Sources Say Obama Has Picked His VP

[Hope And Change]

Sources Say Obama Has Picked His VP

Submitted by philhu on Mon, 08/18/2008 - 15:13.


<snip>

Essentially, what this all means is that it will likely come down to Joe Biden, Bill Richardson or Tim Kaine. And all the smart money is on Joe Biden at this point, with Richardson being primed for Secretary of State.

<snip>


http://www.politicususa.com/en/Sources-Say-Obama-Has-Picked-His-VP

[greguganus]

1. NOOOOO DON'T PISS OFF THE PUMAS!! N/T

[Lucky 13]

6. Oh noes!!! I's so skeerd!!

Actually I think it's better to announce now instead of at the convention. Give these dolts a week to throw a temper tantrum over Hillary and then be able to move on at the convention. Maybe?

[JoFerret]

37. Her talents

would be wasted as vp. We need her doing something more useful that attending funerals. There's some tough work ahead at every level undoing the damage of the last eight years.

(Maybe you could get the GOP to pay you for molespeak in DU.)

[Lucky 13]

43. Get the GOP to pay me for molespeak?

:shrug:

[JoFerret]

65. Well...I doubt they would pay much

there's plenty of competition.

[27inCali]

52. agreed

I think she would be a lot more effective majority leader than Reid.
bet she knows how to twist some arms hard, haha.

[JoFerret]

66. She can make an

outstanding leader in the senate and really push some desperately needed legislation.

[JoFerret]

33. Please keep up the divisive drumbeat

.

[Barack_America]

2. Biden would be a better SOS. nt

[Kittycat]

3. I like that plan.

Although last night I had some odd, Nyquil dream that Richardson was given a lower position, and was pissed about it.

[LSparkle]

4. GREAT news ... I've been pulling for Joe!

I know he'd rather have SOS than VP, so hopefully if he is
Obama's pick, Barack will expand his portfolio to include
major diplomatic efforts (he and Richardson could almost be
"co-Secretaries of State").

[gateley]

11. I would like to see that --

I agree he'd prefer SOS, so "expanding his portfolio to include major diplomatic efforts" would reward Biden for taking the VP job.

[LSparkle]

13. If the VP is supposed to be the person best qualified to take over ...

then I don't understand why he can't also be the one leading
delegations overseas and taking an active part in the administration.
Gore was given the task of streamlining government (since perhaps
he felt that was something he could do well), and if Biden enjoys
international diplomacy, then give that to him. I've never really
gotten why the VP slot should be just a "ceremonial" office or
the person designated to attend foreign leaders' funerals ...

[bluestateguy]

5. "Sources"

Be a man! Go on the record!

[Renew Deal]

20. The "source" is probably DU

Beause it's nothing that's not already out there.

[Hissyspit]

7. I'm sure he has. There is no way this campaign would put it off to the last minute.

This VP has been THOROUGHLY veted.

[gateley]

12. I read somehwere that Kennedy was flip flopping on his VP until the

very last minute.

God -I would be. I'd be second-guessing myself into insanity.

The final group are probably all thoroughly vetted at this point.

[sabra]

19. I heard they are going to use the dart board approach

:sarcasm:

[MissMillie]

8. I think Biden is a very smart man

I just don't think he brings us the South.

I'm also concerned about taking any Democrats out of the Senate... we need a clouture proof majority.

[DarthDem]

9. His Successor Would Be Named

. . . by a Democrat. No loss of a seat.

[FARAFIELD]

23. His Sucessor would be JOE BIDEN as well

[gateley]

24. ??? I don't get it. nt

[Muttocracy]

30. psst - Beau = Joe III nt

[gateley]

34. Oh - now that makes sense! nt

[Muttocracy]

44. assuming that's what they meant. not a fan of dynasties myself! nt

[gateley]

53. Wouldn't Beau be deployed at that time? nt

[Muttocracy]

61. don't know. nt

[democrattotheend]

31. Nobody brings us the South

I like Biden ok, but my big problem with him is that he has so much Washington experience. That means 30 years worth of votes to pick apart, and it dillutes Obama's message of change. By picking someone with a lot of experience, he is essentially ceding the point and conceding that his lack of Washington experience is a weakness that needs to be compensated for. By picking a governor who reinforces his message of change, he plays his lack of experience in Washington as a strength, which it is, IMO.

[darius15]

40. Yeah, but going with someone with limited experience

is a much larger risk than picking someone with 30 years of experience. If we pick a lightweight, it will cast some doubts in voters minds. Right now, it seems like 10-12 % of the electorate is undecided. You can bet many of that 10-12 % is waiting for the VP pick, and some of those people think Obama is too inexperienced so they wanna see a strong experienced VP.

[TornadoTN]

58. A pick like Schweitzer would render all that light-weight talk moot

Schweitzer would bring a lot to the table and really cut into the South. You want an attack-dog thats intelligent and well-recieved - look no further than Brian Schweitzer.

[elehhhhna]

10. Biden will be the perfect attack dog -- he knows the players, the facts,

and he's no chicken when it comes to calling the cReeps out.

[LSparkle]

17. Plus, he has TEN YEARS more D.C. experience than Bomb Bomb

and he can't be tagged as an "elitist" since he didn't attend
Ivy League schools -- he worked himself up from his bootstraps.

Plus his personal story (first wife's death, then commuting
from his first days in the Senate to raise his two sons) is
absolutely compelling.

And with Biden as VP, this campaign will be a HOOT ... BRING
ON THE ONE-LINERS!!!

[Virginia Dare]

46. I think Obama needs a VERY BAD COP as Veep..

somebody who is irrefutable.

[AtomicKitten]

14. Kaine was surprisingly excellent here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x170848

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

15. This statement needs a little modification.

BEFORE: And all the smart money is on Joe Biden at this point, with Richardson being primed for Secretary of State.

AFTER: And all the smart money is on Richardson at this point, with Joe Biden being primed for Secretary of State.

Both have the experience to do either job. But Richardson is the better VP candidate for two reasons:

1) Senator/Governor is just a better ticket than Senator/Senator.

2) The bankruptcy bill WILL be used as an issue against Biden if he is on the ticket, and frankly he deserves to be called on it. And given the current economic disaster in this country, a lot of people are going to suffer unnecessary financial hardship thanks to Joe's idea of bankruptcy "reform". This issue won't be a problem for him in a Senate confirmation for SOS, in which he should pass easily.

Richardson for VP. Biden for Secretary of State. It's the only logical way to go.

[TornadoTN]

22. I really like Richardson, but there's a lot of whispers about him that the GOP'ers will seize

Rumors are just that - rumors, but the GOP loves sex scandals or at the very least the possibility of one. Richardson is known as a "touchy-feely" type and there's some suggestion that there may be more to the story. The GOP would love to run with that story attached to Obama's VP - true or not. I'm not sure it would be worth the risk - plus he would be a great Secretary of State.

Biden is far from ideal, however, with his implicit support of the Credit Card industry and the bankruptcy bill.

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

25. The 'Pukes didn't get the mileage they wanted out of the so-called Edwards "scandal"

So maybe they wouldn't be so quick to try another stunt like that? I'd say people are sick of hearing about that shit.

[TornadoTN]

26. Maybe, but I'm less than optimistic about it

Richardson, unlike Edwards, would be in the news every single day until election day. With each mention of Obama's name they would ratchet up the talking points about Richardson's "possible indiscretions".

Would it work? I would like to hope not, but with the American electorate and toilet-grade media, I prefer not to chance it.

[SteveM]

28. And another modification...

3) Richardson is pro-2A and packs.

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

32. Considering how the NRA is already slandering the entire Democratic party again (as usual)

That's not a bad thing either. As far as I can remember, Richardson's views on gun issues are similar to those of Howard Dean. Basically "can't compare big city to rural Vermont or New Mexico".

Of course Howard Dean was rated highly by the NRA as governor, and then hypocritically attacked by them when he ran for President.

[SteveM]

39. It might defuse some of the sentiment, but what would help more...

...is for the nearly 70 Democrats in Congress to drop re-introduction of the Assault Weapons Ban, which is pending. This "ban" will do nothing but rally support for the GOP (as it has before to the severe damage of the Democratic Party). BTW, did you know that there are now more Americans possessing so-called "assault weapons" than there are hunters (perhaps 15,000,000)?

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

47. We're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one.

I don't want to derail this thread into a "gun battle", but I just can't see a compelling reason why somebody needs to own a military style combat rifle, like an AR-15 (Which is just a few parts away from being an M-16)

Granted, myself I would be more concerned with closing the ridiculous gun show loophole than I would be with arguing about what guns are acceptable and what guns are not. The most important thing is to keep ALL guns out of the hands of criminals and psychopaths.

[SteveM]

64. I agree, the discussion shouldn't be derailed...

I invite you to peruse the threads of "Forums: Guns" to see the arguments against an AWB renewal. Briefly, these arms (though they may have "military styles") are semi-auto carbines of moderate power (usually significantly smaller calibers/power than semi-auto hunting rifles which commonly use .30-06, .308, .270 and other much more powerful ammunition). The "few parts away from being an M-16" is close to urban myth as the vast majority of these rifles are purpose-built to be semi-auto, and would require complete fabrication of critical parts; as it is, one can legally own a full-auto rifle now (albeit with severe restriction, registration, and five-figure cost for the weapon itself). Finally, rifles of ALL types account for fewer than 3% of all homicides in the U.S.; so-called "assault weapons" being just one type within that category.

"Need," of course, is addressed by the individual owning these or any weapons.

The "ridiculous gun show loophole" is also dealt with: "gun shows" do not sell guns; the individuals at gun shows sell them. This is an important distinction as any person on my street may sell a gun to another without going to a gun show. The "show" is merely a rent-a-hall. Put another way, even if an individual wanted to run a NICS check (like all federally-registered firearms dealers must), they cannot. What you are really asking for is a way by which ALL people must go through a NICS test to buy/sell guns, and not closing some mythical loop hole.

Thanks for the discussion.

[benEzra]

70. AR-15's are, by Federal law, NOT easily convertible to M16's...

post-1986 AR-15's use a different, civilian-only receiver with smaller different internal dimensions, will NOT accept M16 fire-control parts or pre-1986 Title 2 registered DIAS's, and are no easier to convert to full auto than any other non-automatic civilian self-loader. And no military on this planet has ever issued a non-automatic civilian AR-15 as a combat rifle (which cannot be said of the Winchester Model 70 or Remington M700, BTW).

The AR-15 also happens to be the most popular civilian target rifle and defensive carbine in the USA, which makes fighting to ban it particularly stupid.

Taking H.R.1022, more Americans lawfully own "assault weapons" than hunt. That particular bait-and-switch needs to just go away, particularly since rifles of any type are so rarely misused.

[LynneSin]

16. Actually I like Richardson as VP - brings major appeal to the Hispanic community

that would be good!

[Seen the light]

18. If true, it's not Hillary

Someone from her circle would have leaked this already.

[monmouth]

21. Thank God.....n/t

[Thrill]

27. If it was Richardson. It would of been announced today. Its not him.

I think its Warner

[democrattotheend]

29. I haven't heard Richardson floated in a while

But he is my favorite of the three listed above. I'd be ok with Biden though, or Kaine. Sebellius would be my first pick but she does not seem likely at this point.

[mvd]

35. I have a feeling it will be coming tomorrow or Wednesday

My eyes will be glued to DU. :-)

[TornadoTN]

36. Still holding out hope for Schweitzer, Sebelius, Kaine or Bredesen

That's the strongest ticket for me, but I'll support whoever he picks.

[Dinger]

38. I Have Lost Hope

Sorry, but I have. Might as well give up.

[TornadoTN]

42. Why's that? We have a full field of great VP candidates

I have my favorites and for good reasons, but I think we'll be in good hands with whoever Obama picks - as long as HE makes the pick and isn't influenced by others with their own agendas. I'll defer to his knowledge and be happy with it.

[my3boyz]

45. The same Bredeson that was making negative comments about him in NYT? nt

[TornadoTN]

49. Could you link me to that story?

He has been largely supportive here in the state and from the media I have seen, but if its true (I don't doubt you) then this would cross that name off of my list, no matter how much I like the guy.

[my3boyz]

57. Well,

he was pointing out weaknesses in Obama's campaign. I think it is the wrong thing to do. As a Democrat, if he thought there was a weakness in Obama's campaign he should have gone directly to Obama's campaign and voiced those campaign. He should not have gone straight to the media. He knows the media is already making a big deal about Hillary Clinton supporters not supporting Barack. The same goes for Ted Strickland. Anyway, here is part of the article and a link.


“I particularly hope he strengthens his economic message — even Senator Obama can speak more clearly and specifically about the kitchen-table, bread-and-butter issues like high energy costs,” said Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio. “It’s fine to tell people about hope and change, but you have to have plenty of concrete, pragmatic ideas that bring hope and change to life.”

Or, in the blunter words of Gov. Phil Bredesen, Democrat of Tennessee: “Instead of giving big speeches at big stadiums, he needs to give straight-up 10-word answers to people at Wal-Mart about how he would improve their lives.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/us/politics/17elect.html?_r=2&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1219018071-GqstXSgZ2egDjo3uxk0jyA&oref=slogin

[TornadoTN]

60. Thanks - It's not as bad as I thought but still raises my eyebrow

Not really disappointed in what he said because it holds true to the people in this state, I just wish he would have phrased it differently.

[AlinPA]

51. He's faking them out and will go with Brian Schweitzer. (I hope, I hope)

[H2O Man]

41. I believe he has.

I think that there were two other candidates in the final "short list." I do not think anyone "in the know" is saying anything about who the actual choice is. Those who are saying don't know, but it is still interesting to consider their opinions.

[kevinplayer]

48. Kaine

Richardson is my favorite but it cant be him, white people would go crazy and they wouldn't vote for a black and a latino, so i think the best option would be Kaine Because he would help us get virginia and best represents change because he is fairly young and new also he is a governor and so he has experience leading.

[TornadoTN]

50. Plus he would be a prime Presidential candidate in 8 years.

I think that's a major plus in his favor.

Also, welcome to DU!

[elehhhhna]

54. Richardson's my personal fave and I think his latino heritage could be

a very upside, rather than down. Kaine, okay, but Sunday he let one of Mcc's lackeys LIE ("Obama will tax yu if you make 42K") and said NOTHING.

Biden, big wonk that he is, would not have let that pass.

[elehhhhna]

55. p.s. WELCOME TO DU!

[kevinplayer]

62. Very true

With Richardson i feel we pick up New Mexico, Nevada, and maybe even florida but we would lose ohio and Michigan also the chance we lose Pennsylvania because those "Reagan democrats" would never vote for that ticket

[blue_onyx]

69. I disagree

I don't think Richardson would cause Obama to lose Michigan. I think Michigan will go to Obama regardless of the VP. Although Richardson's comments about the west taking the great lakes water wouldn't go over well here (it's one of my biggest issues with Richardson) and may hurt Obama's margin of victory.

[benEzra]

71. I think Richardson would help the ticket in Michigan by mitigating the gun issue...

an issue that is very big among blue-collar union members, and is a big reason why so many blue-collar Dems have lumped in the repubs the last few elections. Schweitzer would also be very helpful, and for the same reason.

Biden's strident support for banning popular rifles worries me. He's also one of the most avid supporters of the RIAA and their crapola in Congress (he was a major force behind the excesses of the DCMA), he is a hardline "Drug Warriors" in the Senate (he personally wrote the law that created the position of "Drug Czar", and he opposes cannabis decriminalization), and he was probably the biggest Dem supporter of the repubs' harsh usury law that is now making life even more miserable for working-class Americans caught up in the credit crunch. He may be great on foreign policy, but his vision for U.S. domestic policy is out of step with the views of a lot of Dems, IMO.

[NewJeffCT]

56. Hmm, I had ticketed Richardson as Sec. of State

for a while now, but the visit to New Mexico makes me think he may have a chance for VP now... would be an interesting and bold pick because everybody said Obama HAD to pick somebody white.

[trewsx11]

59. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida n/t

[kevinplayer]

63. Cant be

We wont pick a Senator in a state with a republican governor for fear we might lose that seat which is why it cant be Bayh either.

[trewsx11]

67. That is the stupidest reason ever in deciding a running mate

You pick someone who can do the job and can serve as your right-hand man. (or woman)

And you have to win first before you even start worrying about successors to vacant senate seats.

[kevinplayer]

68. Well

It is called checks and Balances you need to control the house and senate so you can pass bills and vote in proper supreme court members also congress can over turn vetoes so no its not stupid it is very smart.