing ability give him a very good edge. If he is not VP, secretary of state is an attractive option. Also Edwards would make a killer attorney general by the way...

Shouldn't he get someone from the South to broaden his appeal?

damn, are they all older than him? and i mean much older

I've heard good things about Schweitzer but he's not on your list

I'd go with Richardson!

Just a side note, if he picks Rendell, I will not vote for Obama.

Please, for the sake of the world, do.

Please, for the sake of the world, do.

Are ya nuts? I live in the state that Rendell is Governor. He's not a very good one despite his popularity. There has been talk of impeaching him because of his abuse of office. He's not VP material considering the fact that he nearly destroyed the education system of this state.

Shouldn't he get someone from the South to broaden his appeal?

Kansas is south, and so is New Mexico.

That said, I still favor Strickland.

Richardson is a perfect fit with Obama. His accomplishments in diplomatic relations and energy along with governing ability give him a very good edge. If he is not VP, secretary of state is an attractive option. Also Edwards would make a killer attorney general by the way...

I suggested Richardson for VP and Edwards for Attorney General on one of the other threads (2?) but I'm going with Sibelius now; Richardson at State does sound like a good slot for him.

Kansas is south, and so is New Mexico.

That said, I still favor Strickland.

Uh...Kansas is not the south but the Midwest.

Do you really think that this is the time or the place for this sort of thing? I mean, seeing how long this has dragged on I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that we're not interested anymore.

Do you really think that this is the time or the place for this sort of thing? I mean, seeing how long this has dragged on I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that we're not interested anymore.

So why are you here in this thread?

Uh...Kansas is not the south but the Midwest.

Politically, no? I mean, a state in which Evolution was questioned... o_O

Well, anyways, do I get a free pass on account of being a Brazilian that never lived in the US? :p

Uh...Kansas is not the south but the Midwest.


Those of us in the midwest certiantly dont consider Kansas a part of us.

Politically, no? I mean, a state in which Evolution was questioned... o_O


You kidding me? Thats a rather common occurance in the midwest.

You kidding me? Thats a rather common occurance in the midwest.

Apparently not in Missouri unless you have some relative proof that its a common occurance.

seeing how long this has dragged on...
Dorothy: We've come such a LONG way already?
Witch [appearing from nowhere]: YOU CALL THAT LONG? Why, you've just begun!
[does someone have an "evil cackle" smiley?]

Apparently not in Missouri unless you have some relative proof that its a common occurance.

Wait, you live in MO, PA or where? I have you all over the place. o_O

do I get a free pass on account of being a Brazilian that never lived in the US? :p
Sure. My attempt to educate you (others will be along shortly to tell me I am full of crap):

"South" in the US means the southeast, exact borders hard to specify; actual membership in the former Confederacy may not be strictly necessary (Kentucky was of divided loyalties, the pro-Confederate never controlling the whole state; and West Virginia actually seceded away from the Confederate state of Virginia to go back to the Union; but both are "southern" by some broad definitions), or may not be sufficient (Florida was in the Confederacy, but its current colonization by elderly retirees from Yankee states, and Hispanic immigrants from Cuba and suchlike, renders it un-"southern" in some eyes). But a state like Kansas which actively fought against the Confederacy is definitely not "southern". New Mexico? Part of it was occupied by the Confederacy for a little while, but most would call it "Southwest", a different kettle of fish.

Sure. My attempt to educate you (others will be along shortly to tell me I am full of crap):

"South" in the US means the southeast, exact borders hard to specify; actual membership in the former Confederacy may not be strictly necessary (Kentucky was of divided loyalties, the pro-Confederate never controlling the whole state; and West Virginia actually seceded away from the Confederate state of Virginia to go back to the Union; but both are "southern" by some broad definitions), or may not be sufficient (Florida was in the Confederacy, but its current colonization by elderly retirees from Yankee states, and Hispanic immigrants from Cuba and suchlike, renders it un-"southern" in some eyes). But a state like Kansas which actively fought against the Confederacy is definitely not "southern". New Mexico? Part of it was occupied by the Confederacy for a little while, but most would call it "Southwest", a different kettle of fish.

You are full of... Ahem. Sorry, wanted to be among the first, I don't actually think you're full of crap. :D

Well, at any rate, I think Obama himself has broad appeal. I think Strickland would flip Ohio to Obama more easily, as he would do with Michigan...

Wait, you live in MO, PA or where? I have you all over the place. o_O

Have orders will travel.

Have orders will travel.

That sentence is missing some parts...

That sentence is missing some parts...

My dad served for 33 years in the United States Air Force. I moved around alot.

Hagel. I think they would be unstoppable because Hagel neutralizes any 'I'm a vetnam vet, foreign policy expert' argument McCain might try to use.

Hagel. I think they would be unstoppable because Hagel neutralizes any 'I'm a vetnam vet, foreign policy expert' argument McCain might try to use.

A decent point, yes...

My dad served for 33 years in the United States Air Force. I moved around alot.

Ah.

Anyways, Hagel IS too conservative on other issues, yes...

There are solid arguments for just about every single person on that list, from Senator Clinton's possible method of uniting the party--somewhat dubious, but still existant--to Bill Richardson's foreign policy experience.

One thing we need to keep in mind, however, is that the Vice President will be playing an important role in Obama's administration, and so we can't choose one simply on the basis of how they might help get him elected. We need to choose someone who would work well in government without any significant problems, and--since the VP is the President of the Senate--someone who Republicans and Democrats alike would be willing to work with.

As such, in my opinion, that limits the choices to Bill Richardson, Chuck Hagal, and Kathleen Seblius. Of the three, I don't think Hagal would be the best choice, simply because he's overly conservative in all other areas.

Richardson's foreign policy experience, in my mind, makes him a better choice for Secretary of State, because there he won't be constrained by the requirements of the office of the Vice President and thus will be able to use his goods to the fullest.

So that means that, for now, my personal opinion is that Kathleen Sebilius would be the best choice for Obama's Vice President. She can work with Republicans and Democrats alike and has the additional benefit of being a woman, which will help both with the election and with the resulting administration.

Biden.

The corpse of JFK.

Kansas is south, and so is New Mexico.

That said, I still favor Strickland.

Kansas is Midwest, and New Mexico is not the THE SOUTH. It is the Southwest.

So that means that, for now, my personal opinion is that Kathleen Sebilius would be the best choice for Obama's Vice President. She can work with Republicans and Democrats alike and has the additional benefit of being a woman, which will help both with the election and with the resulting administration.

This, plus her father was Gov of Ohio.

One thing we need to keep in mind, however, is that the Vice President will be playing an important role in Obama's administration
The question is, will Obama (if elected) use the 'Cheney model' for having a more powerful VP role in his administration. He would also be a fool not to capitalize on the massive increases in Presidential power under the Bush administration.

Given there's no Republican version of this...

A really smart idea for John McCain is to nominate early and nominate a woman as his VP - I think this would be a great move by him, helping to draw ex-Clinton voters as well as making a pretty good counter-statement for the Republican party.

Unsure as to who it might be but the trick is to do it as close before Barack Obama makes his choice, it would make for a great and positive headline dominator

Given there's no Republican version of this...

Feel free to create one, I did. o_O

Kansas is Midwest, and New Mexico is not the THE SOUTH. It is the Southwest.

Yeah, yeah, you got late to the correction of the Brazilian guy. :p

This, plus her father was Gov of Ohio.

That's true and might help with women AND some red states AND Kansas AND Ohio. Mmm...

I think Strickland would flip Ohio to Obama more easily, as he would do with Michigan...
Strickland would have zero effect on Michigan. Nobody in Michigan likes Ohioans (those are the only two states which fought a war since the Constitution was ratified, other than the big Civil War / War Between the States; an Ohioan was stabbed in the hand, a Michigan mule was shot dead, and a farmer's cabbage patch in the disputed border strip was utterly ruined).

That's true and might help with women AND some red states AND Kansas AND Ohio. Mmm...

Oh yeah, it works. ;) :D

Ah.

Anyways, Hagel IS too conservative on other issues, yes...

I think they could work together though to be honest. Besides, he falls right in line with Obama's message of going across the aisle and being American's 1st.

Strickland would have zero effect on Michigan. Nobody in Michigan likes Ohioans (those are the only two states which fought a war since the Constitution was ratified, other than the big Civil War / War Between the States; an Ohioan was stabbed in the hand, a Michigan mule was shot dead, and a farmer's cabbage patch in the disputed border strip was utterly ruined).

Is that a fact? o_O

I think they could work together though to be honest. Besides, he falls right in line with Obama's message of going across the aisle and being American's 1st.

True, but if anything happened to Obama we'd have a Republican there again...

True, but if anything happened to Obama we'd have a Republican there again...

An extremelly vile one at that.


Im ok with picking a Rep. VP. Just not Hagel.

True, but if anything happened to Obama we'd have a Republican there again...

:rolleyes:

I'd go with Richardson!

Just a side note, if he picks Rendell, I will not vote for Obama.

I love Richardson. No one pays him any attention because he isn't flashy and doesn't look great on tv. He is a genuine person and the consumate statesman.

Rendell wouldn't want the job anyway, so don't worry.

Rendell wouldn't want the job anyway, so don't worry.

Hopefully you are right. *shudders*

This, plus her father was Gov of Ohio.
An added bonus, though I'd personally place it far down on the list of qualifications. Were I in Senator Obama's place I would definitely look more towards how the potential VP will work in the government and only, after that, at how they might help win the election. Given Senator Obama's strength it seems unlikely he would need additional aid on that front anyway. (Of course, it wouldn't hurt...)
The question is, will Obama (if elected) use the 'Cheney model' for having a more powerful VP role in his administration. He would also be a fool not to capitalize on the massive increases in Presidential power under the Bush administration.
Again, if I were in Senator Obama's place, I'd do what I could to immediately remove any and all expansions of Presidential power under the Bush administration. Cheney model or no, the extra power is simply too much, in my opinion, to trust in the hands of one person.

Given there's no Republican version of this...

A really smart idea for John McCain is to nominate early and nominate a woman as his VP - I think this would be a great move by him, helping to draw ex-Clinton voters as well as making a pretty good counter-statement for the Republican party.

I disagree. Most republicans don't give a damn about diversity or women's empowerment. That's why they don't have a single african-american elected leader in Washington. He needs someone with a fiscal policy that will draw in more of the Republican base. By his own admission, economics is not his strong suit. He should avoid someone much younger than him. He needs a solid republican to counter his 'maverick' image.

Hard to say. I've thought for quite some time that Colin Powell would be an awesome choice, but I don't see that happening.

My immediate gut from the list there is to go with Richardson or Clark.

For the sake of party unity, I do think it would be good for Obama to go with a Clinton supporter.

/ramble

Hard to say. I've thought for quite some time that Colin Powell would be an awesome choice, but I don't see that happening.

My immediate gut from the list there is to go with Richardson or Clark.

For the sake of party unity, I do think it would be good for Obama to go with a Clinton supporter.

/ramble

While Clark would quiet those arguing about Obama's lack of military experience on the Republican side, his lack of general appeal to the American populace would be a significant factor. Plus, I'm not sure he's really up to the full challenge of being the Vice President.

I would definitely include him in the cabinet, though, preferably involved with the military. Clark's experience as a general would be absolutely invaluable.

While Clark would quiet those arguing about Obama's lack of military experience on the Republican side, his lack of general appeal to the American populace would be a significant factor. Plus, I'm not sure he's really up to the full challenge of being the Vice President.

I would definitely include him in the cabinet, though, preferably involved with the military. Clark's experience as a general would be absolutely invaluable.

I don't know enough about everyone on the list to make a real determination, but I just don't see anyone jumping out at me as the best VP. Maybe when I've had more sleep.

While Clark would quiet those arguing about Obama's lack of military experience on the Republican side, his lack of general appeal to the American populace would be a significant factor. Plus, I'm not sure he's really up to the full challenge of being the Vice President.

I would definitely include him in the cabinet, though, preferably involved with the military. Clark's experience as a general would be absolutely invaluable.

A good move on Obama's part might be naming some of the people in his cabinet BESIDES VP, thus making them more active in the campaign... Or I'm talking nonsense here?

I've said this before, but I think Richardson is the best choice. Latinos are a good reason, but the very large group overlooked here is gunowners. Remember, lack of cohesive support from gun owners really hurt Bush I in 1992. Richardson was highly rated by the NRA during his time in Arizona, and is seen as very pro RKBA. Gun rights is one of Obama's weakest topics, and lots of gunowners voted for Hillary in the primaries, and are probably more likely to change sides, given present circumstances. Gun rights will be thrust into the spotlight in a few weeks, and this is the time for him to strengthen a very weak area.

1. Richardson
2. Sebilius
3. Clark

I don't know enough about everyone on the list to make a real determination, but I just don't see anyone jumping out at me as the best VP. Maybe when I've had more sleep.

It's definitely a hard choice to make. I may be changing my mind in the near future.

A good move on Obama's part might be naming some of the people in his cabinet BESIDES VP, thus making them more active in the campaign... Or I'm talking nonsense here?
Actually, that's a fantastic idea. The more people he has on his behalf campaigning for him, the better, and it'll give Americans a better idea of what to expect from his administration too. It's win-win.

Actually, that's a fantastic idea. The more people he has on his behalf campaigning for him, the better, and it'll give Americans a better idea of what to expect from his administration too. It's win-win.

Hey, if this idea makes it into the Obama campaign, I hope I get due hatred from Republicans for it. ;)

I've said this before, but I think Richardson is the best choice. Latinos are a good reason, but the very large group overlooked here is gunowners. Remember, lack of cohesive support from gun owners really hurt Bush I in 1992. Richardson was highly rated by the NRA during his time in Arizona, and is seen as very pro RKBA. Gun rights is one of Obama's weakest topics, and lots of gunowners voted for Hillary in the primaries, and are probably more likely to change sides, given present circumstances. Gun rights will be thrust into the spotlight in a few weeks, and this is the time for him to strengthen a very weak area.
Hmm...that's a good point. Sebelius is not that much better on the gun control front, at least in terms of how guns owners will probably perceive her.

Still, it might ultimately be a non-factor. We should wait and see on this.

Heikoku: As a Brazilian, you've all but assured that already. :p

Heikoku: As a Brazilian, you've all but assured that already. :p

I want it PERSONAL. ;)

I want them to hate ME. And I want them to HATE me. ;)

It'd mean I'd MATTER. ;)

I want it PERSONAL. ;)

I want them to hate ME. And I want them to HATE me. ;)

It'd mean I'd MATTER. ;)

I'm not sure what the value of that would be, but hey, suit yourself.

(Reuters) - Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, who will claim the Democratic presidential nomination on Tuesday, has taken the first small step toward choosing a running mate.
ADVERTISEMENT

Obama has asked Jim Johnson, former head of mortgage giant Fannie Mae, to begin research on potential candidates for the No. 2 slot on the ticket, media reports said. Johnson performed a similar task for Democratic presidential nominees John Kerry in 2004 and Walter Mondale in 1984.

Here is a list of some possible Democratic vice presidential candidates, in alphabetical order:

* Joseph Biden, 65 - The senator from Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is a respected foreign policy expert who would give Obama authority on the issue. But Obama might not want to add a second senator to the ticket, and could be looking for a fresher face to reinforce his message that this election is about change and the future.

* Wesley Clark, 63 - A retired Army general and former NATO commander who ran unsuccessfully for the presidential nomination in 2004, Clark is a supporter of Hillary Clinton who could help rally the party and provide a boost on national security issues. But he did not run a strong campaign in 2004 and he would be unlikely to generate much enthusiasm among party activists.

* Hillary Clinton, 60 - Polls have shown strong Democratic support for a "dream team" ticket of Obama and Clinton, his top rival for the nomination. Obama has not ruled out the option, which would help unify the party after a grueling nominating battle. But Clinton also would bring complications, including the return of former President Bill Clinton to the White House. A joint ticket could help attract some of Clinton's supporters -- including women and white working-class Democrats -- who have been reluctant to support Obama.

* Chris Dodd, 64 - The Connecticut senator, a fluent Spanish speaker and expert in Latin American issues, is the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a former foe for the presidential nomination who quickly endorsed Obama after dropping out. He would help bolster Obama's foreign policy and economic credentials, but presents many of the same drawbacks as Biden.

* Chuck Hagel, 61 - The Republican senator from Nebraska, a conservative Vietnam veteran but outspoken critic of the Iraq war, would help Obama reach out to independents and Republicans and reinforce his promise to bridge partisan divides.

* Tim Kaine, 50 - The Virginia governor was one of Obama's earliest and strongest supporters and could help him in a state that traditionally has been Republican in presidential elections but has been turning Democratic in recent years.

* Sam Nunn, 69 - The former Armed Services Committee chairman from Georgia is a respected foreign and military policy voice, but his age and conservative view on some social issues might make him an awkward fit with Obama.

* Ed Rendell, 64 - The Pennsylvania governor has been one of Clinton's strongest campaigners and he could help woo her supporters and help deliver a key state. A former district attorney and the mayor of Philadelphia, Rendell has executive experience that could help Obama.

* Bill Richardson, 60 - New Mexico governor, a Hispanic, could help with Latino vote -- the fastest-growing segment of the electorate and a potentially vital voting bloc. A seasoned negotiator, the former energy secretary and U.N. ambassador would also bring foreign policy experience to the ticket as well as inside knowledge of how Washington works.

* Kathleen Sebelius, 60 - Two-term governor of Kansas could bring some vital elements to the ticket: she's a woman and as the leader of a mostly Republican state has shown she can work across party lines. But she is largely untested on the national stage.

* Ted Strickland, 66 - The governor of Ohio is another strong Clinton supporter who comes from a battleground state. A former U.S. congressman, the first-term governor is not well-known nationally.

* Jim Webb, 62 - The first-term Virginia senator, Vietnam veteran and former secretary of the Navy has written seven novels, including "Fields of Fire," considered one of the best novels about the Vietnam War. Webb could help Obama in a state that has turned more Democratic in recent years.


Webb or Sebelius as VP. I'm leaning toward Webb if only because there's no way Sebelius or anyone else could deliver KS to Obama. VA is one of the places he'll need if his numbers in MI don't improve. I would also suggest...

Biden as Sec. of State
Nunn as NSA
Clark as DefSec
Edwards as AG
Clinton as HHS Sec
Richardson as either Interior or Energy Sec
Dodd as Treasury or Commerce Sec

I'm not sure what the value of that would be, but hey, suit yourself.

Humans like it when their feelings get reciprocated. :p

Plus, Che Guevara once said "It's a sad thing not to have friends, but it's even sadder not to have enemies.".

Also... Ah, screw it, I'd just like to be the target of the hate of conservatives, mainly because it would also mean the love of liberals...

...AND I'd get some revenge for a channel ban in IRC I got in 2002.

So why are you here in this thread?
We're here to help sell beer.

We're here to help sell beer.

*To the tune of "The Internet is for Porn"*

We're here to help sell beer!
We're here to help sell beer!
I don't think it is too queer
For that is why we're here!

Did it work?

Hmm...that's a good point. Sebelius is not that much better on the gun control front, at least in terms of how guns owners will probably perceive her.

Still, it might ultimately be a non-factor. We should wait and see on this.

Heikoku: As a Brazilian, you've all but assured that already. :p

Sebelius is perceived as very anti 2A. She vetoed Kansas CCW legislation. Obama is on record saying that he would ban nationwide all CCW. Now this very well could be due to his voter base (Illinois is very pro gun control), but it isn't good. With the Heller case comming due, gun rights issues will be forced into the spotlight like never before. Remember, G.H.W Bush's gun control helped cost him the election in 1992, and Clinton's gun control surely didn't help them in 1994. Voting records show quite clearly that nationwide gun control is a losing propsition. And here we have Obama, who's record clearly indicates a very anti-2A standpoint.

Obama can't dance around the bush forever. He needs to do something to counter his Anti-2A record. Richardson does this.

I really liked Edwards, it's a shame he turned down any possibility of taking the VP.

Sebelius is perceived as very anti 2A. She vetoed Kansas CCW legislation. Obama is on record saying that he would ban nationwide all CCW. Now this very well could be due to his voter base (Illinois is very pro gun control), but it isn't good. With the Heller case comming due, gun rights issues will be forced into the spotlight like never before. Remember, G.H.W Bush's gun control helped cost him the election in 1992, and Clinton's gun control surely didn't help them in 1994. Voting records show quite clearly that nationwide gun control is a losing propsition. And here we have Obama, who's record clearly indicates a very anti-2A standpoint.

Obama can't dance around the bush forever. He needs to do something to counter his Anti-2A record. Richardson does this.

Very true indeed. It's definitely worthy of consideration.

I'm glad I'm not part of Obama's official campaign...this stuff is extremely complicated.

Is that a fact? o_O
Yes, there were some very strange border disputes in early American history. Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania (in the northeast near Scranton) was founded by settlers from Connecticut: you see, Connecticut like some other colonies had a charter allowing them to expand westward indefinitely; they had made a treaty with the Dutch, back when New York was still "New Netherlands", renouncing their claims to Long Island, Manhattan, and the lower Hudson but without prejudice to any claims further west, and so they got into the "Yankee-Pennamite War" with Pennsylvania (resolved in 1783 by the pre-Constitutional federal government, the so-called "Articles regime"). This set the borders of Pennsylvania (Virginia was also forced to evacuate Pittsburgh as part of the agreement), but Connecticut then settled the area west of Pennsylvania, founding "Cleaveland, Connecticut" (now called "Cleveland, Ohio").

In 1787, all states agreed to abandon their westward claims, and a tentative map was drawn up for how the Northwest Territory would subsequently be divided into five new states: lines drawn from the southernmost tip of Lake Michigan to the westward (separating what became "Illinois" from what became "Wisconsin"), eastward (north boundary of "Indiana" and "Ohio"), and southward (separating "Illinois" from "Indiana"), plus another north-south line ("Indiana" from "Ohio") were the first-draft border lines. The Northwest Ordinance provided that as soon as a census showed sufficient population (meaning white population, of course) in any one of these five areas, it could elect a government and become a state. Ohio was the only one to just do it this way, in 1803.

For the others, the Congress passed "Acts of Admission" redefining the borders of the state: this became necessary when Indiana complained about the 1787 borders that gave it, essentially, access to one grain of sand on the beach at its northwest corner, so its border was shifted north to give it some lake-frontage (the "Michiana Strip", which still remembers its original "Michigan Territory" heritage in such names as "Michigan City" and the highway "Michigan Avenue" which eventually reached all the way from Chicago to Detroit although it is no longer continuous all that way). Similarly, Illinois wanted and obtained a much larger northern adjustment to give it Chicago. But then, when Michigan was ready for admission, Ohio suddenly made a retroactive demand for a northern adjustment to give it the port of Toledo (to which a canal built by Ohio investors led). Michigan stood on its 1787 Ordinance rights, and elected a governor (20 years old! youngest governor ever) and "Congressmen" who, however, could not get seated in Congress while the Toledo dispute was unresolved.

The battle on the ground was rather a farce: the Ohio leader was Two Stickney, son of the eccentric Ohioan "Old Man" Stickney, whose actual name has been forgotten and who did not bother to give names to his seventeen children, preferring to number them, male and female alike, One through Seventeen; Two was the only human casualty in the fight (stabbed in the hand), although during Michigan/Ohio State football games occasionally there are rival banners "Remember the Mule!" and "Remember the Cabbages!" commemorating the animal and vegetable casualties. The political battle was also a bit farcical: President Jackson proposed giving Michigan the Upper Peninsula in exchange for Toledo, which was the bargain of the century, believe me (I have been to both places), but because he called the Convention which was to decide this the "Convention of Assent", implying that only a Yes answer was possible, the Michiganders defiantly voted No, and so it was nicknamed the "Convention of Dissent". A few months later, some people had second thoughts and re-convened the convention; there were arguments on both sides, but a horrendous record cold-snap convinced the "Frostbitten Convention" to vote Yes so they could go home.

Wisconsin was totally ripped off in this whole deal, losing Chicago and the Upper Peninsula, and later the Duluth Triangle to Minnesota. There was a curious footnote about Ohio: in 1953, a third-grade class preparing some festivities for Ohio's sesquicentennial wrote their Congressman asking "What date, exactly, was Ohio admitted?" A search of the records turned up the fact that, actually, there never had been any "Act of Admission" for Ohio, unlike for any other non-original state; they had just taken for granted that under the 1787 Ordinance they could become a state whenever they were ready, and when their Congressmen showed up in the fall of 1803, everyone took for granted that they had a right to be there. It was decided that the day in 1803 when the Ohio Congressmen showed up, and were welcomed at a party thrown by the Speaker of the House, must be the official "date of admission" for Ohio, but just to be on the safe side, Congress officially passed an "Act of Admission" for Ohio in 1953.

[/end historical-trivia threadjack]

Kansas is south, and so is New Mexico.

That said, I still favor Strickland.

It's not "The South" in the way the phrase is typically used in the USA. Generally when someone is talking about "The South" it means states that fought on the Confederate side in the Civil War.

Well, now that Hillary Clinton is out, who do you think Obama should pick as VP?

Using an article to help, and with the limited choices in the poll here...



These are the likely choices...

In order of who I would be personally happiest with: Hagel, Webb, Sebelius, then Zinni.

In order of who I think the general electorate would likely be happiest with: Webb, Sebelius, Hagel, and either Strickland, Kaine, or Zinni.

Anybody
But
Clinton

M-O-O-N - that spells bingo. ;)

Theres alot of talk that General Tony Zinni, former Commander of Central Command and Former Envoy to the Middle East may be drafted into the VP spot. He'd be an excellent addition, he has enormous influence in the middle-east and maybe the US's image will be repaired with him in a position like that.

Indeed a good suggestion.

Richardson is a perfect fit with Obama. His accomplishments in diplomatic relations and energy along with governing ability give him a very good edge. If he is not VP, secretary of state is an attractive option. Also Edwards would make a killer attorney general by the way...
I suggested Richardson for VP and Edwards for Attorney General on one of the other threads (2?) but I'm going with Sibelius now; Richardson at State does sound like a good slot for him.

Looks like they're already talking about Biden for SecState and Edwards for AG, as well as HRC for HHS.

The Sunday Telegraph reported that the Obama campaign is working up a “negotiated surrender” that would amount to Clinton’s rapid departure in exchange for a post as health and human services secretary in an Obama administration or chief Senate sponsor for Obama-backed health care legislation.

Not on the table, according to a Democratic strategist close to the Obama camp, is a position as vice president.

“They will give her the respect she deserves. She will get something to do with health care, a Cabinet post or the chance to lead the legislation through the Senate,” the strategist told the newspaper.

Two other names floated for Cabinet positions were former presidential candidate John Edwards as attorney general and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden for secretary of state.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/01/report-obama-camp-may-offer-clinton-a-cabinet-seat/
(Original's here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/democrats/2058907/US-Elections-Hillary-Clinton-to-be-offered-dignified-exit.html)
There are solid arguments for just about every single person on that list, from Senator Clinton's possible method of uniting the party--somewhat dubious, but still existant--to Bill Richardson's foreign policy experience.

One thing we need to keep in mind, however, is that the Vice President will be playing an important role in Obama's administration, and so we can't choose one simply on the basis of how they might help get him elected. We need to choose someone who would work well in government without any significant problems, and--since the VP is the President of the Senate--someone who Republicans and Democrats alike would be willing to work with.

As such, in my opinion, that limits the choices to Bill Richardson, Chuck Hagal, and Kathleen Seblius. Of the three, I don't think Hagal would be the best choice, simply because he's overly conservative in all other areas.

Richardson's foreign policy experience, in my mind, makes him a better choice for Secretary of State, because there he won't be constrained by the requirements of the office of the Vice President and thus will be able to use his goods to the fullest.

So that means that, for now, my personal opinion is that Kathleen Sebilius would be the best choice for Obama's Vice President. She can work with Republicans and Democrats alike and has the additional benefit of being a woman, which will help both with the election and with the resulting administration.

Well put.

One point: Webb brings in the military experience for a countryt at war, as well as bipartisanship.

I love Richardson. No one pays him any attention because he isn't flashy and doesn't look great on tv. He is a genuine person and the consumate statesman.

Rendell wouldn't want the job anyway, so don't worry.

I have problems with Richardson from certain incidents while he was governor of NM. SecState I'd be good with though, as he does know how to handle some delicate situations. The story about his handling of an important negotionation here in Japan back in the '90s sticks in my mind. Note: Smoking is far more prevelant and tolerated over here.

In 1998, Bill Richardson, then the United States ambassador to the United Nations, flew to Japan in search of backing for potential military strikes in Iraq.

Landing in Tokyo, he asked how a previous session, conducted by his boss, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, had gone. Not well, Mr. Richardson learned. Dr. Albright’s Japanese counterpart requested permission to smoke, she lectured him on the dangers of tobacco, and things never improved from there.

So Mr. Richardson began his meeting with a question.

“Mind if I smoke?” he asked, pulling out the cigar he had tucked into his jacket a moment before. He left Japan with the assurances for which he had come.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/us/politics/21richardson.html?pagewanted=print

A good move on Obama's part might be naming some of the people in his cabinet BESIDES VP, thus making them more active in the campaign... Or I'm talking nonsense here?

He's already talking about is. ;)

Another Democrat who has discussed strategy with friends in the Obama inner circle said that Mr Obama was openly considering asking Mrs Clinton to join his cabinet, alongside two other former presidential rivals: John Edwards, who is seen as a likely attorney general; and Joe Biden, who is a leading contender to become Secretary of State.

Mr Obama hinted at the plan last week. “One of my heroes is Abraham Lincoln,” he said. “Lincoln basically pulled in all the people who had been running against him into his cabinet because whatever personal feelings there were, the issue was 'how can we get this country through this time of crisis?’ And I think that has to be the approach that one takes.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/democrats/2058907/US-Elections-Hillary-Clinton-to-be-offered-dignified-exit.html

Webb or Sebelius as VP. I'm leaning toward Webb if only because there's no way Sebelius or anyone else could deliver KS to Obama. VA is one of the places he'll need if his numbers in MI don't improve. I would also suggest...

Biden as Sec. of State
Nunn as NSA
Clark as DefSec
Edwards as AG
Clinton as HHS Sec
Richardson as either Interior or Energy Sec
Dodd as Treasury or Commerce Sec

What'd be really be in the spirit of Lincoln would be if, after beating McCain, he offered him Sec Def. Although Hagel would probably be a bettwe bipartisan bet.

Sebelius is perceived as very anti 2A. She vetoed Kansas CCW legislation. Obama is on record saying that he would ban nationwide all CCW. Now this very well could be due to his voter base (Illinois is very pro gun control), but it isn't good. With the Heller case comming due, gun rights issues will be forced into the spotlight like never before. Remember, G.H.W Bush's gun control helped cost him the election in 1992, and Clinton's gun control surely didn't help them in 1994. Voting records show quite clearly that nationwide gun control is a losing propsition. And here we have Obama, who's record clearly indicates a very anti-2A standpoint.

Obama can't dance around the bush forever. He needs to do something to counter his Anti-2A record. Richardson does this.

This is one reason like Webb or Hagel. Hagel especially draws the social cons, who dislike McCain.

We're here to help sell beer.

*whistles!*

Yo, I'll have an ice cold Asahi over here.

Whoever he picks, I don't think it should be Clinton. Clinton will be a back seat driver and will try to control the Obama's Presidency. Plus, we all know that during Bill's Presidency, the Clintons had some people killed. Do we really want a power hungry couple like the Clintons that close to the Presidency?

This is one reason like Webb or Hagel. Hagel especially draws the social cons, who dislike McCain.

You think social conservatives will vote Obama? "True" Conservatives bitch and moan, but they will vote for McCain.

Webb/Hagel don't have the pro-2A record that Richardson does. There are other reasons, of course, but Richardson is the best candidate. He brings Latinos, westerners, and gunowners on board. What's not to like?

we all know that during Bill's Presidency, the Clintons had some people killed
No, "we all" don't know any such thing. A few people here believe such things; the rest of us regard them as conspira-loons.

No, "we all" don't know any such thing. A few people here believe such things; the rest of us regard them as conspira-loons.

Please, Clinton just lost the primaries, and she's still not giving up. She's like the psycho ex from Hell who won't leave you alone after you've broken up.

Please, Clinton just lost the primaries, and she's still not giving up. She's like the psycho ex from Hell who won't leave you alone after you've broken up.
Yes, I have known such people, have even been such a person (or so one of my exes may view it), but you were making murder accusations, which is a quite different matter.

Please, Clinton just lost the primaries, and she's still not giving up. She's like the psycho ex from Hell who won't leave you alone after you've broken up.

Now she's going to stalk Obama for the rest of his life?:p

Yes, I have known such people, have even been such a person (or so one of my exes may view it), but you were making murder accusations, which is a quite different matter.

Now she's going to stalk Obama for the rest of his life?:p

What I'm saying is, Clinton obviously cannot handle defeat very well, and you know she's not going to forget the defeat in the '08 Democratic Primary. If she gets the VP slot, you know she's going to try to either control Obama or have him killed. Anything to redeem herself for the lost.

Whoever he picks, I don't think it should be Clinton. Clinton will be a back seat driver and will try to control the Obama's Presidency.

The best she can hope for now is the offer of HHS and her campaign debts paid off. And the longer she waits, the closer to the expiry date that offer comes.

You think social conservatives will vote Obama? "True" Conservatives bitch and moan, but they will vote for McCain.

Stranger things/alliances have happened.

What's not to like?

OK, here we go yet again. To make a long story, that I've been telling here for quite some time, short, my biggest impression of him as governor of NM is the racist pro-Latino/anti-Anglo BS he pulled off. Google up the problems at NMHU and Manny Aragon.

You think social conservatives will vote Obama? "True" Conservatives bitch and moan, but they will vote for McCain.

Social Conservatives are the most overrated group ever.

OK, I read all the information carefully, and I've been following this race from the beginning, AND I just read through the last 50 pages of the nomination thread. Just letting you know how dedicated I am. Plus, I feel that anybody who's just read 50 pages of hate deserves SOME recognition :p

Anyway, the key issues here are:
1) Obama must win.
2) Obama must win back Clinton supporters (it'll probably happen anyway, but still)
3) His VP must be able to perform the job of VP
4) He has to balance himself out; he is, after all, a young black leftie man
5) He has to stay true to his bipartisan message

For these reasons, I think he absolutely has to announce all the key positions in his cabinet. This will help him balance himself, get greater transparency in his candidacy, and will help heal the divisions, both within the Dems and across the US population as a whole.

Therefore, I think he needs the following:

VP: Sebelius. She's got experience, MAY help deliver Kansas (although that's unlikely its true) and will help silence the mainstream fears of sexism due to her genitalia. She also has a good history of working bipartisanly, which is important for Congress.

AG: Edwards, for all the reasons stated, plus it'd be hellzapoppin' fun to see him finally getting somewhere

SecState: This is more difficult. I'd love Richardson, for most of the reasons already stated but also because he has major foreign service experience. He would also glavanise the Latino vote, who probably would have voted for him anyway, but having him there would guarantee it.

HHS: Clinton is a very tempting choice. She tried to get her health reforms in during Bill's term, but failed. However, health was one of the few key issues where Obama and her differed even slightly. This is tricky then to promote her to this position, as it will be seen as a mere pacification of his fellow Dems. That's what it would be, of course, but if people start realising that openly then it could spell trouble.

I personally would prefer it if there was some health professional who went into politics was given this position, but that's mainly because I like people who know what the hell they're talking about when in high public offices.

As for the rest, I plead ignorant Australian.

I personally would prefer it if there was some health professional who went into politics was given this position, but that's mainly because I like people who know what the hell they're talking about when in high public offices.

The only Democrat I can think of with that kind of resumé is Howard Dean, who I doubt would give up being chair of the DNC.

The only Democrat I can think of with that kind of resumé is Howard Dean, who I doubt would give up being chair of the DNC.

Aye, I can see him being quite comfy where he is. Although he could probably do more if he was part of cabinet. Still, I can see why he would be... shall we say, reluctant.

Anyone know of anyone else who has that sorta skill and experience?

I'd prefer Richardson.
Or John Edwards, actually.

But if he doesn't pick Hillary he probably almost has to pick Kathleen Sebelius to placate all the women who are apparently so hung up on Hillary.

OK, I read all the information carefully, and I've been following this race from the beginning, AND I just read through the last 50 pages of the nomination thread. Just letting you know how dedicated I am. Plus, I feel that anybody who's just read 50 pages of hate deserves SOME recognition :p

*recognizes* :p

Aye, I can see him being quite comfy where he is. Although he could probably do more if he was part of cabinet. Still, I can see why he would be... shall we say, reluctant.

Anyone know of anyone else who has that sorta skill and experience?

Uhmmm off the top of my head Physicians in US polyticks: Jim McDermott (former USN Vietnam era P-doc - with the Pcases coming out of the current wars, a decent possibility?) , Vic Snyder (mmm... maybe), Ron Paul (interesting possibility - also a former military doc), Bill Frist (NO!)

Bill Frist (NO!)

Not a doctor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Frist#Schiavo_case)

I feel that anybody who's just read 50 pages of hate deserves SOME recognition :p

You poor thing. :fluffle:

My top pick would be Biden, as he has age, experience, and foreighn policy expertise. He might also, frankly, help bring in the older white vote. In short, he's strong everywhere Obama is supposed to be weak.

My second choice would be Richardson, given his experience in diplomacy and domestic politics, and also Obama's need to bring in Latino voters. But sadly, I think it would hurt Obama to have two minorities on one ticket. To many people would see it as an "affirmative action ticket," I suspect. In the end, I think I'd support him for a Cabinate post, probably Secretary of State.

Weasly Clark's an interesting option. I don't know much about him, but I've heard good things. He's a General isn't he, unless I'm thinking of the wrong person? If so, he would obviously adress Obama's lack of military experience, but then picking him might be too obvious a ploy, and besides, I don't think Obama should pander to those who think military experience is a prerequisite for national leadership. It kind of plays to MCcain's argument.

My top pick would be Biden, as he has age, experience, and foreighn policy expertise. He might also, frankly, help bring in the older white vote. In short, he's strong everywhere Obama is supposed to be weak.

My second choice would be Richardson, given his experience in diplomacy and domestic politics, and also Obama's need to bring in Latino voters. But sadly, I think it would hurt Obama to have two minorities on one ticket. To many people would see it as an "affirmative action ticket," I suspect. In the end, I think I'd support him for a Cabinate post, probably Secretary of State.

Weasly Clark's an interesting option. I don't know much about him, but I've heard good things. He's a General isn't he, unless I'm thinking of the wrong person? If so, he would obviously adress Obama's lack of military experience, but then picking him might be too obvious a ploy, and besides, I don't think Obama should pander to those who think military experience is a prerequisite for national leadership. It kind of plays to MCcain's argument.

Kathleen Sebelius might help with the "woman" thing, plus she's got some appeal in the redder states... Strickland might make Ohio a sure thing for Obama, but so might Sebelius...

I'm beginning to think Sebelius is a better choice than Strickland, whom I voted for in the poll. Ah well. Hey, if someone out there was gonna vote Strickland, wanna vote Sebelius so we can switch votes? ;)

Regardless, you also make good points, though Biden might be a tad, er... stale in the eyes of voters.

Richardson or Biden would be good choices, but would be better in his cabinet. I would think that his best choice would be John Edwards, to try and round up some white southern vote, if that is at all possible.

Richardson or Biden would be good choices, but would be better in his cabinet. I would think that his best choice would be John Edwards, to try and round up some white southern vote, if that is at all possible.

Force McCain to play defense on some extra states, maybe? Mmm...

Picking a Republican would be the best thing he could do. It would take away the GOP's most effective attack campaign, which is to paint Obama as an idealistic liberal loon.

Picking a Republican would be the best thing he could do. It would take away the GOP's most effective attack campaign, which is to paint Obama as an idealistic liberal loon.

Maybe so, but should anything happen to Obama we'd be stuck with another Republican.

Picking a Republican would be the best thing he could do. It would take away the GOP's most effective attack campaign, which is to paint Obama as an idealistic liberal loon.

I agree to an extent. If he did pick someone like Hillary (which everyone wants, in order to "unify" the party) it would only serve as the right wing smear of "they r t3h libruls"

I agree to an extent. If he did pick someone like Hillary (which everyone wants, in order to "unify" the party) it would only serve as the right wing smear of "they r t3h libruls"

Mind you, those aren't the only choices. Sebelius, Strickland and even Edwards, just to name a few, are nothing like Clinton...

If he did pick someone like Hillary...
She's pretty much one-of-a-kind.

Maybe so, but should anything happen to Obama we'd be stuck with another Republican.

Very true, but if it were a moderate Republican, that really wouldn't be so bad. After all, they're not all neo-cons or even social conservatives. I personally wouldn't mind a fiscal conservative, but can't bring myself to vote Republican because I find their social views pretty backwards.

Very true, but if it were a moderate Republican, that really wouldn't be so bad. After all, they're not all neo-cons or even social conservatives. I personally wouldn't mind a fiscal conservative, but can't bring myself to vote Republican because I find their social views pretty backwards.

I, personally, would still favor a Democrat...

I, personally, would still favor a Democrat...

Well sure, so would I. But I think a Republican running mate would pretty much make Obama an unstoppable force, and it'd be worth it to me.

Well sure, so would I. But I think a Republican running mate would pretty much make Obama an unstoppable force, and it'd be worth it to me.

I wonder if it actually WOULD, and I further wonder if nothing ELSE would. See? Then there's the issue of GETTING a Republican that will get in Obama's ticket and not try to hijack it.

I wonder if it actually WOULD, and I further wonder if nothing ELSE would. See? Then there's the issue of GETTING a Republican that will get in Obama's ticket and not try to hijack it.

Well, given it would take away the Repubs' most effective ammo, I think it would make a huge difference. But your point that something else may have a similar effect is a good one, though off hand I can't think of anything. If you have some ideas to throw out there, I'd love to hear them. (And I don't think getting a woman VP would do as much. It may unify the party, but it wouldn't win over moderates and undecideds the way a split ticket would.)

As for getting a Repub to be his VP, I don't think he'd have a problem. There are more reasonable people out there than we tend to think, and this goes for Repubs as well. If he got someone with a fairly small name, as is the case with those being mentioned, they'd probably just be happy to get on a ticket, and I'd be surprised if one of them tried to hijack it. I think the key to appreciating this tactic is realizing that, regardless of the vocal minority, a lot of Repubs are decent, moderate, reasonable people who are as tired of what goes on in DC as the lot of us liberals.

If he got someone with a fairly small name...
"Jeb Bush" is a really small name!

"Jeb Bush" is a really small name!

*Bah dum, Tssshhh*

I guess I should add in that the candidate in question should be able to spell said name, regardless of its size. ;)

The cold hard truth is, if he picks a Republican as his running mate, then the party of electoral fraud, torture, and repeated contempt of Congress(to name but a few crimes), is one bullet away from 4 more years.

Anyone who trusts in the GOP to abide by even the most basic laws or principles of Democracy is being extraordinarily trusting after the last eight years(that's the polite way to put it). Now I want to make it very clear that I am not saying MCcain would organize an attempted coup, but every party has its nut jobs, and the GOP attracts an unusualy high number of them. Besides, such things have happened in "democratic" countries before. We would be fools to think it could not happen again. Wasn't there even a planned coup against Rosevelt during the Depression era?

Work and pray for the best, but prepare for the worst. That's what I say.


PS: I also think its a bad move for conventional political reasons, in fact much more so than for the far-out concerns. I don't trust the Republicans, and neither do most Obama supporters I suspect. I think such a move would lose him more votes than it would gain. Do you really see hard core Republicans coming over? They'll just see any one on an Obama ticket as a traitor, and Fox will be quick to lable them a Democrat.:rolleyes: :headbang: Yes, I know I'm being cynical here. I hope I'm wrong, I really do.

Well, given it would take away the Repubs' most effective ammo, I think it would make a huge difference. But your point that something else may have a similar effect is a good one, though off hand I can't think of anything. If you have some ideas to throw out there, I'd love to hear them. (And I don't think getting a woman VP would do as much. It may unify the party, but it wouldn't win over moderates and undecideds the way a split ticket would.)

As for getting a Repub to be his VP, I don't think he'd have a problem. There are more reasonable people out there than we tend to think, and this goes for Repubs as well. If he got someone with a fairly small name, as is the case with those being mentioned, they'd probably just be happy to get on a ticket, and I'd be surprised if one of them tried to hijack it. I think the key to appreciating this tactic is realizing that, regardless of the vocal minority, a lot of Repubs are decent, moderate, reasonable people who are as tired of what goes on in DC as the lot of us liberals.

You know why I enjoy being on a different side of an issue from yours? You do it well. I don't have to use my moves against you. Indeed, I CAN'T, because you're good at arguing. And you don't infuriate me. You are quite polite.

Anyways, maybe nominating an independent? Outright nominating a Republican might seem like pandering and might throw off some Democrats. An independent, particularly one with some Military skill, on the other hand, might work as "across the aisle" without doing either. Painting McCain as too conservative would restrict his base then, and getting independents would be easier. What say you?

The cold hard truth is, if he picks a Republican as his running mate, then the party of electoral fraud, torture, and repeated contempt of Congress(to name but a few crimes), is one bullet away from 4 more years.

Anyone who trusts in the GOP to abide by even the most basic laws or principles of Democracy is being extraordinarily trusting after the last eight years(that's the polite way to put it). Now I want to make it very clear that I am not saying MCcain would organize an attempted coup, but every party has its nut jobs, and the GOP attracts an unusualy high number of them. Besides, such things have happened in "democratic" countries before. We would be fools to think it could not happen again. Wasn't there even a planned coup against Rosevelt during the Depression era?

Work and pray for the best, but prepare for the worst. That's what I say.


PS: I also think its a bad move for conventional political reasons, in fact much more so than for the far-out concerns. I don't trust the Republicans, and neither do most Obama supporters I suspect. I think such a move would lose him more votes than it would gain. Do you really see hard core Republicans coming over? They'll just see any one on an Obama ticket as a traitor, and Fox will be quick to lable them a Democrat.:rolleyes: :headbang: Yes, I know I'm being cynical here. I hope I'm wrong, I really do.

You oughtn't tar the entire party because of the actions of an inept president.

You oughtn't tar the entire party because of the actions of an inept president.

Well, has the Republican Party kicked Bush out yet?

Well, has the Republican Party kicked Bush out yet?

No, but they're not all evil. Just Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney... well the list goes on.

No, but they're not all evil. Just Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney... well the list goes on.

So, some Republicans tarnish the name of the other 1%?

Other way around I think. Though the percentile is probably higher.

They want church and state to be together. And that's most of them...

So, some Republicans tarnish the name of the other 1%?

Other way around I think. Though the percentile is probably higher.

The actions of one President who they voted back in after four years? The actions of the President who a significant chunk of them still support?

Besides, its hardly like Bush acted alone. He got as far as he did because initially, so much of the nation was behind him. Even some Democrats, who were fooled or bullied by fear or shock over 911.:mad:

In any case, Bush's views are hardly exclusive to him. The prefference of strength over freedom, the arrogant refusal to negotiate, the often unrestrained freedom of multinational corporations at the expense of ordinary people, and the religeously motivated bigotry he has displayed are all deeply ingrained in the Republican Party.

But just to be nice, I do still respect one Republican politician. Arnold Schwarzenegger. That's it.;):)

Well, now that Hillary Clinton is out, who do you think Obama should pick as VP?

Probably Clinton, just because she is still very popular among Democrats. Honestly, though, I'm not sure when the last time the vice-president choice made a difference in an election. It was one think when the Democrats had the South in their base, but now there's a fairly even societal split between the parties. I think a Texan Democrat would just as happily vote for a Pennsylvanian VP as a Georgian one.

Probably Clinton, just because she is still very popular among Democrats. Honestly, though, I'm not sure when the last time the vice-president choice made a difference in an election. It was one think when the Democrats had the South in their base, but now there's a fairly even societal split between the parties. I think a Texan Democrat would just as happily vote for a Pennsylvanian VP as a Georgian one.

Hillary would drive away independents...

Hillary would drive away independents...

I don't think so. The only die-hard Hilary-haters I know of are either Obama supporters or Republicans, and both groups have their minds made up on who they're voting for. You could be right--I don't know the national statistics--but from personal experience, I only know people who would be attracted to the ticket.

I don't think so. The only die-hard Hilary-haters I know of are either Obama supporters or Republicans, and both groups have their minds made up on who they're voting for. You could be right--I don't know the national statistics--but from personal experience, I only know people who would be attracted to the ticket.

Well, in this very forum there ARE some people who would bail...

Regardless, we'd have to see some statistics, you're right.

You know why I enjoy being on a different side of an issue from yours? You do it well. I don't have to use my moves against you. Indeed, I CAN'T, because you're good at arguing. And you don't infuriate me. You are quite polite.

Anyways, maybe nominating an independent? Outright nominating a Republican might seem like pandering and might throw off some Democrats. An independent, particularly one with some Military skill, on the other hand, might work as "across the aisle" without doing either. Painting McCain as too conservative would restrict his base then, and getting independents would be easier. What say you?

Thank you for the kind words. :)

An independent would certainly be an interesting idea, though it does unfortunately limit the field of applicants significantly. Another concern is that the views of Independents vary pretty widely, so you'd have to make sure he/she wasn't just a complete nut job.

But the more I think about it, the more I like the idea. I mean, nobody hates Independents, least of all moderates and...Independents. It would also enable the Obama camp to label McCain as too Conservative, or at least too curmudgeonly.

I volunteer you to research viable Independent candidates. ;)

Ron Paul should be Obama's VP.

Come on, you know that ticket would win.;)

Ron Paul should be Obama's VP.

Come on, you know that ticket would win.;)

There would be relatively few people he could choose for me to completely lose interest in voting for him; I think this could be one of them.

:p

Thank you for the kind words. :)

An independent would certainly be an interesting idea, though it does unfortunately limit the field of applicants significantly. Another concern is that the views of Independents vary pretty widely, so you'd have to make sure he/she wasn't just a complete nut job.

But the more I think about it, the more I like the idea. I mean, nobody hates Independents, least of all moderates and...Independents. It would also enable the Obama camp to label McCain as too Conservative, or at least too curmudgeonly.

I volunteer you to research viable Independent candidates. ;)

Well, given that I'm Brazilian and EVERYONE'S an Independent (regarding the American parties) in Brazil...

I propose myself! :D

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/04/carter-says-unity-ticket-would-be-worst-mistake/

(CNN) — A host of prominent Democrats are pushing for an Obama-Clinton unity ticket — but Jimmy Carter isn't one of them.

The former president, who publicly endorsed Barack Obama shortly before polls closed Tuesday in the final two primary states, told a London newspaper that a joint ticket between the two former rivals would be "the worst mistake that could be made."

"That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates," Carter told the Guardian, saying that both candidates' vulnerabilities could overshadow that the ticket if the two team up together.

"If you take that 50 percent who just don't want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don't think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he's got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds," he said.

Seems like Carter doesn't think a unity ticket (Obama/clinton) will succeed.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/04/carter-says-unity-ticket-would-be-worst-mistake/



Seems like Carter doesn't think a unity ticket (Obama/clinton) will succeed.

That's a bit like saying "A nuclear explosion can be somewhat inconvenient". The guy outright SAID it. :p

That's a bit like saying "A nuclear explosion can be somewhat inconvenient". The guy outright SAID it. :p

Um yea and so? My sentence was actually correct in grammetical sense. It is Carter's opinion.

Um yea and so? My sentence was actually correct in grammetical sense. It is Carter's opinion.

I was just saying you were making an understatement. A BIG one. ;)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/04/carter-says-unity-ticket-would-be-worst-mistake/



Seems like Carter doesn't think a unity ticket (Obama/clinton) will succeed.

It reminds me of the nightmare ticket (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/obama_clinton_mccain_join_forces):

WASHINGTON—Presidential hopefuls John McCain (R-AZ), Barack Obama (D-IL), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) announced Monday their plans to form what many Beltway observers have already dubbed the "2008 Nightmare Ticket," a calculated move that political analysts say offers voters the worst of both worlds.

How about David Cobb (http://www.ontheissues.org/David_Cobb.htm)?

Pretty liberal as a member of the Green party, but is not Republican or Democrat. Lots of experience, degree in law.

EDIT: Damn, it's friggin' hard to find viable candidates that don't belong to either party.

How about David Cobb (http://www.ontheissues.org/David_Cobb.htm)?

Pretty liberal as a member of the Green party, but is not Republican or Democrat. Lots of experience, degree in law.

EDIT: Damn, it's friggin' hard to find viable candidates that don't belong to either party.

Much as I'd love it if Dems could get away with a vice-president to their left, the way to make them electable would be either them or someone to their right...

Well, in this very forum there ARE some people who would bail...

Regardless, we'd have to see some statistics, you're right.

*raises hand*

Much as I'd love it if Dems could get away with a vice-president to their left, the way to make them electable would be either them or someone to their right...

Yeah, very true. But whooooooo? Apparenty, Independents are crazy fucks, for the most part. Or at least the ones who run for office.

Yeah, very true. But whooooooo? Apparenty, Independents are crazy fucks, for the most part. Or at least the ones who run for office.

What about Bloomberg? Assuming, of course, he acquiesces to a withdrawal from Iraq.

*raises hand*

*Hands TSA a QED pin*

How about David Cobb (http://www.ontheissues.org/David_Cobb.htm)?

Pretty liberal as a member of the Green party, but is not Republican or Democrat. Lots of experience, degree in law.

EDIT: Damn, it's friggin' hard to find viable candidates that don't belong to either party.

I don't think Obama's going to go for a third party or independent as his running mate. One thing Obama's never bothered to run on is the platform of representation for everyone, which would be required if he was going to try for a third party or independent running mate.

How sad it is that there are so very few viable candidates, but that's true simply because of how our system is set up. Practically anyone who's viable decides to burrow their way through the pre-established parties because it's so much easier.

I want to see a third party/independent President, but it would take someone of Obama's charisma or higher to even have a chance.

Mmm. Yeah, I, too, think Obama is more likely to pick a Democrat...

Mmm. Yeah, I, too, think Obama is more likely to pick a Democrat...

The last ticket to have two parties was the Lincoln/Johnson one. As divided as Americans are, I don't think we've reached 1864 levels, yet.

*Hands TSA a QED pin*

Woo I get a free pin!

eSwag FTW

This is what I said on the subject in the other thread.
The way out as I see it, and reasonable people can disagree, is for him to find a 'Cheney,' and I don't mean a shadowy sinister mastermind, I mean a Vice President not interested in the presidency. Clinton supporters aren't looking to the 'power of the Vice Presidency,' though we all know that she would build on Cheney's precedent of building the power of that office, they're concerned that if Obama has a good run, 2016 will go to Obama's VP. They still want her to be President if not now, later.

If Obama has a VP that isn't eying the office themselves that leaves the door open for her, especially if she has a powerful position in the party to rebuild some of that good will. Obama is not force fed a VP that the Republican's will paint as Obama's Ms. Daisy, Clinton has her clear shot to follow him. It's nuanced, it's a little bit of gamesmanship, but it's a solution.

This is what I said on the subject in the other thread.

mrs clintons only hope for the presidency now is if obama loses.

she is 60.

if obama wins now, he runs again automatically in '12.

in '12 she is 64.

if he wins re-election the country is less likely to want another 4 years of democratic rule in '16. win or lose, the '16 nomination likely goes to his vp from this term. if that guy isnt interested in the presidency, its completely up for grabs

but in '16 she is 68. she is not only too old but she is past her "sell-by date". she would have been running for president too long for anyone to take her seriously.

if obama loses now she is the "candidate who should have been" in '12 and she might well be able to get the nomination. not that we can know who might come from out of nowhere like obama did to take it away from her but it is her only real chance.

mrs clintons only hope for the presidency now is if obama loses.

she is 60.

if obama wins now, he runs again automatically in '12.

in '12 she is 64.

if he wins re-election the country is less likely to want another 4 years of democratic rule in '16. win or lose, the '16 nomination likely goes to his vp from this term. if that guy isnt interested in the presidency, its completely up for grabs

but in '16 she is 68. she is not only too old but she is past her "sell-by date". she would have been running for president too long for anyone to take her seriously.

if obama loses now she is the "candidate who should have been" in '12 and she might well be able to get the nomination. not that we can know who might come from out of nowhere like obama did to take it away from her but it is her only real chance.McCain is 71, and women live longer.

If Obama picks a VP that isn't interested in the presidency then that leaves her open for the run in 2016. If she spends the next eight years building the party, she has a real chance in 2016. After 8 years of Reagan they still elected HW, and arguably elected or came very close to electing Gore after 8 years of Clinton. Now of course those were both VPs (it's not sure fire lock that after 8 years of Bush we won't elect a McCain), but presuming Obama is the president we hope he will be there's every chance a Democrat will fair well in 2016.

It's a path to the presidency for her that doesn't rely on cynicism or pessimism.

McCain is 71, and women live longer.

If Obama picks a VP that isn't interested in the presidency then that leaves her open for the run in 2016. If she spends the next eight years building the party, she has a real chance in 2016. After 8 years of Reagan they still elected HW, and arguably elected or came very close to electing Gore after 8 years of Clinton. Now of course those were both VPs (it's not sure fire lock that after 8 years of Bush we won't elect a McCain), but presuming Obama is the president we hope he will be there's every chance a Democrat will fair well in 2016.

It's a path to the presidency for her that doesn't rely on cynicism or pessimism.


mccain isnt going to be elected. he is already looking worn out and he has been "on vacation" for the past few months. whats going to happen to him when he has to campaign every damned day to keep up with obama. if he manages to get elected (because obama blows it somehow) his age will be a serious problem. as it was for ronald reagan.

clinton will have missed her window of opportunity by '16. she will be a has been loser who has been in the sales window too long. if she is the VP now she will have the nomination in '16 but its rare for the country to want the same party in power for 12 years.

if she should be vp candidate this year and they lose, she will be in the same position in '12 as edwards now--the losing candidate who couldnt even beat the guy who couldnt win the presidency.

besides, people are rather unreliable when it comes to saying that they dont want the presidency in the future. when gerald ford was chosen for nixon's replacement vp it was understood that he wasnt going to run for the presidency at the end of nixon's second term. he ran in '76.

and while it might give her a path to the presidency in the future, why would obama give any consideration to that when he needs to pick someone who will help him get elected now?

and while it might give her a path to the presidency in the future, why would obama give any consideration to that when he needs to pick someone who will help him get elected now?

Largely because a big pack of rabid supporters are threatening to burn the building down if he doesn't, so he has to find some middle ground that gives them at least what they think they want while allowing him to shape his own presidency.

She still has to work the next 8 years and if she stales, she stales. If they're not interested in 8 years, they're not. If she's the fighter they think she is, then she can overcome it. If the VP changes his mind, then thats her hurdle in 2016.

It's an compromise, and it requires that she do a lot of work, but leaves the door open for her without putting Obama in a vice.

Clinton of course would be the dream. And I say-why not go for it? As long as Bill Clinton isn't a pest, she could take care of all the details and he could be Mr. Inspiring.

Clinton of course would be the dream. And I say-why not go for it? As long as Bill Clinton isn't a pest, she could take care of all the details and he could be Mr. Inspiring.

That's exactly what everyone is afraid of.

As I said in the other thread, after all the personal shots that the Clintons have taken against Obama, there is no way in hell that Obama or his wife are about to have the Clintons on board, traveling across the country.

Besides, she gives Republicans far too much ammo. I don't have all that many bad things to say about Obama. In a non-political way, I respect the way he carries himself and has went about his campaign, even if I disagree with his stance. Clinton on the other hand, oh my, I could rant for days.

I don't think Obama's going to go for a third party or independent as his running mate. One thing Obama's never bothered to run on is the platform of representation for everyone, which would be required if he was going to try for a third party or independent running mate.

How sad it is that there are so very few viable candidates, but that's true simply because of how our system is set up. Practically anyone who's viable decides to burrow their way through the pre-established parties because it's so much easier.

I want to see a third party/independent President, but it would take someone of Obama's charisma or higher to even have a chance.

Obama actually regularly talks about being Americans first. It's been said that he has been urged by certain advisors to attack more and that he has refused as it undermines his message of being willing to argue with opponents on issues rather than demonize.

Obama actually regularly talks about being Americans first. It's been said that he has been urged by certain advisors to attack more and that he has refused as it undermines his message of being willing to argue with opponents on issues rather than demonize.

Oh does he now?

Hmm...

In that case...you think it's a maybe on the independent/third party choice?

I simple wont support Obama unless he chooses Hillary as his running mate.

Obama should pick me as his VP or else I'm not voting for him

Well, now that Hillary Clinton is out, who do you think Obama should pick as VP?

Using an article to help, and with the limited choices in the poll here...



These are the likely choices...

Kaine or Biden. Then maybe Webb

I simple wont support Obama unless he chooses Hillary as his running mate.

More people won't IF he does. So yeah.

I think they could work together though to be honest. Besides, he falls right in line with Obama's message of going across the aisle and being American's 1st.

If Barack's gonna cross party lines, though I'm sure he won't, I'd want Colin Powell, my absolute favorite Republican, he's in the military and foreign affairs know and since he's pretty moderate I could see them working together well. However, I could also see a lot of the Republicans as hesitant to support him because he's neither white, a silver-spoon baby, or a neocon drone, and could see him supporting Obama as a move that totally diminishing any influence he has within the Republican Party.

But whatever, I just think Powell's awesome and want him to run for something.

RON PAUL!!!!!!:) :) :)






...just kidding

More people won't IF he does. So yeah.

*raises hand again*

Can I get a pen this time?

Oh, and how about me for VP? I'm conservativeish, people like me, and I'm white. All pluses for Barack.

*raises hand again*

Can I get a pen this time?

Oh, and how about me for VP? I'm conservativeish, people like me, and I'm white. All pluses for Barack.

Gives TSI a Pen2.

http://omoikane.as.arizona.edu/~enielsen/animenight/PenPen.JPG

Gives TSI a Pen2.

Better than a PEN15

Better than a PEN15

I got a few of those from grandma at christmas.

Anybody
But
Clinton
CLINTON:

Absolutely

Best

Choice

*To the tune of "The Internet is for Porn"*

We're here to help sell beer!
We're here to help sell beer!
I don't think it is too queer
For that is why we're here!

Did it work?
*whistles!*

Yo, I'll have an ice cold Asahi over here.
You piss me off. Just a bunch of punk junkies from New York. Don't get smart. It's a local Boston Band thing.
I don't know how much more obvious I can make it.

Obama's choice for VP should be obvious. Jesse Jackson, the emperor of black people.

besides, people are rather unreliable when it comes to saying that they dont want the presidency in the future. when gerald ford was chosen for nixon's replacement vp it was understood that he wasnt going to run for the presidency at the end of nixon's second term. he ran in '76.

Even Hillary said she was not going to run for the President and look where we are today.

I simple wont support Obama unless he chooses Hillary as his running mate.

And I won't be supporting Obama if Hillary IS his running mate.

CLINTON:

Absolutely

Best

Choice

CLINTON:

Absolutely
Worst
Choice

GUM:

Already
Been
Chewed.

Edwards or Pelosi. Obviously, a Latina would have been perfect, but he can't fine one, so there we go.

Edwards or Pelosi. Obviously, a Latina would have been perfect, but he can't fine one, so there we go.
Edwards couldn't even win the primary in the State that he was senator for (South Carolina), and didn't help Kerry in 2004.

Pelosi doesn't hold a candle to Clinton.

Edwards or Pelosi. Obviously, a Latina would have been perfect, but he can't fine one, so there we go.

Bill Richardson? Then Haratio Sans can return to SNL and do Bill Richardson impersonations. Because that's a good reason to select a VP...who can play them on SNL...right? Oh...right...

thread = tl;dr

anybody toss out brian schweitzer somewhere in here?

Bill Richardson? Then Haratio Sans can return to SNL and do Bill Richardson impersonations. Because that's a good reason to select a VP...who can play them on SNL...right? Oh...right...

That would be the only good part about having Clinton as VP. How much fun SNL could have with that.

thread = tl;dr

anybody toss out brian schweitzer somewhere in here?

This guy I like more than the rest, but that's not saying much. He's pro-gun no? And at least with him on the ticket, negates the 'EXPERIENCE NONE' card I think.

Also turning Montana blue? Possibility? I only just started following the campaign.

This guy I like more than the rest, but that's not saying much. He's pro-gun no? And at least with him on the ticket, negates the 'EXPERIENCE NONE' card I think.

Also turning Montana blue? Possibility? I only just started following the campaign.

the major strategic downside of taking him on board is that the mt state gov will almost certainly swing entirely back to the repubs (his lt governor is a repub, and the senate only has the dems up by 1). and mountain west republicans are just the slightest bit utterly fucking nuts.