Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Our nominee's first national security decision will be the selection of their VP.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-18-07 01:01 AM
Original message
Our nominee's first national security decision will be the selection of their VP.
Edited on Thu Oct-18-07 01:02 AM by calteacherguy
If the nominee chooses wisely, she (or less likely he) can neutralize the national security card they will try once again to play against us, which is the only card the Republicans have. True, the card may be wearing thin, but still...we need to play hardball.

It would be quite beneficial for our nominee to respond to such accusations by being able to refer to their choice of VP, and the fact that they have the support of a VP with unparalled national security credentials. A VP who would be ready to over if the worst happened.

The choice of VP will be very important in this election. I hope our nominee chooses wisely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-18-07 01:03 AM
Response to Original message
1. Please....there is so much more than the national security theme.
It just goes on and on.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-18-07 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. It does. And we need to neutralize it. That's my point. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhythm and Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-18-07 01:05 AM
Response to Original message
3. Who do you believe would be a prudent VP choice?
Edited on Thu Oct-18-07 01:07 AM by Rhythm and Blue
Personally, I think Richardson would do very, very well in the job. The office is pretty much what the VP makes of it, and Richardson is both experienced and diplomatic. He could be equally well-used as an all-purpose ambassador, a primary Congress-Executive liaison, or a technocrat filtering data and working closely with regulatory agencies. He doesn't fit your criteria, but I think the notion of VP as "shadowy anti-terror mastermind" is something of an aberration, and HRC has already positioned herself very well to give the Republicans a run for their national-security money.

The one thing Richardson couldn't really be used for is in the campaign. That man is brutal on stage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-18-07 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Richardson would not be able to neutralize the national security propaganda.
Edited on Thu Oct-18-07 01:10 AM by calteacherguy
It will take more than a diplomat. Diplomacy is important, but diplomats and ambassadors can to easily be portrayed as weak...especially if they are Democrats. That's the way it is. Certainly it is an invalid accusation, but that is the propaganda we will need to neutralize.

No, a diplomat or even a former ambassador will not help neutralize the attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhythm and Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-18-07 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. I don't really believe that "VP is the national security guy"
is really going to be an effective line of attack. I mean, if Obama or Edwards wins it, then I can see wanting to balance the ticket, but HRC already has solid credentials on that front.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-18-07 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Not solid enough. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-18-07 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Not solid enough. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-18-07 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Clark, Richardson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-18-07 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. I think Richardson has been way too error prone in the primaries
Nearly every time he has had a major interview, the story has been some landmine he set off. In 2004, the concern with Clark was that as he was a novice he made more mistakes in the few months he was running, than in all the years since added together. Even then, back when first running, he was way less prone to mistakes than Richardson has been - and Richardson has been a politician for years.

I also have a different problem with Richardson - the way he handled the election in New Mexico. If he had been a Republican, I 'm not sure we wouldn't treat him like a less deadly version of Harris and Blackwell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-18-07 01:08 AM
Response to Original message
5. I don't want another co-president.
I want the VP to be President of the Senate and that's pretty much it, except for standing by to take over in case anything happens to the POTUS. This Dick Cheney co-president crap sucks. As a matter of fact, I want the next VP to be the exact opposite of Lord Vader in every single way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-18-07 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
10. Nobody votes for the VP
If the Presidential nominee can't carry his or her own water ... we are screwed.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-18-07 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. VPs usually get a %5 boost in their homestate
So "nobody votes for the vp" isn't true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-18-07 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
13. The VP should be ready to run for Prez in 2016
The President should have their own national security credentials.

For me a good ticket would be Gore-Obama or Biden-Obama.

But I think Hillary would need a running mate with more experience.

I don't know who she would pick. Maybe Clinton-Dodd? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CK_John Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-18-07 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
14. IMO, K Sebelius would be the best choice for all our candidates. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-18-07 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
15. Wesley Kanne Clark
If he'll do it.

Then, I could vote for the ticket instead of against the Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 31st 2024, 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC