home

Who Should Clinton Or Obama Choose As VP?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:13:16 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Just to lighten things up a bit, let's start a pointless irrelevant thread -- who should Obama or Clinton pick as their VPs?

I am on record that Clinton has no real choice here - Barack Obama would almost have to be her VP choice, and yes, he would accept it.

For Obama, the choice is murkier. I do not think Clinton would be a good choice but you can not rule it out. I am no fan of these drab choices like Sebelius, the Governor of Kansas. If it was my choice for Obama, I would pick Jim Webb. Webb can be tough and yet still fits in with Obama's unity message. Indeed, he could give Obama a real way to merge his unity message with a partisan fighting edge. It is something he needs.

How about you folks? Who would you pick?

< Wednesday Open Thread | John Edwards Withdrawal Speech >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Who Should Clinton Or Obama Choose As VP? | 189 comments (189 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Wes Clark (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by trillian on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:41:57 AM EST
    Especially if McCain wins out.

    I agree (none / 0) (#100)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:08:41 PM EST
    Especially if it is McCain and if Iraq and Afghanistan are still dicey. Like they won't be. Remember Clark was not only NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, he also oversaw the Bosnia peacekeeping operation, which went a heck of a lot better than what we have managed in Iraq. He was also an advisor to the diplomatic team that brokered the peace agreement.
    He is from Arkansas, but then Gore was from Tennessee the state next door. Clinton picked him for his ability, not because he would balance his ticket geographically. Clark might be her choice as Secretary of Defense, but that might be a problem since our military is supposed to be under civilian control.
    Contrast that to what Tim Russert was salivating over last night. He was gleefully explaining that Huckabee is staying in the race to help McCain who will then choose him for VP. Good grief! If this is true, McCain will not only have that mean spirited free market fanatic Phil Gramm on his team, he will also have the crackpot Huckabee. Talk about doing anything to get elected instead of what is best for America.

    Parent
    Clark can't be SecDef (none / 0) (#159)
    by sef on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:27:15 PM EST
    My understanding of federal law (which is quite limited in this area) is that retired flag officers can not be SecDef.  Clark must either be Veep or some position other than SecDef in a Clinton Administration

    Parent
    So which is it (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by po on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:48:44 AM EST
    I don't understand Webb as a VP choice.  Besides his stance on Iraq (which meshes with Obama's), what does he bring to the table?  It doesn't seem like it's change and I'm not certain that he's much of a unifier in the way I'd like to see unity.

    For Obama, Webb would provide (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by byteb on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:05:55 PM EST
    military and war experience that would negate some of that miliary aura that McCain has and Webb might attract Republicans who are no longer fans of the Iraq war but are wary of backing Obama who has no experience in war and military matters. Plus, Webb is articulate, forceful and articulate.

    Parent
    yikes, strike that double articulate (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by byteb on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:07:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Speaking of articulate (none / 0) (#148)
    by e40 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:07:26 PM EST
    Isn't it a crazy world we live in that if Webb was black, you probably would have self censored yourself on even one use of "articulate"?

    Btw, I agree with you about Webb.  I think he'd be a good choice.


    Parent

    Re: (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:50:43 AM EST
    Webb does not seem at all to have the right personality for a #2 job.

    I would really love to see Wes Clark in that job to provide national security cred.

    Joe Biden would be a fabulous attack dog, and good on foreign policy, but you can't really run an attack-dog campaign against John McCain.

    I don't see Biden as an attack dog (none / 0) (#102)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:10:02 PM EST


    Parent
    Re: (none / 0) (#116)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:26:32 PM EST
    Think about, for example, the way he used to spontaneously rip into Giuliani in the debates.

    Parent
    Biden (none / 0) (#125)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:36:06 PM EST
    could totally be one...noit sure he would want to.

    Parent
    I Agree: Wes Clark (none / 0) (#136)
    by felizarte on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:50:07 PM EST
    he is national security strong; commanded the Kosovo forces without losing single soldier; and he is bright; versed in foreign relations and a Hillary supporter from the outset.  He complements Hillary well.

    It's probably not going to be Obama; he will take away too much focus on Hillary (if she is the nominee).

    Edwards is another possibility, but he might not accept another second slot.  

    Parent

    The problem I have with Clark and Biden... (none / 0) (#149)
    by e40 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:09:04 PM EST
    is that they've been through  this before and the voters rejected them.  I think Obama needs a new face, one that people haven't seen on a national level yet.


    Parent
    If Hilary wins only Obama (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Saul on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:56:33 AM EST
    will do.  No other black will satisfy the Obama supporter.  If Obama wins he would need to pick a woman VP so as not to alienate the woman vote who wanted Hilary as the first woman president.  Hilary would not accept the VP if offered to Hilary.  Who that woman could be I do not know.

    woman VP (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by tek on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:07:42 AM EST
    You're wrong. Women aren't voting for Clinton because she's a woman, we're voting for her because she's a strong leader with ideas that can save this country. If Obama put some insipid woman like McCaskill on the ticket, it would hurt him.

    Parent
    FISA (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by magster on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:30:31 AM EST
    Turns out she's just another Blue Dog

    Parent
    Jury Is Really Out On That IMO (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:19:45 PM EST
    Voting to support the Republican agenda on Iraq and FISA is a real turn off to me as one of her constituents.

    Her current approval rate in MO is 49%  vs 43% disapproval.

    Not sure I agree with your assessment, but would love to see how you came to your conclusions.

    Parent

    Real Gracious Woman? (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:48:42 PM EST
    Yesterday, October 8, 2006, on Meet the Press Claire McCaskill gets honest about Bill Clinton:

    
Tim Russert: "You had Bill Clinton come in and raise money for you, do you think Bill Clinton is a great President?

    Claire McCaskill: "I do. I have a lot of problems with some of his personal issues. I said at the time, I think he's been a great leader but I don't want my daughter near him." Video and transcript

    An ex-president of your party comes in and raises money for you and you thank him by unnecessarily depicting him as some sexual pervert on national TV in order to pander to the religous right.

    My mama didn't raise me to believe that type of behavior was a sign of a gracious lady.


    Parent

    ouch (none / 0) (#94)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:52:06 PM EST
    that is pretty nasty.

    Parent
    When will Democrats learn? (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:13:07 PM EST
    We are our own worst enemies. We have that circular firing squad down pat.

    Parent
    wow (none / 0) (#109)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:21:19 PM EST
    what a horrible thing to say.

    Parent
    she is so not ready for the national (none / 0) (#130)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:41:32 PM EST
    stage!

    Parent
    Mcskill (none / 0) (#22)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:02:54 AM EST
    She fawns all over him.

    Parent
    Fawning Is Not One Of The Qualifications That (none / 0) (#90)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:27:06 PM EST
    would endear me to a VP candidate. What Claire playing the role of Condi or Harriet Meiers (sp?) to Obama?  {shudder, gag}

    I thnk a ticket of Obama/McCaskill could actually be the one thing that would keep me in my chair with my wallet closed until election day.

     

    Parent

    Stella (none / 0) (#95)
    by Kathy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:56:08 PM EST
    wow, you are right about the fawning.  She looks at him almost worshipfully.  The ads down here in Georgia are really strange (and no one knows who she is, so it's even weirder).

    Why are folks so sure Obama would say yes to Hillary?

    I wouldn't say yes to him if I were her because she has much more power as a senator.

    Parent

    Webb??? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by JHFarr on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:03:22 AM EST
    He hasn't done SQUAT in two years. To hell with Webb.

    Well, he did show up and pound the (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:53:56 AM EST
    gavel so Bush couldn't make anymore God foresaken recess appointments.  His votes though.....I'm not happy with his votes or his support of the troops as a sitting Senator!  He's done a really poor job there.

    Parent
    Webb (none / 0) (#105)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:14:08 PM EST
    Is a bit of a loose cannon. I like him, but I can't see him being someones supporting man.

    Parent
    I Think Wes Clark Would Be A Good (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:06:20 AM EST
    VP choice for either Clinton or Obama.

    Somehow, I don't see a Clinton/Obama ticket. But what do I know.

    Due to Obama's perceived lack of experience, he needs to chose someone who can round out that portion of the ticket.

    Webb IMO should stay in the Senate. Risking that hard won Senate seat would be a mistake. Also, IIRC Webb was not a great campaigner.

    clark (none / 0) (#27)
    by tek on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:08:58 AM EST
    I love Wes Clark, but he did not do well at all when he ran.

    Clinton should pick Al Gore. Get Gore back in the political cycle, then he'll be president next.

    Parent

    Al Gore... (none / 0) (#35)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:23:01 AM EST
    Haha...

    Right... do you really think that Al Gore would a, be interested being a vice president again and b, be interested in being Clinton's VP?

    That is funny...

    If Al Gore was interested in getting back into politics, he would have run for President.

    Parent

    Can't For The Life Of Me See Where Gore (none / 0) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:02:31 PM EST
    would be willing to be VP for anyone. IMO he turned a real good chance of being the Dem nominee for president. If he turned down that opportunity, no way IMO would he agree to be VP candidate.

    Parent
    He has gotten better (none / 0) (#108)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:19:13 PM EST
    The media kept dissing him because he was not a politician. Then they diss Hillary for being....you got it, A POLITICIAN!!
    As VP for Hillary Clark would not have to run his own campaign. He is a big supporter of hers, too. He did consider another run,this time but decided against it. I have had a feeling she made a deal with him to have him in her administration.
    However, I am not sure that would be as VP, although I would love that. The more I think about it the more I think he may be Secretary of State if she wins.

    Parent
    Wes Clark was no flash in the pan (none / 0) (#192)
    by hairspray on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:35:27 AM EST
    By mid-Jan 04, he was closing real fast on Dean in NH, and leading Dean in all the Southern states, and most of those in the west. The talking heads were just starting to question whether Dean might not have the nomination sewn up already after all.   Clark raised more money than anyone except Dean in the 4th quarter of 2003, and he did well enough in the first half of Jan 04 that he ended up raising more than even Dean for the month as a whole.  However, once Kerry took the Iowa caucuses and Clark wasn't even there, it was Kerry "momentum" all the way.

    Parent
    obama asked clark to (none / 0) (#131)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:43:09 PM EST
    disavow his support for hillary for the #2 position and was refused. i don't have the article i saw that in for support. sorry!

    Parent
    And for Clinton? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:27:24 AM EST
    Come on BTD........Wes Clark.  Especially if they have to run against McCain.

    Gotta be Obama now (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:33:12 AM EST


    Parent
    Disagree about (none / 0) (#52)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:37:59 AM EST
    "gotta be Obama" BTD as he carries a negativity now that he didnt have before....and that would make two negatives on the ticket, a woman and a black....Can't see it....

    Parent
    Only a negativity to Clinton supporters (none / 0) (#58)
    by magster on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:42:34 AM EST
    Clinton will need his sway with youth vote and African-Americans.  

    Parent
    Clinton (none / 0) (#65)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:50:41 AM EST
    already attracts 25% of the black vote and with this Rezko thing starting the trial on Feb 25th there is no way he can be on the ticket...The hint of scandal with an arab business man would be foolish for Clinton to elect to deal with .....the republicans would chew them up....

    Parent
    stop (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:18:30 PM EST
    that would make two negatives on the ticket, a woman and a black

    First off it is poor form to refer to someone who is black as a black
    just like you don't refer to someone as a white or a brown

    second are you seriously making the argument that being a woman or African American is a negative?


    The hint of scandal with an arab business man

    Well then the "scandal" with Clinton Library not releasing its donors some oh whom happen to be arab going to destroy Hillary.  

    ohh and FYI in the general if you use blatantly toilette politics, against McCain. Mr media darling/war hero, and aren't at least smart enough to be inconspicuous about them, they will seriously backfire..

    Parent

    trust me (none / 0) (#88)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:24:17 PM EST
    being a woman is equally a negative in politics as a black maybe more so...One black female politican said that she always experienced more discrimination as a female than as a black...

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#146)
    by HeadScratcher on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 02:39:19 PM EST
    Considering there are 10x the number of women in the Senate than blacks, as well as the house, and governorships, etc...

    Parent
    I doubt that Obama supporters (none / 0) (#160)
    by felizarte on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:35:57 PM EST
    will vote republican if nominee is Hillary. Can you just imagine the Obama clips attacking Hillary being used by the republicans in the general elections?

    Parent
    Ummm.... (none / 0) (#161)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:40:09 PM EST
    ... it goes both ways.

    You do know that Clinton has attacked Obama too, right?

    Parent

    It's not a question of who they vote for (none / 0) (#167)
    by magster on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:22:47 PM EST
    it's whether they vote.

    Parent
    I see what BTD is talking about (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:47:58 AM EST
    And when you have two front runners running this neck and neck the two together cha ching.  And Obama is young and most of those who complain about Obama (like me) say he isn't ready to be President yet.  The two together on the same ticket would leave any and all Repubs in the dust to include McCain whether I like it or not ;)  Clinton and Obama as pols and candidates are so personally powerful that they don't project much about themselves pertaining to gender or race. Those issues only seem to matter to idiots attempting to analyze them and get some small firecracker notice for their analysis.  It's funny that the actual issues that have rose about race and gender have stirred up nothing other than people saying KNOCK IT OFF!

    Parent
    More than that (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:53:09 AM EST
    The Media could not then ignore the historic nature of the Dem ticket and hopefully some of Obama's Media Darling status would rub off on Clinton.

    Parent
    people like me (none / 0) (#75)
    by commissar on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:13:24 PM EST
    could more easily resist the pull to McCain, if Obama were to be Hillary's VP.

    And if they won, Obama could be promptly dispatched to Dick Cheney's "secure, undisclosed location."

    Parent

    Hell no....send him off to (none / 0) (#134)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:48:00 PM EST
    Africa with Bill Clinton...and Asia...and Europe and Palestine and Israel and ... get our mojo back.

    Parent
    I don't know if those three outsized (none / 0) (#80)
    by byteb on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:18:37 PM EST
    egos could coexist. Hillary, Bill and Obama. They really don't like each other either.

    Parent
    Do not believe any of that (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:23:36 PM EST
    I do not believe that for a second. They are grownups in a political race.

    Parent
    maybe...I was just thinking of JFK and LBJ (none / 0) (#92)
    by byteb on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:38:54 PM EST
    huge egos and not political best buds by any means

    Parent
    Re: (none / 0) (#99)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:07:00 PM EST
    Roosevelt didn't even tell Truman about the bomb!  They barely said a word to each other.

    Parent
    i read one article that stated the (none / 0) (#132)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:45:10 PM EST
    belief that hillary might invite him on the ticket and then lock the doors of the wh. it was made as a jest. but

    Parent
    Yer breakin my heart man ;) (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:38:01 AM EST


    Parent
    Okay, Wes can be Sec of Defense then (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:38:53 AM EST
    I suppose it isn't like his services aren't needed there ;)

    Parent
    He'll be a key man in a Clinton Admin (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:51:43 AM EST
    Hopefully in an Obama Admin too. He is close to Samantha Power.

    Parent
    Obama? (none / 0) (#145)
    by HeadScratcher on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 02:37:44 PM EST
    If you think Sen. Clinton will pick Sen. Obama as a running mate then you do not understand the Clintons.

    Parent
    Condi (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by buhdydharma on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:31:40 AM EST
    The obvious post-partisan choice.

    But seriously, my heart says Edwards, but my brain says Clark...Richardson would be good except for the  whole anti-charismatic thing.

    I'll go with Clark as my official choice

    gravel hasn't dropped out! (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Turkana on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:18:10 PM EST
    i think he should pick mcgovern!

    I'm surprised (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by magster on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:21:42 PM EST
    Biden has not been mentioned more in this thread. I thought he left the race very personally popular, and he showed a good ability to be a good attack dog and debater for the Dem ticket.

    actually biden longs for sec or state! (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:54:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Biden & Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by delandjim on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:27:18 AM EST
    Biden and Clinton were pretty buddy buddy at the sotu. Looked nice.

    Parent
    And has said NO to veep.. (none / 0) (#142)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:59:03 PM EST
    ...sat with Hillary at the SOTU

    Parent
    yup, i noticed that as well along with (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:00:17 PM EST
    that mean stare from obama.

    Parent
    Other arguments (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by koshembos on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:23:58 PM EST
    Obama for VP solves a major Democratic problem. His people will not show up to vote if Clinton wins and he is not around. A cult is a cult. The major drawback of Clinton/Obama is the combined Hillary/Woman/Black factor the Republicans are salivating for.

    As for Obama, Webb seems a great choice. Wes Clack is as well. Obama should have been worried about the lefties, but most lefties already assumed the position (left RIP). No need to appease us Edwards supporters after all.

    Re: (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:09:21 PM EST
    I would have thought it obviously, but Obama does not need MORE unity and centrism.

    Obama needs to get right with the mainstream Democratic party the same way McCain needs to get right with conservatives.  This is why George HW Bush needed Quayle - hopefully we will improve the standard a bit.

    Yes, give them hell! (none / 0) (#179)
    by ghost2 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:04:55 PM EST
    Why not?? Just make it a ticket, and tell those who have a problem with it to buzzer off!!

    Honestly, it could give enough of a shock to the nation that it may work.  

    Remember, a big enemy is the media.  You neutralize the media, you are 3/4 of the way there.

    Parent

    You know... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Kathy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:31:55 PM EST
    I am just seeing all these folks I gave a lot of money to during the last election cycle who are coming out and making as*es of themselves as they fall all over Obama, and I can't help but feel mad and never want to give again.  They should've just kept their mouths shut and let it play out like Edwards seems to be doing.  His speech was wonderful (as usual) and he kept bringing everything back to the democratic party instead of one candidate.  That's what we need--people who support the party, not people who support a particular person.

    Re: Edwards (none / 0) (#180)
    by ghost2 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:06:35 PM EST
    Yes, his quotes were very classy.  Good for him.  That's the way to do it.  


    Parent
    Webb (none / 0) (#1)
    by bob h on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:17:54 AM EST
    would be the best choice in either case.  He is pugnacious, articulate, and combative, and would hand the truculent McCain his head.

    While O would accept a VP slot, there is no way Hillary would.

    Webb for Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:23:12 AM EST
    I can never imagine any Republican that can shine more than Webb. Obama would have to choose someone who will do the work since he will be doing the speeches. Sort of a Cheney to Bush relationship. A technocrat who will not mind being the front guy and will not have designs for the presidency in 8 years.

    Parent
    Webb was such a hard fought victory (4.66 / 3) (#8)
    by magster on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:29:16 AM EST
    I'd hate for Virginia to turn red in the future without Webb in that Senate seat.  Does Virginia have special elections to replace a Senate seat, or is a replacement appointed the rest of the term?

    Parent
    Oh fun! (none / 0) (#2)
    by magster on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:18:35 AM EST
    In order

    Clinton: Obama, Wes Clark (assuming McCain wins), Biden, Bill Clinton

    Obama: Biden, Clinton, Napalitano, Wes Clark

    Random thoughts: Edwards for AG, Sec'y of Commerce, World Bank, or Supreme Court.

    Obama or Clinton for Supreme Court.

    veep (none / 0) (#28)
    by tek on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:10:25 AM EST
    Bill Clinton cannot be VP, it's unConstitutional, already had that discussion when Kerry ran.

    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#37)
    by magster on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:25:09 AM EST
    It was tongue in cheek.

    Parent
    Not unconstitutional (none / 0) (#168)
    by DaveOinSF on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:49:12 PM EST
    Amendment XXII doesn't restrict elegibility to the office of president, just elegibility to be elected president

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901572.html

    Parent

    Webb is good... (none / 0) (#3)
    by mike in dc on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:18:57 AM EST
    ...and my shortlist would include:
    Richardson(latino appeal, plus lots of experience)
    Boxer(risky, but would do well in the traditional "attack dog" role)
    Dodd or Biden(a little boring, perhaps, but another guy with solid experience)

    drawing a blank on suitable governors...

    I like an Obama/Richardson ticket (none / 0) (#74)
    by byteb on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:12:02 PM EST


    Parent
    NO! (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:21:26 PM EST
    Richardson has great qualifications but he is terrible in debates. He comes across as full of himself.


    Parent
    nah (none / 0) (#113)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:24:18 PM EST
    he came across great...nice man.

    Parent
    Too bad Ann Richads is no longer with us (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:22:14 AM EST
    I think she would have made a fabulous Veep.

    You should come visit Austin (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:24:43 AM EST
    so you can use the Anne Richards Congress Avenue Bridge, to cross Ladybird Lake.

    Parent
    Ladybird Lake (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:26:16 AM EST
    which is of course fronted by Caesar Chavez Blvd. ahh liberal nomenclature!

    Parent
    All we need here to be complete (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by RalphB on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:51:10 AM EST
    is Molly Ivins Blvd  :-)

    Parent
    Ohh Maybe (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:29:56 AM EST
    She lived in Travis Heights, they should name a street after her in her neighborhood. Alameda? maybe it is the main street through their. :-P

    Parent
    Gotta love (none / 0) (#25)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:06:25 AM EST
    those earmarks.

    Parent
    No earmarks (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:34:47 AM EST
    they just renamed them, they were already built, renamed.

    Parent
    I completely agree (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:36:48 AM EST
    with you for both.

    Webb (none / 0) (#10)
    by xjt on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:39:17 AM EST
    Webb for Clinton. I suppose she could pick Obama if she thinks it'll help with turnout but I'd rather see Jim Webb, particularly if we go against McCain.

    For Obama, Edwards or Webb.

    Obama (none / 0) (#98)
    by Kathy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:03:35 PM EST
    doesn't look like he'll take it.  I don't know if this is true, but there are reports that Clinton's team asked Obama to sit with her at the SOTU, and they said no.  

    Even if that's not true, I still don't see him taking it.  He can drop back in the senate, actually do something, then run again.

    Parent

    I wouldn't honestly think he would refuse Clinton (none / 0) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:15:51 PM EST
    if she's the nominee and he really has designs on the presidency because if she has a good presidency he's the shoo in for the next eight years.  The VP almost always gets the party nod and strong support for their presidential run.  Clinton is very likely to have as successsful a presidency as her popular husband.  Whoever her VP is if she's the nominee is likely to inhabit the oval office next so long as she doesn't have any affairs with her staff and the VP is strong on their own campaign trail ;)

    Parent
    MT, I agree with all you are saying (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Kathy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:28:55 PM EST
    but I have seen nothing in this race that makes me think Obama would drop his ego enough to take second place.

    Now, having said that, they ALL have egos, so I don't mean this as a personal attack.  I just mean it is what it is.  I wouldn't expect Clinton to take second to him, either.

    Parent

    On that ego thing, you might be right ;) (none / 0) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:37:11 PM EST


    Parent
    i have heard it said time and again (none / 0) (#135)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:48:07 PM EST
    on tv and written word that when and if the veep is offered, one doesn't say no. being that close to wh is just too tempting.

    Parent
    This was reported by Time (none / 0) (#117)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:27:15 PM EST
    Mark Halperin reported this. He is extremely well connected so I would bet it is true. Obama seems to be putting his own ego over the unity of his party. He needs to grow up and learn that this really is not about him.

    http://thepage.time.com/2008/01/29/the-snub-before-the-snub/

    Parent

    something about that report doesn't ring true. (none / 0) (#123)
    by byteb on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:34:14 PM EST
    plus, Mark Halperin isn't exactly an oracle of any degree

    Parent
    Michael Easley (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:39:47 AM EST
    A little too law and order for me but would be a great voice for the red states in either administration.

    I think Edwards should be the AG for whoever wins.

    Bredesen in Tennesse would be my second...  

    Webb would be good (none / 0) (#13)
    by baked potato on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:42:45 AM EST
    as Obama's running mate.  On the other hand, along the lines of his centrist/unity message, maybe he should ask Schwarzenegger, and maybe Arnold would accept.  Hey, it would be better than Lieberman!

    Think Webb should stay in the Senate (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by trillian on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:43:58 AM EST
    Where he will make the most impact

    Parent
    Arnold (none / 0) (#33)
    by Tano on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:19:40 AM EST
    not eligible.

    Parent
    vp (none / 0) (#14)
    by txprog on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:43:35 AM EST
    i wont be voting for hillary so her vp is pointless.  hope barak would have more integrity than to be her vp.

    would have voted wes clark for prez but he backed clinton so he wont get my pick.

    now that john edwards is available i think he would make an excellent pic for vp.  jim webb is fantastic choice but would lose a senate seat that is needed.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by trillian on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:50:38 AM EST
    You must be a hard core Hillary hater to throw someone like Wes Clark under a bus just because he endorsed her.

    Yikes

    Parent

    Textbook definition of (none / 0) (#104)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:13:19 PM EST
    irrational.

    Parent
    AMEN (none / 0) (#118)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:28:09 PM EST


    Parent
    So... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by blogtopus on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:34:29 AM EST
    are you saying you will only vote for a Dem in the general election if it's Obama?

    Parent
    indeed... (none / 0) (#177)
    by txprog on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:54:12 PM EST
    if bernie sanders were running he would have my vote...russ feingold, dennis kucinich, john edwards would all have my vote, time, and a little money.  however that is not the case anymore so i will back obama. the thought of two political dynastic families running this country for for almost 3 decades is frightening at best.  i would vote for a republican if hilary is the nominee or note vote at all becuase that means in 4 years we will have a chance to put a true progressive in the white house and bring the troops home. to think hilary will do anything other than move the 'center' more to the right is 'irrational' and absurdly naive.  does not matter anyway.  i live in texas, and hilary will win because she has the superdelegates which nullify the whole primary process.

    Parent
    who should they pick? (none / 0) (#30)
    by wasabi on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:15:37 AM EST
    Clinton should pick Obama.  He will still bring in lots of new voters to the contest in the fall, but maybe not the "Republicans" he thought he was getting.  This would be a really great ticket.

    Obama could pick Richardson to help in the south or maybe he's pick Bloomberg to burnish his bipartisanship.

    Reaching out to Independents (none / 0) (#31)
    by msobel on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:15:43 AM EST
    Why not a candidate that will reach out to the independents and not have to curry favor with Lobbyists or any special interests, and who will bring the important short vote. I'm talking about the centrist Michel Blumberg.

    Bloomberg ain't running (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:33:45 AM EST


    Parent
    And Hillary can't pick him (none / 0) (#115)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:25:13 PM EST
    can she?  From the same state.

    Parent
    He can move to Wyoming (none / 0) (#120)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:29:31 PM EST
    And live next door to Dick.

    Parent
    Ahh...he could BUY a state (none / 0) (#133)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:45:13 PM EST
    to move to!

    Maybe not Wyoming...

    Florida!!

    Parent

    richardson for vp (none / 0) (#34)
    by Patriot Daily on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:20:48 AM EST
    in the general, the goppies will beat the obama lacks experience meme which richardson would negate as well as being an excellent vp.

    Any Virginians around? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Tano on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:24:23 AM EST
    to clarify this point?

    If Webb becomes VP, then the Dem VA gov. would appoint a successor, so the seat would stay Dem for a year - there is a general election (for gov.) in Nov. '09, and Gov. Kaine would be term-limited - so he could run for the remaineder of Webb's term.

    Is this right?

    Yuck...........bleh! (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:25:45 AM EST
    I can't stand Jim Webb anymore, too much the too good soldier bleh!  He does it to the point of bull$#it.

    How about somone WITHOUT ties to the military (none / 0) (#40)
    by po on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:27:39 AM EST
    Military influence in the affairs of this country and the perceived need by politicians to prove that they are tough on whatever issue is hot today (thus, the War on X and the military joining in each and every one of those wars in some way).  

    Richardson would be good.  We need dispute resolution without resort to bullets and threats of nuclear attack if Y nation refuses to give up nuclear ambitions.  

    cuz military service still matters to many (none / 0) (#165)
    by sef on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:20:06 PM EST
    In the purple states military service matters.  McCain will pick up votes for no other reason than what he did as a young man that would otherwise go dem.

    Parent
    Seriously (none / 0) (#188)
    by delandjim on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:25:05 AM EST
    With McCain on the Republican side we will get creamed without some type of military expertise in veep.

    Parent
    I would be surprised if (none / 0) (#44)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:31:20 AM EST
    Hillary chose Obama as VP....I doubt the black vote would stay away from her...she still holds great sway in the black community...Bill's civil rights record speaks for itself...I am more worred about Bloomberg and his mounting a third party "spoiler" than anything at this point...

    I thought polls (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by magster on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:38:50 AM EST
    showed that Bloomberg damaged GOP more.

    He won't run though.  His 'show your interest' campaign showed none.

    Parent

    I saw a poll that demonstrated (none / 0) (#193)
    by hairspray on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:47:53 AM EST
    that African Americans still liked the Clintons, but prefered to vote for one of their own.  They don't seem to be repudiating the Clintons as much as wanting Barack.

    Parent
    The premise (none / 0) (#47)
    by PSoTD on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:33:34 AM EST
    let's start a pointless irrelevant thread

    I suspect this was written tongue-in-cheek, but it's clearly a major area of question for both parties - the philosophy behind picking a VP.  The VP pick is a major part of where the party goes AFTER the candidacy or term(s) of the Presidential Candidate.  So, when picking a VP candidate, it should be more about where you want your party - and the country - to go in the future, and less about the math for the current contest.

    So, when talking VP, start thinking, who do I want to see run for President in 4 or 8 years?  Where do I want to see the Democratic Party go in 4 or 8 years?  ESPECIALLY in this election.

    From that premise (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by blogtopus on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:38:23 AM EST
    I would say Obama would make a great direction for the country in 8 years. Just not now.

    When the dust has settled and the lawsuits and subpoenas and inquiries and jail terms have been given out for the lawlessness of the Bush admin, when the GOP has realized the error of their 'blasted earth' approach and come back to the table in GOOD FAITH, then I think we'll be ready for Obama.

    Parent

    What we think is pretty irrelevant (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:48:09 AM EST


    Parent
    Al Gore (none / 0) (#51)
    by andreww on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:35:32 AM EST
    If obama won I think Al Gore would be perfect.....not that he'd take it.  What could be better than to say that after 8 years of a Dick Cheney energy policy Al Gore would be VP with the main task of creating green energy jobs and weening us off foreign oil.

    Didn't (none / 0) (#147)
    by HeadScratcher on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 02:44:44 PM EST
    Al Gore already have that opportunity and didn't do anything about it?

    Parent
    If the Dems really want to win (none / 0) (#57)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:41:31 AM EST
    Obama must be Clinton's VP choice.

    If Obama gets the nom? Crazy thought, but I like his wife for VP.

    yes, crazy (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Tano on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:43:33 AM EST
    you can't have two residents of the same state.

    Parent
    Really? Thanks, I did not know that. (none / 0) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:45:05 AM EST


    Parent
    true... (none / 0) (#69)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:00:16 PM EST
    ... but you could just do what Cheney did.

    Move from Texas to Wyoming.  

    Parent

    You've done gone and lost your mind ;) (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:50:08 AM EST
    Nobody's wife should be his VP.  Bill already tried that, made everyone mad as hatters ;)

    Parent
    a good argument against a Clinton presidency ;) (none / 0) (#82)
    by byteb on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:21:14 PM EST


    Parent
    That is misleading (none / 0) (#122)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:32:30 PM EST
    I know you were kidding, but Clinton actually gave Gore a lot of power. In fact, until Dick came along with his puppet (the CIA called him Edgar Bergen, by the way) Gore was considered the most powerful VP ever. And the most effective, which you can't say about ol' Dick.

    Parent
    You're kidding, right? (none / 0) (#140)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:55:00 PM EST
    I was with you right up to the last sentence...

    Jesus.

    Parent

    Depends on how you define effective (none / 0) (#150)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:10:00 PM EST
    I guess if people consider effective greatly damaging our country, I guess Dick can be called extremely effective. He did get his own way.

    Parent
    That is correct. (none / 0) (#155)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:55:06 PM EST


    Parent
    i used to think obama early on (none / 0) (#60)
    by neilario on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:44:09 AM EST
    thinking it would be a great way for him to get in line and get the cred he needs... but now - i really think rezco is going to bite him bad [a dn all the rest of the unexamined potential false issues].... so i do like clark alot... it will give her military heft. i dont think webb will do enough for her....

    i also think edwards should go somewhere other than AG... maybe labor sec maybe supreme court.... and biden or wilson for sec state?   and gore as a special cab position for climate change :]

    Department of Labor (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by rebecca on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:20:51 PM EST
    I think he would be great there.  We need someone pro-union who will be in there working for the workers and not for the employers for a change.  

    Parent
    that is for sure! (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:01:08 PM EST


    Parent
    Health and human services? (none / 0) (#129)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:39:25 PM EST


    Parent
    health would be a good place (none / 0) (#137)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:52:36 PM EST
    for john also. i lean toward surpeme court. maybe clarence would take early retirement. hehehe

    Parent
    CNN just said (none / 0) (#71)
    by talkingpoint on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:05:07 PM EST
      that the rumor mill is saying Edwards will endorsed Clinton. As VP candidate goes Wes Clark would be a clear cut VP choice. He would give any democrat a big bounce.

    Did you see Hillary's web page... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:14:10 PM EST
    Great picture of John and Elizabeth, with a banner: we salute John and Elizabeth.

    Parent
    john is the MAN! (none / 0) (#138)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:53:08 PM EST


    Parent
    That would be a shocker (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:22:16 PM EST


    Parent
    Health Care (none / 0) (#96)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:56:43 PM EST
    How could Edwards compromise on Universal health care?

    Parent
    THE ONLY COMPROMISE (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:34:27 PM EST
    would be if he endorsed Obama. He and Hillary are very close on health care. They both have a universal mandate. It is Obama who does not. His plan is more conservative than either of theirs. Don't try telling that to his supporters, though.

    Parent
    I didn't know... (none / 0) (#151)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:18:16 PM EST
    ... that there was only one issue in the presidential campaign...

    Parent
    Actually nuclear power is another (none / 0) (#194)
    by hairspray on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:55:25 AM EST
    issue, but no one talks about it.

    Parent
    that's so counterintuitive (none / 0) (#91)
    by byteb on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:32:47 PM EST
    but only time will tell

    Parent
    I actually (none / 0) (#107)
    by spit on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:18:16 PM EST
    don't know that it is. It depends on why you think they were voting for Edwards. Anecdotal experience, which isn't definitive even in my mind, to be clear, suggests to me that outside of the blogs, many Edwards supporters aren't particularly anti-Clinton, and in fact may see her as more of a "fighter" than Obama.

    The blogosphere is voting based on an establishment/anti-establishment narrative, but I don't see any signs that it breaks down that way out in the larger political world.

    FWIW, I don't know that he'll endorse at all -- I'm not sure I see the advantage for him, unless he's angling for a cabinet position. But time will tell.

    Parent

    What about Hagel? (none / 0) (#77)
    by MarkL on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:16:37 PM EST
    Isn't it conceivable that Obama would ask Hagel to be VP? Would Hagel accept?

    a Republican? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:21:59 PM EST
    no

    Parent
    Madeline Albright for Obama (none / 0) (#97)
    by Garbo18 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:00:57 PM EST
    Takes care of the experience factor and the older female vote all in one fell swoop, while taking the Clintons out of the picture.  I have loads of relatives in the midwest who are registered Republican but would vote for Obama.  Hilary makes the hair on the back of their necks stand up.

    nope (none / 0) (#111)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:22:56 PM EST
    she's with Clinton.

    Parent
    So's Wes Clark (none / 0) (#114)
    by Garbo18 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:24:26 PM EST
    He endorsed her really early on...but if she loses, would they say no to being VP just to spare her hurt feelings?

    Parent
    No way (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:37:44 PM EST
    Clark is a long time friend of the Clintons. I can't see him doing this unless the OK'd it, which they might.
    I have a feeling that Clark would just make Obama look even more young and inexperienced, though.

    Parent
    I was thinking (none / 0) (#127)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:37:28 PM EST
    more like she wouldnt be asked.

    Parent
    VP Powers (none / 0) (#112)
    by Garbo18 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:23:11 PM EST
    A big question for me is what the VP's office means anymore, since Cheney and Addington got hold of it.  If they're going to keep their own intelligence branch and claim not to be part of the executive branch and basically run their own foreign policy, or if they will be more traditionally supportive role.  Two very different types of people, but we should be careful who we give that power to.

    Clinton should pick (none / 0) (#141)
    by Lena on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:58:25 PM EST
    Wes Clark. I agree with the poster above that having a white woman and black man on the same ticket is going to alienate too many voters. Clark is liberal (more so than Clinton, I believe), but has the advantage of beig a 4-star general to boot, which will please the Republican-leaning independents.

    If she picks Obama, she only solves the short-term problem of party unity, which will disperse by November in any event. Even Dean's people fell in line in the bitterly disputed 2004 primary. Like Kerry choosing Edwards, which seemed smart at the time - the 2 front runners, right? - the electoral advantage of picking the other frontrunner seems to fade after an initial splash.

    Unlike BTD, I don't think Obama's status as media darling is going to stick through the general election season, so choosing him for that reason isn't wise. And this Rezko situation has the potential to get worse. Lastly, I sense that Obama and Clinton don't have the chemistry to make a compelling team.

    Contrarian (none / 0) (#143)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 02:07:04 PM EST
    I'm going to go against the grain and say that they should NOT pick anyone in the Senate. Our majority there is already too small. Whichever one wins will leave a dem seat vacant, and we just can't assume it will be filled by a dem. It should be someone who is a governor, in the House, or is not currently in office but fairly well known, such as Clark.
    I agree (none / 0) (#144)
    by Garbo18 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 02:34:32 PM EST
    Senate is too close.  What about Mark Warner, former VA Gov?  His name's been floated before.  Would he abandon senate run for VP job?  Is he too unknown?

    Parent
    Janet Napolitano (none / 0) (#152)
    by ConcordiaDem on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:42:23 PM EST
    Would be a great running mate for Obama if he wins...she is from arizona to help stir the McCain Arizona base...She is also from a predominately red area...
    Hillary would do extremely well with Joe Biden on her side. She would need him to offset McCain's Experience because unlike Obama she can't run on change and get away with it. She must embrace her Democratic elite position and have real experience on her side

    Reid (none / 0) (#153)
    by chemoelectric on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:52:22 PM EST
    Harry Reid, so Chris Dodd can become Majority Leader.

    Nah (none / 0) (#154)
    by chemoelectric on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:53:36 PM EST
    Nah, I'm kidding.

    He should go with Robert Wexler, to balance his Northernerness with a Southerner.

    Parent

    For real this time (none / 0) (#156)
    by chemoelectric on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:00:42 PM EST
    It's Gephardt.

    Either that or Lyndon Johnson. Or Thomas Eagleton.

    (Maybe he should ask Bob Kerrey.)

    Parent

    Richardson (none / 0) (#157)
    by mexboy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:17:19 PM EST
    He'd be great for HIlary. He is well known and liked around the world as a diplomat, plus he can help with the Southwest.
    For Obama Edwards.

    Obama won't pick Webb (none / 0) (#162)
    by sef on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:45:03 PM EST
    Webb has the same problem as Obama, lack of substantial executive experience &  lack of national experience. An Obama / Webb ticket opens the ticket up to charges of lack of experience.

    I don't think HRC would accept a veep nomination, although she should be OHB's first choice (you get to claim the legacy of the clinton years, you get bill & hill as your "attack dogs", you get two of the best minds in politics, and you motivate the base).  I would think, also, that OHB almost has to name a woman veep, and if not someone with serious "gravitas" & a war record, such as Bob Kerrey (Kerrey beats McCain with his Congressional Medal of Honor in the war hero cred department, is a HRC supporter, & also puts in play many, many red states in the  Great Plains)

    I would note that I am expecting Condi to be the GOP veep nominee if McCain gets the nod, with Huckabee second if she says no.

    McCaskill barely won her senate seat. (none / 0) (#163)
    by felizarte on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:49:41 PM EST
    I prefer Edwards again if he agrees or Wes Calrk, Evan Bayh of Indiana.  Jim Webb made a negative comment about women in the military which he has since disavowed.  But it may still come back to haunt him.

    it will (none / 0) (#171)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:08:28 PM EST
    if you keep repeating it.

    Parent
    Hillary's VP (none / 0) (#164)
    by charlie on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:08:11 PM EST
    Why would anyone want to be Hillary's VP?  She will have to make Bill an ambassador and post him somewhere on the othher side of the planet.

    Unless she can finnd someone who is OK with a strictly ceremonial position.

    Snark warning (none / 0) (#166)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:21:19 PM EST
    Petreus for Obama Whoever Obama picks will have to have no plans for the presidency cause they will have to be the Cheney, doing the work, while Obama transcends and inspires. (When did the election change from president to guru?)

    did Petreus (none / 0) (#173)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:33:37 PM EST
    say that???

    Parent
    Obama? Webb? Nuts! (none / 0) (#172)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:30:36 PM EST
    First off, either Clinton or Obama would be expected to nominate a southern white male with executive experience.  Running a Clinton / Obama ticket (or vice versa) would be audacious in the extreme (not that I didn't, coincidentally, day dream about Clinton dropping out after 2/5 to join an Obama / Clinton ticket while driving home today).

    As for Obama, Webb might be a reasonable choice.  But even though I like the unity schtick myself the idea of a ticket with one guy kissing up to the Republicans and one guy who actually was a Republican until a few years ago is a bit more than I can stomach -- not that I wouldn't vote for them enthusiastically.  I guess.

    Wes Clark makes a lot of sense for either Clinton or Obama.  Someone with a strong military background would help either of them.

    Bill Richardson is a possibility on the grounds that most people who would object to a two-non-white-male ticket probably won't realize he's Hispanic.

    An outside long shot for Obama would be Mike Bloomberg.

    The most likely is some inoffensive governor type from god-knows-where in the southeast or mountain states.  Schweiker maybe.

    Here's a long shot: Feingold (none / 0) (#174)
    by CanyonWren on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:35:17 PM EST
    I would feel safer and happier if he were the VP for either candidate.

    ME!!!! I'd be a good VP nt (none / 0) (#175)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:44:57 PM EST


    My fantasy ticket (none / 0) (#176)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:45:11 PM EST
    No basis in reality here but Obama/Bloomberg would be my dream team.  Real world: Clinton/Richardson, Obama/Edwards

    If Bloomberg has a future role. . . (none / 0) (#178)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:04:32 PM EST
    in government (aside from tormenting BTD with his very existence) I think it's most likely to be in a cabinet position -- HHS, Energy, or Interior -- where he would be tasked with creating some major program.

    Parent
    how about treasury? heavens knows (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:33:43 PM EST
    we need some brains there.

    Parent
    I doubt it. . . (none / 0) (#182)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:00:40 PM EST
    Bloomberg isn't now and never really has been a banker or money guy (except, of course, for having lots of it).  He's always pretty much been an IT / systems guy.

    Certainly he's never expressed a great deal of interest in Treasury issues.

    He has, however, been very interested in health care -- endowing a school at Johns Hopkins, expanding access in NYC, and coming out in favor of government run single-payer health care (which would be the biggest impediment to his actually working this issue since the Dems won't touch it with a barge poll).

    He's reformed the education in New York City and although his reforms haven't all worked out 100% positively he has a strong interest in the subject.  (I meant to write Education instead of Interior in the original comment).

    Finally, he's inaugurated a large 50 year (I think) environmental plan in New York and is very interested in energy and conservation.

    So I think those are the areas he'd be most interested in.  I assume he'd want a fairly high level of authority and a buy-in from the President if he were to become a cabinet secretary and I'm not sure he'd get it -- but I think he'd do a great job (and it would keep him away from electoral politics).

    Parent

    thanks larry! that is very good information (none / 0) (#184)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:14:42 PM EST
    to know about him. such an improvement over rudy!

    Parent
    Obama'd be dumb to be VP (none / 0) (#183)
    by diogenes on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:12:15 PM EST
    The VP after an eight year term is screwed-think Nixon in 1960, or Gore in 2000.  Poppy Bush was just as screwed but luckily for him he had Dudakis to run against.  Obama will ruin his career if he were vice president under an unpopular Hillary for eight years.  Heck, Bill was fairly popular, and Gore was still doomed.
    Al Gore is possible for Gore-he could have an environmental portfolio to run with much more influence than he would as a lecturer and filmmaker, and running for VP for five months is much less painful than running for president.
    Alternately, he could pick Virginia's democratic governor to try to pull in some of the undecided white centrist vote.

    vp (none / 0) (#185)
    by perl on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:14:49 PM EST
    for obama I have been saying for  over a month Webb

    for hillary== wesley clark

    want a strong military presence

    Jim Webb (none / 0) (#186)
    by delandjim on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:52:00 PM EST
     Va. Sen. Jim Webb, strong military, throng rural background, he doesn't seem articulate but he is very good at communicating his points. He might get  some Republican crossover because he worked briefly for Reagan. Would be good offset to McCain.

    Schweitzer is perfect (none / 0) (#187)
    by edonyoung on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:14:03 AM EST
    Brian Schweitzer of Montana would be a fantastic choice for either Clinton or Obama.  He is a pre-Edwards populists, a solid progressive who knows how to pitch the message to a conservative / libertarian / rural constituencies (again ahead of time here - see the Washington Monthly article on him http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0412.sirota.html), a manly (6'2" and beefy) and independent public persona, a soil scientist and environmentalist, and a shrewd political leader.  He was a BIG help in getting John Tester elected to the senate.

    He actually worked overseas in the Sahara desert on irrigation projects, so he understands there are different cultures.

    He would not deplete the Democrats of a precious Senate seat.  He would be wildly popular in Western swing states and would play well in the South, and of course favorably in the Midwest and East coast.

    Obama should choose Hillary (none / 0) (#190)
    by regan on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:19:56 PM EST
    It's been such a close historic race. Almost 50/50.

    Obama should choose Hillary just as much as Hillary should choose Obama.

    If Obama picks some unknown, it creates too much uncertainty.

    During the last debate in California, when the moderator hinted at a Obama/Hillary ticket, the crowd went crazy!

    Yeah the race is getting heated now...but they don't hate each other. Once the Dems name the front runner, the healing will be quick, and they both should unite quickly and without a problem.

    Man, that would be amazing. The first black president with the first woman VP. Could happen. Or if Hillary pulls out a miracle and wins, the first woman president and black VP doesn't sound too bad either.

    I guess the only other choice would be John Edwards. Who knows.

    But no matter what, the Dems are gonna kick some serious butt come November.

    The only thing that worries me, is if there is a terrorist attack before November, then McCain who is the "War candidate" and the republican's will start cranking up the fear mongering, and we could have 2004 all over again. <shivers!>

    Someone who won't be ruined (none / 0) (#191)
    by herb the verb on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:48:49 PM EST
    Normally I would say "pick the best possible person". Unfortunately, Obama is going to lose. He won't lose small, he will lose by catastrophic McGovern proportions. And I say that as the sole person in my elementary school class whor cast a "vote" for McGovern. It does not fill my heart with glee, just despair without measure.

    So, I hope Obama will pick someone like Richardson to "lend experience" to his campaign and hopefully add the hispanic demographic. Then, when Obama losses in Carter/Mondale/Dukakis levels he won't have taken a future talent of the party down with him and will have done some work to mitigate the exodus of our natural constituency.

    Who Should Clinton Or Obama Choose As VP? | 189 comments (189 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment